Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
If your site is less than a year old you are likely sandboxed.
I can't believe most sites under a year's age are in some sort of penalty box. Google would be useless. So, I want to know:
1. Are all sites sandboxed, or do certain traits (like affiliate links, low content) trigger it?
2. How long does it last?
3. How variable is the duration?
4. How do you know your site is being sandboxed?
5. Does the effect taper off or is it a binary thing?
6. What gets you out of the sandbox? Is it merely time or do good links or whatever speed it up?
Thanks.
Again I'm suspecting Google punishes people who use Adwords. I'll have to debate whether to cancel my accounts. This seems like the only vote we have against the Google machine.
I try to respect other peoples opinions as much as possible and not try to discredit (conspiracy) theories and the like, but... This is total crap.
Google would not punish people for using AdWords because:
1. If any (authoritative)word of that got out (ever) people would flee from AdWords faster than the mods delete crap threads here (pretty fast!).
2. It's too easy to analyze and determine this for people that monitor and run campaigns for lots of sites.
3. This could on forever...
There's a huge mass of people here who have never used AdWords and are suffering from the "sandbox"; there are also many that do use adwrods and are stuck; there are those that were stuck and now use adwords and are still stuck; and finally there are those that were stuck, used adwords, were still stuck and stopped using adwords...only to STILL BE STUCK.
Just ask, you'll see that there's no way you could narrow that to be the determinent. There are likewise people who have finally made it out that HAVE used adwords while they were in the deep freeze.
With the -asdfs the top 2 results are #1, #2 Adword payers. W/o -asdfs they don't list.
That's probably because while they are using adwords to supplement their traffic currently they also have enough money to invest in link development and other things that will enable them to rank well in the future. They're not the #1 and #2 payers because they're broke.
[edited by: Woz at 4:53 am (utc) on Jan. 25, 2005]
[edit reason] formatting [/edit]
- clearly something Google aim at returning results that please the user making the search
That's great! Now if we could only get all the millions of people in the world that currently use Google to type in 13 non-sensicle terms after their search phrase to find what they're actually looking for we'd all be set. :)
How about these answers, all completely reasonable...In the scenario you responded to I think you missed this sentence.
If Schmidt evades the question, it fuels the speculation and becomes major news.
And there lies the problem. I hate to sound overly dramatic but has it occurred to anyone the damage google is doing to the internet as a whole with this ridiculous filter, sandbox, spam fighter, whatever you want to call it. I worked on my site every day for months and months. Adding new content, getting links, improving design as I'm sure others have. It gets almost humanly impossible to motivate yourself after a while. I don't care if you're doing this for the money or a hobby or just to kill time. Nobody wants to work on something nobody will ever get a chance to see. They've already gone the way of AltaVista as far as I'm concerned.
I feel like I have educated my customers well.
1) They are not going to drop a bunch of money into Adwords, but will use a much smaller budget to target lesser keywords (or zilcho)
2) They are ranking on MSN, Yahoo or both and are getting traffic now.
Creating protection for older sites is a temporary remedy at best. The remedy itself will lead to an imbalance if allowed to continue without change. In one month it will be a year since the sandbox started. Are we gonna go for 2? I don't really care anymore, but my customers do, and they are getting quite excited about yahoo and msn.
They are looking for longevity and legitimacy, no?
* If you build a brand-new website, they want you to prove yourself over time by adding valuable, relevant content and obtaining links from respected sites. That certainly makes sense to me...
* If you suddenly have a large influx of IBL's that SHOULD raise suspicion in these days of run-of-site link buying, link farms, and so forth. I can understand why Google would raise an eyebrow (though I don't think they should drop your site's rankings for this unless the links are from the same IP).
* If you make massive changes to a website that SHOULD raise suspicion, as Google no longer has a guarantee of what your site is really about. All those important IBL's may come down if the humans who put them there don't like what they see.
When any of these things occurs, GBot wants to step back and say "whoa there! What're you doing?" Anything that looks unnatural probably is.
All this makes perfect sense to me - although I'm still unhappy about the seemingly unlimited duration of the penalty.
My advice to myself and everyone else is to stay squeaky clean with your SEO, continuously add relevant content, gain new IBL's at a steady but natural pace, and just focus on Yahoo and MSN in the interim. Be above reproach, and when we do finally get out of the sandbox it'll have been worth the wait.
Be above reproach, and when we do finally get out of the sandbox it'll have been worth the wait
I couldn't agree more
Question is not when, the question is "if". The whole sandbox thing might not be as time dependant as people make it to be.
I think that's what google would like you to think, and it's how they've tried to direct discussion of this question for over 1 year now.
"And there lies the problem. I hate to sound overly dramatic but has it occurred to anyone the damage google is doing to the internet as a whole with this ridiculous filter, sandbox, spam fighter, whatever you want to call it."
