Forum Moderators: mack
After MSN beta came out, I now know for a fact that Google penalizes sites that are 1 month to 2 years new for certain key phrases. People say they are in the sandbox, and you get out of it after 1-4 months, however I see no evidence with this in my own website which is well past 4 months old. I still can't rank on Google when I should be (MSN beta search confirmed this for me)
When you have a decent amount of backlinks, and you can't even rank number 1 for your company name, or even your own name, you know theres a problem. Google has me ranked on the bottom of the second page for "Record Hall" my company name. MSN ranks me #1, which is rightfully my position I would think. Why should a site rank for my own company name, just because it is older than my site?
As a searcher, I like Google, and continue to use Google as my main search. As an SEO, I think google is brutal, and a bit too hard to get ranked. Why can't I at least rank on the 40th page for my main keyphrase? Does this mean that there are tons of other relevant sites out there that Google simply is blocking? The good news about the MSN is that the new sites that deserve recognition will be seen (if they are good SEO's)
So as a conclusion, as an SEO, I love the new MSN beta, as I am on the first or second page for all my big and small keywords. Google is blocking me from trying to reach the world, but MSN isn't blocking me from doing that. "provided they don't do a major algorithm change in the next few months" How do the rest of you "SEO's" out there feel about the new MSN beta vs Google? And do you have a hard time trying to rank in Google as much as I do?
I'm ranking very well in the new MSN also but I'm not going out to buy a new house just yet. That index is no where near complete. I would expect it to change quite a bit before it debut's and probably for a long time afterwards as it continues to add pages to it's index. Just my two cents.
As a searcher, I like Google, and continue to use Google as my main search
The above from your fourth paragraph(choppin2256) is all that should matter to you. Sure I love MSN Beta too, all my client sites are listed mutilple times on 1, 2nd and 3rd pages with indented results. Woo-Hoo but stay with Google and keep trying and testing new things! MSN beta, currently, is not referring more that 1% (to my clients).
My exerience with the hollowed G: Is it hard to rank
in G right now? Yes, yes it is,especially for a new site and why should'nt it be and I love that fact.
To sumarize - Yes a little more effort as been applied to my client's sites that are new (under a year)for Yahoo and MSN/Yahoo/Beta/SiteMatch. Does it draw me away from G - Hell no - it makes me look hard at them. MSN has to open its doors and be less restrictive - they're new and want a footprint.
Good Luck!
[edited by: 5x54u at 6:05 pm (utc) on Nov. 27, 2004]
Thats a very simplistic way to look at it. Theres alot more to online promotion than just Google.
while i agree witht that statement i dont see why i was quoted when you made it. My statement and your quote have no link. My quote was in the context of validating your own seo by the results on a single search engine and then saying you have done something right. Since the poster stated they couldnt do that with google because they werent listed then appearing on msn does not validate that seo if it was intended for google. At no point did i mention you should only optimise for google. I was saying you can only validate your seo if what you have done was effective in acheiving your goal. If your goal was being listed in google and you only appear on msn then you have failed. It seemed like a no-brainer statement to me. Oh well.
;)
[edited by: soapystar at 5:28 pm (utc) on Nov. 27, 2004]
Scarecrow makes an excellent post here about this:
[webmasterworld.com...]
Are there sites that were started since March 2004 that deserve to rank in the top 10 for competitive keywords? Absolutely! The World is changing at a rapid pace.
Gwen Stefani lauched her own website after the sandbox took effect, and you won't find it even listed in the top 1000. This is the official site of a very popular person. Her site has strong links and is optimized for her name in the title and url.
So go over to MSN and have a look. Here site is #2
I picked an example of a public figure. This is not a site that I promote, but there are countless examples of IMPORTANT current information that Google is NOT properly ranking.
You can rationalize all you want about how new sites should not rank high, but I beg to differ. ;)
One cannot doubt that Google has lost relevancy by failing to provide searchers with all the results that it is aware of.
Most searchers arent going beyond a few pages, so "all the results it is aware of" has nothing to do with relevancy.
Why all the excitement about ranking on the MSN beta? It has been posted here already by MSN Dude that these results are very likely to be different to the final version.
Excellent point! Optimizing for MSN at this point is foolish. Making substantive changes for MSN right now can only benefit MSN. This beta is nothing more than a honey pot for spammers.
My tack is to optimize for Yahoo first, then Google. Once MSN has the real thing out for at least 6 months, then I'll have some intelligent info with which to draw conclusions.
hum, surely all it shows is that for one individual search engine in beta stage your site ranks well. A different algo is a different algo, theres no such thing as validating your "techniques" because they work on one search engine. Your "techniques should be geared to your target. If you fail to hit your target then it hasn't worked. If your target is google and you don't show on google then you have failed.
soapystar, if I understand chopin2256's point correctly, he's saying that basically he didn't have validation what he was doing was correct. Until now.
There are far more similarities than differences between Google, MSN and Yahoo's basic algorithms than differences e.g. get relevant links & optimise the page.
