Sandboxed Sites - Back Together?

Do they come out together or one by one?

[McMohan]

Most of the new sites that I work with are still in the sandbox. Was just curios to know, if all the sanboxed sites come out of the sandbox during one fine major updation or one by one, over the rolling updates?

That is to say, should one be checking to see if the sites are out of the sandbox regularly or only when they know there is a major Google update? :)

Thanks

Mc

[cwnet]

Quote from the playboy interview:

Page: "If you’re spending time, trouble and money promoting your results, why not just buy advertising? We sell it, and it’s effective. Use that instead."

To me, that says it all...buy Adwords!

End of the story!

[gomer]

Thanks MHes for answering my questions.

[Spine]

I think in some sectors it's because good listings can bring in 1000s of visitors a day, and adwords bring in about 25 a day.

[dvduval]

No, I am pretty certain GoogleGuy has not said anything about sandboxed sites, but I'll bet this would be the #1 question people would want answered if we did a poll. Evidently, he has seen that we have no less than 30 threads with 100 or more posts, and has chosen to remain silent.

That is a good point about paying for advertising. You don't get nearly as many visitors. I might add that in some areas I do much better approaching large sites directly to get advertising, and the ROI was 10 times better than Adwords.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

Repeat after me ... this is a defect. There is no way that this is intentional.
This is a defect. There is no way that this is intentional.
This is a defect. There is no way that this is intentional.
This is a defect. There is no way that this is intentional.

[walkman]

For the sandboxed sites to be coming out, a sandbox has to exist.</running for cover>

[Powdork]

I doubt there is a query that cannot be answered by an existing established site.

Try searching for any business that recently put up a website using the business name (adding the city won't help either). Alternatively you can look at message #33 in this thread.

[cwnet]

"and the ROI was 10 times better than Adwords"

The word to remember in the above statement is "was"

Anyway, one may be in for a surprise if taking ALL costs into account when figuring out ROI - e.g. the time spent in this forum times $ (enter your pay per hour) just to keep up on the latest rumor about G algo etc.

As has been said so often here and in many other places: If your business model depends on free traffice, you may need to rethink.

BeeDeeDubbleU:

Repeat after me ... this is intentional. There is no way that this is a defect.
This is intentional. There is no way that this is a defect.
This is intentional. There is no way that this is a defect.
This is intentional. There is no way that this is a defect.

:-)

[Powdork]

I have an idea.

We already have googlewhacks. That is where you come up with a search that returns only one result in Google. For instance 'beagle removably'.

Lets come up with searches that produce the website in Yahoo or MSN, but not Google. The site must be indexed by Google, however.

We can call it Googlefarts ;)

[elgrande]

Getting high quality links is the worst thing to do in terms of sandboxing.

it sounds backwards, but from my own (frustrating) experiences, steveb's observation is right on target.

95% of my inbound links are high quality, on-topic links, mainly from sites ranking above mine for the same term (for which these other sites are *not* optimized). my site is stuck in the sandbox, while semi-relevant sites (with no inbound links with the keyphrase) rule the SERPS. it's time to go get some crappy links. . .

[cwnet]

Powdork: Now thats easy..

Seach for Bluefind

#1 in [beta.search.msn.com...]

#1 in [search.yahoo.com...]

#46 (not the homepage) in [google.com...]

<owner-edit>no, crappy links wont help in google as the above example shows</owner-edit>

[Powdork]

breast cancer foundation of arizona

BTW Google. That one really hurts people.

[steveb]

"no, crappy links wont help in google as the above example shows"

Um... huh? Obviously those example don't show anything concerning crappy links.

[Vec_One]

Good point, Powdork. If Google wants to monopolize the web, it should accept a certain amount of responsibility. Larry and Sergey like to say "Our goal is to organize the world's information!" They don't mention anything about hiding the world's most current information. I wonder if this could eventually lead to a class action suit, or trouble with the government. M$N has had its share of grief from the feds. I wonder if Google is next.

[Powdork]

The last thing we need is any kind of federal intervention. That is almost always bad, as are lawsuits (IMO). Just a wee bit o media is all that is needed.