Yes, it has occurred to me. The web as we know it is roughly 10 years old. We're not talking about ancient history here, which is something I think people who get really wrapped in the web world tend to forget. When you have a sandbox that lasts roughly 1/10 of the lifespan of the graphic part of the web's history, that means Google is not able to handle the web. I try to understand the people here who think that this is excusable, but to be honest I simply don't understand what is going through their minds. This is a failure, it's not a way to deal with spam, it's a simple failure. And maybe it's also going to boost adwords income. Which is what companies do, they try to boost their revenues, either from existing revenue streams, or by making new ones. If anyone thinks this is somehow a 'conspiracy', I guess that means all the businesses on the planet are involved in the same conspiracy.
If you cut it even closer, to when the web really blew up, this last year represents maybe about 1/7 of the entire history of the commercial web. That's a big chunk to decide to not treat objectively. If I didn't know any better, from reading some of the posters here you'd think that the web had been around in its present form for the last 50 years, so making sites wait a little while to get ranked almost seems like a reasonable idea. But that's not the case at all.
But I don't think the process of sandboxing pages has anything to do with spam except as a side affect, although google would like you to believe that, it's good to see that their PR is working on some of the people some of the time.
I am just about to start selling goods direct from my site, having raised a success affiliate. This will mean big changes to 60% of my pages, but is perfectly legit. Is Google going to bomb me out for that and, if so, is that right?!
Suggy
Massive changes can be legit.Absolutely. Likewise there are legitimate reasons to change domain names.
And new restaurants have websites with unique and deserving content as well. Only Google 'feels the need' to stifle any of this.
Why do I say 'feels the need'? Because the -asdf*13 searches show that Google could rank our sandboxed sites with the rest, but they choose not to.
1. Sites that add the 13 -asasa string and suddenly show up.
2. Sites that apply the filter and *still* do not show up.
Both 1 & 2, rank highly for various allin.* commands.
It was said that Sandbox is a penalty aka, link devaluation for a period of time (unknown how long this is to me). That would apply to sites in scenario 2. That means that new links are devalued and are not given as much weight as they should, which would hurt a sites ranking based on Pagerank. II think #1 is related to Hilltop, read up on the papers.
I don't know if that had anything to do with it, but I swear it happened, all our "sandboxed sites", if that's what they were, came back and then went again in a few hours
Exactly the same happened to me last week, a site that is sanboxed went straight to #1, lasted all day, then back to being dumped :(
Exactly the same happened to me last week, a site that is sanboxed went straight to #1, lasted all day, then back to being dumped :(
Btw... It also happens to me OFTEN. Anyone here got a theory why sites appear and then disappear.
What’s the point? Could it be filtering you from 90% of the queries and showing you occasionally?
If you cut it even closer, to when the web really blew up, this last year represents maybe about 1/7 of the entire history of the commercial web. That's a big chunk to decide to not treat objectively.
2by4 this is the exact point I was making a couple of months ago in this thread (message 128) [webmasterworld.com...]
I keep hearing people talking about the sandbox being a temporary situation but I have seen no evidence of a mass release of sites after any specific time period and I have a couple affected that are 11 months old.
I apologise for raising this again but the thing that I think is very, very strange is that the press have never picked up on this. Surely it is newsworthy? It's almost like some sort of conspiracy. I mean Google, the World's favourite search engine, is effectively concealing about 10-20% of the Internet and no one mentions it?
What may be even stranger is that none of the other SEs have chosen to use it against Google. If I had anything to do with Yahoo or MSN I would be broadcasting this at every opportunity to let people know how Google is failing them.
Very, very strange :(
The keywords you give Google determine the *stress* it thinks you want to place on them. So, if you type "widgets widgets puppies" you get sites that are more about widgets than puppies, with "puppies puppies widgets" it's the other way.
When you go "widgets -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf, etc." you are telling it that you want something with widgets in it, but you REALLY want somethig without asdf. As a result, you get something with the keyword factor "watered down."
NOW, THE PROOF:
1. Google "search." Search.com comes up first. Google comes up eight. This makes sense because "Search.com" is so closely tied to the word "search," appearing in the domain and all over the page. By contrast, Google's home page hardly uses the term.
2. Google "search -scrumpyfig" Google comes up first. Search.com is 4th. The keyword factor has been turned down, ranking up.
3. Google "search -scrumpyfig -asdf (x 29)" Google #1, but Search.com has slipped to 8.
So, as the word succumbs to rank, Google wins out over the word-winner Search.com
FOR CONFIRMATION
*"News." Normally, FOXNews comes in #3—they aren't as associated with the term "news" because it so often gets combined into FOXNews. All told, the cached version had news only 12 times, where BBC has it 181 times. Add the scrumpyfig, and Foxnews becomes #2.
*"Books." Amazon has the word "books" 18 times on its index page. Barnes and Noble 32. So, "books" puts Barnes and Noble first. "books -scumpyfig" puts Amazon first.
WHY YOU FEEL SANDBOXED:
All you SEO guys are doing well with it because your sites are so optimized for keywords. You do poorly without -asdf because Google hasn't decided your site is good, at least yet.
QED?
I apologise for raising this again but the thing that I think is very, very strange is that the press have never picked up on this. Surely it is newsworthy? It's almost like some sort of conspiracy. I mean Google, the World's favourite search engine, is effectively concealing about 10-20% of the Internet and no one mentions it?