With the sandbox filter he got bugger all from Google in terms of real feedback.
Therefore he's happy to actually rank SOMEWHERE. It may not bring him money, but he's glad to know he can put the SEO theory into practice.
Follow up thought, I guess the sandbox has created multiple barriers to entry for new webmasters
1) "living cash" - New sites don't rank well (for most competitive topics). Couple of years ago it only took a month or two to at least rank decently on some terms and get some inbound cash. You could survive at your Mom & Dad's house on Kraft Dinner for a month while getting going. (This point has been explored in detail elsewhere.)
2) learning curve - it's hard to learn how to optimise when it is all theory. If you don't see your site moving up and down the ranking (Chopin's case), then how can you tell if you are doing something well or not?
3) frustration - it's hard to keep focused on a new site for 6 months. If you have clients they are yelling at you. If you are new it's embarrassing to talk with friends who understand how to use SEs, have heard stories of web marketing millionaires, assume you should be one, but think that a story about "a sandbox" is an excuse for lack of ability. We are humans. We move on when frustration hits a certain point.
Sure there are techniques to avoid the sandbox, but for a person working on their own they require experimentation (sandbox beating techniques aren't discussed in public anywhere). Experimentation requires money and time...are you really going to do that while you have a day job and you've already put hundreds of hours into a site that doesn't produce anything yet?
One would assume this means the sandbox has created a heck of a barrier to entry for new SEOs. Experienced SEOs should rejoice on this (growing demand for SEO vs. lesser growing supply of experienced SEO consultants), but overall I think it is a sad thing.
Best,
Tigrou
ps as always dvduval, you raise some good points.
[edited by: Tigrou at 6:30 pm (utc) on Nov. 27, 2004]
Gwen Stefani lauched her own website after the sandbox took effect, and you won't find it even listed in the top 1000. This is the official site of a very popular person. Her site has strong links and is optimized for her name in the title and url.
There will always be casualties of war. Acceptable losses and so on.
One would assume this means the sandbox has created a heck of a barrier to entry for new SEOs.
Thats the point.
btw, while you could say here a site that deserves a top ten place, another way of asking this is:
q:Are there more than ten sites that deserve a top ten place?
a:Most times yes.
[edited by: soapystar at 5:48 pm (utc) on Nov. 27, 2004]
Sure there are techniques to avoid the sandbox, but for a person working on their own they require experimentation (sandbox beating techniques aren't discussed in public anywhere). Experimentation requires money and time...are you really going to do that while you have a day job and you've already put hundreds of hours into a site that doesn't produce anything yet?
i concur :-)
btw, while you could say here a site that deserves a top ten place, another way of asking this is:
q:Are there more than ten sites that deserve a top ten place?
a:Most times yes.
Does a new but relevant site deserve an instant position in the top 10? Maybe not, but does it deserve a position between 11 and 1000 (or even 100 and 1000) - above sites that are clearly not relevant for the search terms? Yes - this is why so many people are frustrated with sandbox.
Does anyone really think the search engines care what SEOs think about their search results? They know that the only reason an SEO is happy with their engine is if their stuff ranks high. As soon as all of your ranks drop, you all will be cursing MSN.
As soon as all of your ranks drop, you all will be cursing MSN.
Not true. Sure you're biased towards something that gives you money, but as other posters have said, if you are a specialist in an area because of love (and not just the money), then you want to see the best SERPs possible.
Tigrou
That means they won.
Not so.
The VAST majority of Google's success can be attributed to the webmaster community. If that same community begins to switch their focus you will see much of the mainstream start to slowly follow.
I used to recommend Google to virtually anyone I talked to. Not so anymore. I bet the same can be said for MANY others.
I used to recommend Google to virtually anyone I talked to. Not so anymore. I bet the same can be said for MANY others.
Yes, if the following two things are true:
1) MSN comes out of Beta
2) Google still has a problem ranking new sites.
Then I will definitely start recommending MSN. It's not so much that Google is bad, but using MSN's advanced search features allows a much greater flexibility in finding what I am looking for.
It's the cycle of business. Anyone remember when they used to recommend Altavista?
MSN has a ways to go, but if they keep moving in the direction they are, and Google does not solve this problem/filter/whatever it is, I think we will begin to see a fundamental shift in the balance of power in the SE realm.
The sandboxed site gets crawled daily, page cache get updated frequently, pages have good PR...just the SERPs positions went down the drain after we changed to a new domain name.
The general public likes ease-of-use... why spend the time typing in www*google*com if you don't have to?
In 2 or 3 years we'll likely be talking about Google in the same reference as AltaVista, Dogpile, Mamma.com, InfoSeek, and the rest.
Besides... what SEO's think probably isn't going to make one bit of a difference in regards to the outcome.
With regard to "gaming" MSN just like any other search engine, they are ALL being gamed constantly. One difference with MSN is you are able to manipulate the filters yourself, so if you see "gamey" results, you have the controls. ;)
If Google could only tell us what's going on...
