Forum Moderators: open
Sandboxing sites is the cleverest move by google for a long time. The effect on us is to stop building new sites and develop and improve existing sites. I'm sure this is the case with others, and this helps google rather than swamping them with new domains all the time.
The effects of sandboxing as I see it:
1) Discourages 1 minute spammy sites that fly then die.
2) Allows google to monitor the growth of a site, including natural links in and new content, before they really start to rank it.
3) Removes the 'instant success' factor, which makes us all greedy and produce sites with little thought and effort.
In short, by removing the instant success factor, the incentive of setting up new sites has been reduced, and the incentive of working on improving older sites has increased.
Well done Google - smart move.
Maybe we should call them "croutons" in keeping with the cuteness theme.
hee hee
Would 'soggy croutons' be the older ones? Or would 'stale croutons'? I want to get my terminology right.
Anyway, I think we just have to get used to playing in the google sandbox. And while we're there, NO THROWING SAND!
The flaw in that logic is the notion that Google sees freshness in commercial SERPs as any sort of real priority. When it comes to commercial searches, lets be honest. What Google sees important there is Adwords. *That* is how Google makes money. Google is a business. As for informational searches, is freshness really all that much a priority? Imagine the topic is widget safety. It is of course possible that someone tomorrow will put up a new site about the safe use of widgets that is far better than any of the existing sites. In that case, this sandboxing would delay people finding it searching Google. However, if this new widget saftey site really is that good, then wouldn't other sites out there about widgets quickly recognize this, and link to it? People could find it quickly by this indirect method. Note also that spammers often try not only to spam relevant SERPs, but also irrelevant ones. Porn spammers are known to do things like put up keyword laden doorway pages that will get them to the top of the "widget safety" SERP, and thousands of other different SERPs.
When it comes to spam fighting in the SERPs, some collateral damage is inevitable.
I think what you mean is that your new business does not stand a chance of being promoted for nothing for 3 to 6 months.
What I meant was what I wrote. The businesses and sites I am talking about are owned by people who "don't stand a chance of being promoted" ... free or otherwise.
Even the "so called" directories which they have every right to be in do nothing to promote them and they can't afford the price to be in the paid directories OR to hire someone to look after an adwords or adsense campaign for them.
Not everyone does everything for the almighty dollar and not everyone is looking for a free ride. A little help along the way for a deserving small business or two is not a lot to ask.
Collateral damage? Oh please. Turn off CNN and personalize things a little bit for once!
Take a good look at the 28 year old guy who lives down the beach from me making $350.00/week. He lives in a house with three walls and a tin roof. The house has no windows and he just finished building some doors out of scrap wood he found here and there. The house is open to the elements ... including hurricanes and floods. He has two little kids under 4 years of age and a wife who is going to college to become a teacher.
He is a fabulously talented woodworker who can replicate (perfectly) any antique you put in front of him. He just spent a month's earnings having a web site built so he could advertise his fledgling business. (I found out after the fact about the web site or I would have doe it for him.) So instead, I decided to build this free directory so everyone in the country stands a chance!
He was not born here but works for someone who was. He works at his own business at night and on weekends after he gets home from work. Because he was not born here, he hasn't been given the same opportunities those who were born here routinely get.
His story is not unique. There are hundreds of others like him who are just trying to earn an honest living, support their families put a roof over their heads and stay out of trouble.
Those people who make one web site after another, one "fake directory" after another, one doorway page after another ... who cloak (the bad kind) ... who use ... hidden links, hidden text and every other trick in the book are pariahs. They refuse to work hard and honestly and follow the rules. They want the fast track to every get rich quick scheme there is.
They get rich on the backs of every hard working, honest business person and web site owner there is! And yes ... they hope for free listings in search engines because they can afford little else. SO WHAT?
How many years did you or your business enjoy free listings? Did anyone help you get started? Did your parents or community or "gasp" your government give you a helping hand in any way, shape or form? Put you through school? Student loan perhaps?
NOT EVERYONE has the benifit of or access to those things!
3 to 6 months can make or break a small business where I come from. Its just a damned shame that the rich get richer by cheating and scheming while the little guy gets tromped on because of them.
If you want to call it collateral damage ... go ahead. Excuse me for getting a little worked up but it seems people like to climb on their high horse a little too quickly at times and throw around cliche terms such as "collatteral damage" without a thought in the world as to the real life effects!
My only point in all of this is that the "sandbox" is NOT the best answer and I trust/hope Google is working on a better, algorithmic solution.
OK, I'll try.
