Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
but i heard that it would be a good idea to 301 my origional site to the new one.. well its newer...
Bam.. about 6 weeks later im sandboxed with 1/3 of my traffic gone...
How long have people been in my position for.....
I quiet liked getting out.. but is this going to take another 8 or so months?
Adwords is fairly expensive, and cutting into my profits....
Since that was more than a year ago, I don't know if anything has changed.
What is hard to believe is that Google refuses to renew its index. That's why I don't find a reason to believe in Sandbox yet.
Perhaps there is a logical explanation that I don't know.
"...Google attempts to enforce a probationary period for new websites where they are not allowed to rank as well as if they were an older website..."
A probationary period for new websites?
To my point of view, sandbox is the most strange myth most webmasters believe.
How in the world can Google be doing such a thing? What's the point?
Sorry, it is not my intention to sound harsh. I guess there might be several reasons for a site to not be indexed or showing in serps. And the Sandbox theory seems to be filling all the holes we can't explain.
well.. lets put it this way.. till 2 months ago my website was only in a very specific search term, then it appeared in many many more terms!
But about 4 weeks after i added my 301 bam! im back to the very specific search term..
One good thing, my website is listed on many high ranking websites.. so im still there in the top 10 but its not my site its a directory :)
In the recent update my 8 month old site got upgraded to PR6 with a link population of around 5,000.
Still its not in the top 100 results for its OWN SITE NAME. The domain is www.locationactivitysite.com which happen to be the three target keywords also.
Number 1 in Yahoo and MSN but Google hates me arghhhhh.
Google takes certain time to process inbound links.
One month, two months, three months tops? That's a reasonable time. That isn't a Sandbox. That is the period Google takes to process the relationship between sites.
When I'm being told that a site was hidden for about 8 to 11 months or more than a year, I'm pretty sure that there are external factors not considered and it is easier to blame it to this "Sandbox" thing.
All sandbox theories and documentation states that this is normal.
What I fail to comprehend is how a site can dissapear of the face of a search engine when it has increased in PR, increased in unique content (approx 900 pages) and increased in terms of inbound links from topic related websites.
If that is not a "sandbox" effect please tell me what it is and how to get the hell out of it.
We were happy, clients were happy & searchers actually got what they were looking for as each of our 20K phrases were relevant to what the site(s) offered.
To stop this practice, filters were put in place by G in late 2003 / early 2004 to "age" a link. A combination of a link's age, reputation & theme is now being used to rank sites.
If we had to spend $250pm for many months, chances are it wouldn't be profitable - so we wouldn't do it - so G is happy.
1 - Get too many links too fast - you get sandboxed
2 - Get decent links from authority sites slowly - you get out
3 - Get thousands of links inside a few days incl links from CNN / BBC, you get out.
But saying that a site that doesn't show in one year is because Google wants to see if you are a good boy, its ridiculous.
This sandbox theory has been around a lot of time and experienced webmasters can have a clue of what's happening with a site, but newcomers just say, "hey my site has been sandboxed, lets wait until it is released!" B.S. It is in your hands.
Lets say that you launch a site and you get a legal PR9 text link with keyword1 in the anchor text from a site that is not yours.
Then two or three days later, you get another link from a PR7 from another web site that is not yours, again, with Keyword1 in the anchor text.
And so on.
I'm pretty sure that your site will rank really well as soon as Google ends with its links processing round which I don't know how much it lasts, but I guess it can take from one to three months.
Of course, that's a very difficult situation to achieve.
Usually, when a new site is launched, the first links it gets to ensure webbots visits are from other sites of the same owner.
Then, the second set of links a new website gets are from friends with unrelated sites or whatever.
Many mistakes are usually made in this point. So there is no way that Google can rank a site with that kind of inbound links.
It is not a matter of some kind penalty that Google imposes to new sites. It is the complex process of validating interlinking within sites. If your site doesn't rank well for a couple of months, it is the normal process. If your site doesn't rank well for a lot of months, there is some kind of "short-circuit" in the interlinking analysis where your site is included. Or simply a bad quality of inbound links.
The point is that it is near impossible to know which problem is that. So when you launch a site, you have to constantly work on getting new links IN A LEGAL WAY. And I'm pretty sure that you will succeed.
Of course, it is nor a fact, neither a theory, it is a guess based on what I've been reading and trying.
"hey my site has been sandboxed, lets wait until it is released!" B.S. It is in your hands.
I was not referring to anybody here, I was just citing a general saying.
Although my English is not good, I think it is quite clear.
So please, if you don't agree with what I'm saying, just use facts or concepts, there is no need to be aggressive. Let's keep this discussion in reasonable terms.
Let's keep this discussion in reasonable terms.
You referred to B.S. which suggests that your command of English is fine. Perhaps I am wrong but it sounds like you suggested that the sandbox was a figment of "newcomers" imagination. This is patently wrong or to use your own words ... no, I'll resist the temptation.
Let's move to something more civilized.
Perhaps I am wrong but it sounds like you suggested that the sandbox was a figment of "newcomers" imagination.
Nope. Perhaps, as I told you, I don't express myself correctly in English.
What I meant is that it is common that when a Webmaster finds his site not showing in serps (or deeply buried) to blame the "Sandbox" about this situation.
The Ranking algorithm in Google is too much complex just to say "hey, my site is new, I will have to wait 8 to 12 months until it is released!". That's not true. If your site isn't alive for that much, there are many possibilities that you are doing something wrong.
- Using sitewide links between two sites you own.
- Getting hundreds or thousands of links in a day.
- Getting links from spammy sites
- Linking to spammy sites
- Getting graphics links (instead of text links) pointing to your site
- Bad keyword selection in your incoming links' anchor text
- No incoming links strategy
- Linking to bad neibourghs
- Getting links from unrelated sites
- Bad internal linking strategy (this is crucial when you get links to your homepage only)
- Many other factors I don't recall now.
So, these are a lot of things to be simply called "Sandbox". And all of these situations are under the webmaster control. But new webmasters with little experience may not know about this and start blaming something called the Sandbox and wait until their sites are released.
A couple of people have claimed that they know how to get round it but I have yet to see any proof. But then again perhaps if I knew the full answer to this I would keep it to myself also. All I do know is the sandbox, filter effect, call it what you like, is very real and that Google have did a good job on this one, (even though they deny its existence.)