Gwen Stefani lauched her own website after the sandbox took effect, and you won't find it even listed in the top 1000. This is the official site of a very popular person. Her site has strong links and is optimized for her name in the title and url.
Valid point. Very unlike Google :(
Could be a good news flash. "Google hates Gwen Stefani"
<edit>
you won't find it even listed in the top 1000.
It's #24 actually.
Google has me ranked on the bottom of the second page for "Record Hall"
Hm. Do you even have that phrase on your site anywhere? Google doesn't seem to think so:
Your search - site:www.domain in question.com "record hall" - did not match any documents.
the search is in quotes, by the way, to find the phrase terms adjacent to one another
It's really easy to blame Google for something like this - but if you want to rank for it, maybe you should try a little on page SEO - you might just break the top ten.
As far as the Gwen Stefani example, well - it doesn't have nearly as many links and anchor text as the long-time fan site with the .net TLD, and of course her original band's site has tons of links too - and then again - have you *looked* at the site? I am surprised it is ranking at all. Flash and zero text content.
Please.
With you on that Patrick, I had a look at the site its called........ ok wont name it lets say its called lobster widget with domain name lobsterwidget it ranks at #1 for lobsterwidget but the meta title and description go for something else, it s nosurprise that google has problems deciding what this site is about, I'm sorry but I have to say it this is a case of bad seo and sour grapes.
Now it seems that getting a good ranking in Google is a shot in the dark. I have several sites that are similar in structer but with different content. All these sites used to rank well -- now some of them still do while other's don't show up until page 10.
Google is going to hurt themselves with this. Google is driven by webmasters (their free SERPS wouldn't exist without them, they pay for the AdWords, and they bring revenue through Adsense). If Google continues to alienate us by makint their search engine impossible to understand webmasters will stop supporting them. First by removing Adsense from their pages, then by refusing to run Adwords.
Over the next year Microsoft is going to become a very big player in the search engine market. When MSN search becomes more integrated into the OS, and they release their own version of Adwords/Adsense Google will be left with nothing. People will have no qualms about ditching Google and moving to MSN if Google provides them with no way to rank well.
why dont you buy an old domain with a bit of PR and try your site on that? Surely, this will prove you right or wrong?
Beest - if your referring to buying an expired domain with some PR that wont work, Google have changed their algo to deduct any PR a domain may have had to prevent this.
Give me a break. The VAST majority dont know the webmaster community exists. Google was a success before more than half of the membership of this forum ever dealt with websites. For that matter, Google was on top before half of the forums that cater to the webmaster community ever existed.
It has nothing to do with the sandbox...
this is a case of bad seo and sour grapes
I gotta agree.
This thread has reinforced my understanding of SEO as an industry,and SEO as a career within an industry. The site was named, so why not look at it? As P-Deese has pointed out, it is really no wonder it ranks were it does. That's not a slight -- it simply means it is clear, based on known Google behavior, that Google has acted predictably in ranking that site's pages.
Predictability of G is good. It means if you read more, and study more pages of WebmasterWorld or other sites, you will rank better. You need to abandon the "we've done everything right" belief, however.
Looks pretty clear that keyword-based domain names rank really well is MSN beta. Didn't we already have a thread about how poor MSN beta looked?
I would suggest you hire an SEO. It apears to me that you can get that site nicely SEOd for Google for under $4k in under a week's time. Of course the more keywords you chase and the more competitive they are, the more you will have to spend. Based on the current market, I think that is very reasonable.
Give me a break. The VAST majority dont know the webmaster community exists. Google was a success before more than half of the membership of this forum ever dealt with websites. For that matter, Google was on top before half of the forums that cater to the webmaster community ever existed.
Every single dollar Google earned was as a result of webmasters. Whether it be through buying Adwords, promoting adsense, or simply providing good content for their SERPS -- Google would be nothing without them.
Google is nothing more than a middle man between webmasters and the general internet community. If they aren't accomodating to the needs of both, somebody else will step in and take their place.
Think about this: imagine if Walmart refused to explain to manufacturers how to get their products in their stores. What if they simply removed certain products from their stores with no rhyme or reason - often without even telling the manufacturers of those products about it. Pretty soon manufacturers wouldn't even bother trying to get their products in the stores because it would be a futile attempt. And the shoppers would start to notice that Walmart no longer carried that great of a selection of products. Pretty soon another company would step in and take the place of Walmart -- by giving customers more choices and working with the manufacturers to help them get their products into the store.
From my perspective, this is what I see happening to Google. They have begun to lose touch with a key half of their business. I used to be a huge fan of Google, but as of the last 3 months I'm getting excited to see the new MSN search starting to look promising. Google is too secretive and too dificult to work with. They refuse to acknolwedge or deny anything - forcing webmasters to take shots in the dark trying to get their sites listed. IMO, that's not a very good way to treat the 'suppliers' of your business.