>3 to 6 months can make or break a small business where I come from. Its just a damned shame that the rich get richer by cheating and scheming while the little guy gets tromped on because of them.
>If you want to call it collateral damage ... go ahead. Excuse me for getting a little worked up but it seems people like to climb on their high horse a little too quickly at times and throw around cliche terms such as "collatteral damage" without a thought in the world as to the real life effects!
WHY do you think that Google cares about the "little guy" running a small business? Google's business model appears to me to be to sell Adwords to e-commerce sites who are wealthy enough to be able to pay for them. Google is to Internet search what Microsoft currently is to PC operating systems. (Although, looks like Bill Gates now is gunning after Google for a big piece of that action.) And like Microsoft, the goal of Google is domination of the market, and to get as filthy rich as possible. Google is quite content if in the e-commerce world the rich get richer so long as they make tons of money selling Adwords to the rich to help them crush the "little guy".
This may not be appealing or pretty to you. However, this is the reality of Internet search today.
Google is quite content if in the e-commerce world the rich get richer so long as they make tons of money selling Adwords to the rich to help them crush the "little guy".
I'm starting to think this is what the sandbox is really about (It has already hit at least one established site of mine, not just my newest site) . If you do a search for google sandbox on google at the moment, what do you get at the top result - a google adwords page!
If it would pay me to buy adwords I would but I'd never make my costs back - it's just way too expensive for the small amount of proft I make per page view. Looks like I'm going to be crushed to death.
If I were to open up a "Dave's Office Supplies" I would be surprised if it got any notice in the local papers. That is the equivalent of starting up a new website.
If a new Staples or OfficeMax were to open up in a town without one, the Grand opening might even make the front page of the local paper. And they would already have their brand name following. This is the equivalent of adding new pages to an already existing and popular site.
There are no "rights" to get listed on google immediately. And it would be very rare for a user to think that they are missing out by new sites not getting listed in days.
And there is a huge difference between talking about "moldy oldies" and new sites. Old proven sites that add and update their content still get hit with freshbot. The index is still quite fresh, it just takes some new sites longer to rank well in the index.
And it really wasn't that long ago, before freshbot, that the schedule was something like this:
- Put up site, and get first links.
- Wait 0 to 6 weeks for the next crawl.
- Wait 3 to 6 weeks for the next update.
- Have maybe 15 pages make it in on this update.
- Wait 3-6 weeks for the next update.
- Have a few hundred pages in the index, and actually start ranking for some things.
- etc.
Even with freshbot running around at the time of launch, it took 4 months to get my PR5 website fully in the index. As much as you hate to see that when it is your own site, it really is reasonable.
If you need traffic sooner than that, to it the old-fashioned way, and pay for it. That is what real businesses have to do.
And I'm saying this as someone that is going to be launching about a dozen websites over the next few months. Of course I would love for them to pop up to the top, but it is unreasonable to expect to be able to do that sort of thing, and in general it would be better for google and the searcher if it was not eay to get brand new sites to rank at the top right away.
NOT EVERYONE has the benifit of or access to those things!3 to 6 months can make or break a small business where I come from. Its just a damned shame that the rich get richer by cheating and scheming while the little guy gets tromped on because of them.
Yawn. Yep...We're a country full of victims...poor us.
Give me a break. I came from a "blue collar" family with parents that never made more than 20k a year their entire lives. There's not a single person in this country who lack "opportunity". Perhaps if the 95% who whine about it would get off their a** and actualyl WORK for it, they would achieve something.
Yawn
However, this is the reality of Internet search today.
Seems so doesn't it.
In the Real World, if you are starting a business, you have to plan on losing money for several months to several years. And you will have very little chance of getting any free publicity or promotion.
Losing money ... yes. No free publicity, we will have to agree to disagree. Millions of businesses are getting plenty of free publicity. My site does and I am pretty sure there are one or two others around here which do as well.
Look, I am not pleading for assistance for new sites ... I am simply saying that I think the sandbox is not the "best" way to handle the problem and I think Google can do better. Full stop!
I'll explain why it seems to effect mainly new sites. The effect seems to result as local rank is applied to the index after a search is carried out. Sites that lack local rank will receive very weak rankings possibly not even appear in the top 1000 for a very relevent term. The problem with new sites is they lack local rank. Local rank is harder to establish than pr because it must be found in many sources where as pr can be found all in one place. Some new sites can have a pr4 or 5 on the day they launch because of a few good links or sites networking. These things won't benefit local rank therefore this high pr site would be invisible.
