Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Just a last note:
You say that the topic shouldn't play in role... So what about the criteria used to rank 10,000,000 sites that offer "Blue Widgets" out there, having almost the same products and the same content?
The fact that someone is developing a website with information and content about Blue Widgets can NOT be (IMO) the only factor used for its ranking.
Lastly, the paradigm with "yellow pages" you refered to is obviously unsuccessful. You do NOT pay to get included in Google (in yellow pages you pay) and as in REAL world, you CAN USE ADSENSE to advertise and have your great website about the "innovative" Blue Widgets instantly exposed to Google's visitors.
Anyway, both opinions are well presented and is a matter of friends here to decide which one to choose from :)
PS. I have 6 websites that are still out of Yahoo (except their home page) because they are new ones (Google has them all indexed!). If what you say is true, then Yahoo is an even bigger liar! LOL
You say that the topic shouldn't play in role... So what about the criteria used to rank 10,000,000 sites that offer "Blue Widgets" out there, having almost the same products and the same content?
Are you suggesting that the best way to differentiate if you're Google is by how many other sites link to the one in question (and the quality of those links)? If so, I'm fine with that, even though I think it's flawed. But that is not my point. My point is that Google IS LYING TO US when it claims that it wants the most relevant search results. You simply cannot say that and also refuse to rank new sites, some of which will obviously have much better relevant content than others that are ranked because they're older.
The fact that someone is developing a website with information and content about Blue Widgets can NOT be (IMO) the only factor used for its ranking.
I agree 100%. I've never asserted that content should be the "only factor" for ranking. That too is easy to game, just as link popularity was. The problem is one of degree. Google clearly placed too much emphasis on links, which is part of the problem and led them to implement all these filters that make them liars about having the most relevant results.
Lastly, the paradigm with "yellow pages" you refered to is obviously unsuccessful. You do NOT pay to get included in Google (in yellow pages you pay) and as in REAL world, you CAN USE ADSENSE to advertise and have your great website about the "innovative" Blue Widgets instantly exposed to Google's visitors.
OK, I'll go with that. Let me amend my comparison to make the same exact point. Google's sandbox, IF it's based on the age of a site, would be comparable to the WHITE PAGES (which are free) not listing your new business for 6 months to a year. Better? Same point.
Anyway, both opinions are well presented and is a matter of friends here to decide which one to choose from :)
Indeed. I enjoy the mental workout.
PS. I have 6 websites that are still out of Yahoo (except their home page) because they are new ones (Google has them all indexed!). If what you say is true, then Yahoo is an even bigger liar! LOL
I've never heard of that, but I'll take you at your word. How new are your 6 sites? I know that new sites will show up in Google SERPs for a short time and then drop off the face of Earth for months (sandbox). I also know with my sites that it does take awhile to get fully indexed by Yahoo, but they have no apparent filter comparable to G's sandbox.
I've never heard of that, but I'll take you at your word. How new are your 6 sites?
The sites are 3-5 month old. They are performing much better on Google than Yahoo (only the home page is indexed there!). This doesn't mean they have top rankings as they are about "Blue Widgets" and not for "Trips to the Moon"! :-)
Hmmm, sounds like a good business model to me! LOL
It is indeed! But this doesn't mean that sandbox was invented for this reason IMO.
Just a quick one:
Yes yes, I know, Google owes none of us anything.
You do NOT pay to get included in Google (in yellow pages you pay)
They owe me 600 MB of bandwidth just in May just for one site. Bandwidth that I pay for.
radix.
They owe me 600 MB of bandwidth just in May just for one site. Bandwidth that I pay for.
Hi radix, I can't understand your point since noone forces you to have this bandwidth... wasted for Google :)