I agree 100%. This needs light shined on it. Someone around here has got to have connections to the press. Google is on a pedestal right now, and too may too many people are fawning over it (e.g. the 60 Minutes profile). But Americans love a good scandal. I emailed a reporter at CNET a few weeks ago who said he would look into it, but haven't heard anything since then.
> newsworthy
I spent hours on the phone a week ago with a "search" reporter trying to explain it - they didn't get it.
For them to run a story - they need to know 'why'.
Google thrives for relevancy and it's possibly laying down the foundations for the biggest shakeup in SEARCH.
Yahoo is getting hit badly with spam at the moment and MSN Beta as well. Could this be Google’s wildcard to winning the search race by going 2 steps back, 10 steps forward.
Unless their goal was to allow old spam, but not new spam, I can't buy the theory of having a sandbox to eliminate spam.
Me neither.
Google thrives for relevancy and it's possibly laying down the foundations for the biggest shakeup in SEARCH.
Isn't this newsworthy? I don't mean from Google's perspective and I can appreciate that they may not want to say anything about it but if this is the case wouldn't the IT media be killing each other to run the story first?
If you look at Yahoo they are really struggling with all kinds of old hat spam tricks. It just does not appear like they have any real defense against it. MSN looks pretty good right now but veteran spammers have not really had adequate time there to truly test it. Google on the other hand, for all practical purposes is just not letting new sites in; period.
Part of us is glad the sandbox is here as we have had virtually no new competitors, or spam sites, challenging us in certain products. Just a free ride really. However, the other side of us is just totally frustrated as we have four nice new sites, two of which were launched last March that don’t even rank within the first 1,000 for their main keywords.
The longer it goes on the crazier it gets though. It doesn’t matter if you can get out, or if in fact, some sites have gotten out. For the overwhelming vast majority of webmasters, if you build a site according to these guidelines, [google.com...] your not going to crack the top 500.
It’s all very interesting, that’s one thing we do know.
I spent hours on the phone a week ago with a "search" reporter trying to explain it - they didn't get it.
I can't quite understand this Brett because I am not sure that they have to "get it".
Surely the fact that Google is "hiding" 10% - 20% of the net is in itself newsworthy without anyone having to know the nitty gritty. They have reported on stuff that's a lot harder to grasp in the past.
Read this introductory paragraph ...
Is Google Hiding Websites?For the last year or so webmasters have been reporting that Google is intentionally or otherwise failing to feature new websites in their results. The new websites are added to their index they just don't get found by people who are searching for them. Google have refused to comment on the reasons for this fuelling speculation that they are trying to force people to pay to get found through their lucrative Adwords scheme.
...
...
As you can see I am no reporter but I think that most people who have used a search engine would understand that.
Were in the, “It’s an effort to beat back spam” camp; that’s our current thinking, (at least for today). If it was a technical problem, their financial resources are almost unlimited to solve whatever it could be, and they have had almost a year to do that. If they couldn’t fix a problem like that with a billion dollars and a years time, they don’t just belong in this business.
When you think of it this is also quite compelling but why allow all the existing spam to remain? Don't they know how to get rid of it?
Love to see that article hit the mainstream press. Or any press for that matter.
Stupid Google, what they don't think it will eventually catch up to them?
Webhound
The problem with the theory that the sandbox is there to alleviate spam, is that the Google SERPs are inundated with spam. If their aim is to get rid of the spam, then not only are they leaving out tons of useful newer sites, but they have failed in their quest to get rid of spam.
Have you considered the possibility that spam in the SERPS would be worse without a sandbox? IMHO, having a sandbox for new sites that meet defined criteria (commercial keywords, more than X,000 pages, certain layout characteristics, or whatever) is a reasonable response to the blitz of automatically generated affiliate and "made for AdSense" sites that are flooding the Web. It makes it harder for the fast-buck, disposable-domain crowd to get rich quickly at the expense of Google's search results, and it allows more time for Google to analyze the flood of new pages before dumping them into the index.
Google's job isn't to provide instant gratification to Webmasters and SEOs. To be sure, it's possible that an occasional new site of great value is taking more time to be indexed than users (and Google) might like. But those valuable sites will be indexed in due time--and if Google is successful in its gatekeeping, those valuable sites will be easier for users to find than would be the case if the sandbox didn't exist.
The Sandbox really is proof in the death of Pagerank. In theory Google has always been biased towards existing sites and against new sites - it would take time for a new site to get links from existing authority sites. Maybe the spam techniques currently used mean that the old PR-based algo would now produce rubbish. Whatever the reason, I feel Google is a much poorer search engine than it was 18 months ago
If that's true (and I don't think it is), the fault isn't with Google; it's with the Web polluters who dump their you-know-what onto the Web faster than Google and the other SEs can filter it out with existing technology. I do think Google is doing a better job of controlling such pollution than its two major competitors are, and--as others have suggested--it's more than likely that the sandbox is a temporary holding pond that may not be necessary when new and better software is in place.