Older sites can experience the same problem when they lack links from many sources. Therefore the Sandboxing can happen to them as well.
The only way to resolve the problem is to get links from many unaffiliated sources. I am actually having a friend develop a program that can analyze sites to determine their local rank. I am hoping that with this tool I can bring better light to the problems we are experiencing with Google.
Nope, this isn't it. I can point to several examples of new sites with very strong "local rank" still getting sandboxed.
I think we are trying to over analyze what is happening. I for one have pretty much accepted that for the most part, new sites won't score for between 60-120 days. It happens with sites that have clean links rolled out over a more "natural" period of time just as much as it happens with more aggressive seo'd sites that roll out thousands of links in a short period of time. Why it's happening is anybody's guess.
To borrow an expression that's often used, even if some newer sites would qualify with Local Rank, the sandbox gives an opportunity to examine an entire corpus of documents and test over a given period of time.
I was talking about real world businesses, exclusive of their internet counterparts.
You might get some minor free publicity just for opening your new business. Your friend would not receive the equivalent of showing up on the covers of Fine Woodworking, Woodworker and all the other woodworking and furniture magazines worldwide in the same month just by opening up his shop.
He might get mention on page 10 of some local paper. If you walked around your town and asked shopkeepers about local woodworkers, a few might mention him "for free" during the first few months of his business, but it will not be until he makes a name for himself that he becomes the first person that they think of. And it will take much longer before people start flying out there with the intention of buying his work.
You have to grow a businesss, and gratefully accept whatever free publicity you can get. But free publicity is not a birthright. You have to be able to survive the growing pains.
It doesn't matter if the sandbox exists or not. Nor does it matter if anyone thinks it is the best way to deal with the problems. Growing a business takes time, effort and money. And hopefully you can survive the growing process. It may not be fair, but that is how it is.
Only bad thing is now i have to plan everything 2-3 months ahead :(
>> The effect seems to result as local rank is applied to the index after a search is carried out
No i dont see it allan , i accept Local Rank is applied to some degree on the SERP but its not the cause for the poor-ranking of new sites ...
i go with graywolf's theory that each back-link carry a time factor and either the link is credited after a certain period or a link's relevence continously grow with time.
Spare the rod spoil the child, obviosly the folks at the plex can't send out virtual spankings but maybe a good "timeout" is in order for all those bratty webmasters.
Good playground management.
John316 said: A step backwards for the user.---------- I AGREE!Quarantining web sites is not exactly a good practice, just a reaction to the inherent weaknesses in their algorithms.
Plus,
I done a fair amount of research and cannot find any evidence that Google is engaging in this sandbox thing. If a new site is not indexed or ranked properly, I'd find the reason more likely to be related to other criteria.
If any SE does attempt this, I think it would be stupid -- A site should rank where it merits (new or old should not matter).
Sorry, just my opinion.........
The 3 months will however deter the copycat spammer. The spammer that sees a method that someone else has in place and deconstructs / re-creates the method. It will be a six month period between the innovators idea and the time it takes for the copy cat to find, reproduce and get theirs listed, hopefully by which google has had time to react and prevent the method.
a 3 to 6 month lag time for their new site to be picked up is a major problem
Before the internet, before search engines, there were advertising opportunities in Television, radio, Newspapers, and the Yellow pages. Which you use depends on your budget, reach required and urgency.
The yellow pages used to get printed once a year. What happened if you decided to start up a new business the month AFTER the annual yellow pages directory closed?
3- 6 months is still an improvement for a FREE service. And adwords/ Overture are often much cheaper than the traditional media alternatives....
Could the Sandbox Effect be fueling Adwords?
(Surely this is the most clever part of the Sandbox Effect)
Could you please explain this? How would it fuel Adwords? It seems to me these spammy sites must buy a lot of Adwords. At least I have to block a lot of them in my AdSense account.
So in essense, the Sandbox Effect is fueling the purchase of Adwords...pretty good for Google, huh?
Can anyone confirm, deny, agree, disagree, etc.?
However, backlinks are not showing and the new site has no PR; think i just missed that update on the 28th of April...
I didnt really notice the sandbox at all to be honest..
well, i have two sites, one is about 6 months old and one about 4 weeks old
How many backlinks in for both?
Are they from "authority" sites, on topic sites, or off topic sites?
Interesting idea about new links being blocked.
This would have the same net effect for a new site. All links to a new site by definition will be new links. Thus, if links to new sites aren't counted, they'll rank low on Google except for very non-competitive SERPs.
Could it be true the Sandbox Effect is on links rather than sites?
