Forum Moderators: open
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
To back this up:
I have a new site still sandboxed it cannot rank high for its number one term (my city) it can rank high for areas in my city above other websites.
Further more if i add my main keyword Back into my search i cannt be found.
Does anyone else think this? - or am i way off :)
Internetheaven I can only congratulate you on being the only one in the World to have beaten this thing
I'm not, and I've known it hasn't existed since the first time the myth was created as have alot of other webmasters. It's just that I'm the noisy one! Do you really think that webmasters who aren't affected want the "sandbox" theory to end? What if everyone knew the algorithm changes that have caused what people are blaming as a "penalty", then the thousands of us who do know would have competition ...
There is obviously something built into G's algo to hold them back.
It's the reverse, there is something built into the pages that are holding them back. Google didn't create the algorithm to penalise new pages, it changed the algorithm to weed out the mountains of junk. Unfortunately, most SEO's build their pages the same way as spammers.
Does anyone have a
1. Site placed on a brand new (never registered before) domain
2. That was launched after May
3. Doing well on google.com
4. for a phrase that is competitive on google.com
Yes, and to answer the other question regarding geographical location I can honestly say that it this is the case for both UK and US as I have servers in both countries.
I was not a huge fan of the sandbox theory as many sites I looked at that claimed to be sandboxed, just ranked poorly (and they deserved to).
I would attribute this to 99% of claims on these boards personally! ;)
Do you really think that webmasters who aren't affected want the "sandbox" theory to end?
Well you certainly seem to be doing your best to debunk the theory.
If I had your knowledge I would not be idling away my time on forums. I would be SEO'ing like a man possessed ;) In the present Google climate you could be worth millions!
It's the reverse, there is something built into the pages that are holding them back. Google didn't create the algorithm to penalise new pages, it changed the algorithm to weed out the mountains of junk. Unfortunately, most SEO's build their pages the same way as spammers.
1. Google has not weeded out the "mountains of junk". Their results are spammier (and staler) than they have ever been. As long as they allow Adsense on sites that have not been manually reviewed this will just get worse. Google has turned the full circle. They are now ultra commercial, that's just a fact of life.
2. I have placed new pages (using trusted methods) on established websites recently that got good results very quickly, i.e. two or three weeks.
3. If Google had developed some new algo formula to weed out spam why would they apply it to new sites only? Clearly they would apply it to all newly found pages. It would not make sense to allow existing spammers to carry on regardless while penalising all new and legitimate sites. Not when they could prevent it.
Let's be realistic about this. This is not an antispam measure. Something as blatantly flawed as this cannot possibly be deliberate.
So, to get back on McMohan's topic, IMHO you don't come out at all and currently there is little prospect of this happening.
Let's be realistic about this. This is not an antispam measure. Something as blatantly flawed as this cannot possibly be deliberate.
I think it is unrealistic to assume that Google is "flawed" and that if this "effect" was a mistake that they wouldn't simply switch the algorithm back. If they were delivering results as bad as what you are saying then surely no-one would be using them anymore? If the results are that bad and this has been going on for almost a year then why are people still in these forums obsessed with Google? What you mean is, they aren't showing the results YOU want, they are still miles ahead of Yahoo and MSN which is why you are all obsessed about getting good rankings on them.
By the way, everything in this thread so far has been on topic, what makes you think it has deviated?
Are sites that are currently "sandboxed" able to change their on page content and get out?
They're able to do quite a few things to "get out" (or in other words, stop being ranked so low).
I think it is unrealistic to assume that Google is "flawed" and that if this "effect" was a mistake that they wouldn't simply switch the algorithm back.
I don't think you quite got my point. Sometimes mistakes or defects are not easily rectified. Perhaps they did not "switch" anything. Perhaps it's just plain and simply broke?
If indeed you do have the answer then well done! My only comment would be to wonder why you are wasting time back here gloating? If I knew for sure that I was the only one who had the answer I doubt that I would be shouting it from the roof tops. I think I would be far too busy to be wasting time with that.
So what are your motives? Unless I am missing something you don't seem to be here to offer any help.
If they were delivering results as bad as what you are saying then surely no-one would be using them anymore?
Joe Public does not know the results are bad ;)
[edit]
I forgot to add that you did not answer my question ...
"If Google had developed some new algo formula to weed out spam why would they apply it to new sites only? Clearly they would apply it to all newly found pages. It would not make sense to allow existing spammers to carry on regardless while penalising all new and legitimate sites. Not when they could prevent it."
1) We use the same techniques on sites new and old. On old sites we can get new pages with signifcant competition into the top 10 rather quickly - under a month more often than not. On new sites doing same - but often with even more links we are not in the top 1,000. This has lead us to wonder about the value of new links.
2) (Being devil's advocate here - no disrespect meant) You note that the believer's in the sandbox theory just don't like G's results. The flipside of this is that you don't believe in it, because you do like the results.
Questions:
How repicable is this process/technique?
Are you optimizing for highly competitive kws (2MM+)?
If it is that easy, why are talking to us and not counting your money? ;)
Is the technique on page or off?
Again, no disrespect at all meant so don't take anything badly - just very interested in this subject.
