Forum Moderators: open
I have been posting in favour of the Sandbox's existence and I have 2 sites firmly stuck in the sand!
However...
2 weeks ago I registered a brand new domain and started to build a new site. I knew it would be at least 6 months before anything happened but..
This morning it entered the index for the first time - straight on page one for a one word search (a town, granted only 194,000 matches) but none the less the last 2 sites still cannot achieve similar results after 6 months.
Also preliminary early pages ranking very well
The site has only one incoming link, no adsense, banners or anything, vanilla html etc.
Built as per my last 2 sites so clearly something has changed!
Regards and hope to all
Rod
... and always entertaining :)
That’s just it though, if your first page for allinanchor, allintext, allintitle, and you are getting a fresh tag applied every 2 or three days, and yet your main key word is not in the top 1,000; your not getting ranked.
That’s just it though, if your first page for allinanchor, allintext, allintitle, and you are getting a fresh tag applied every 2 or three days, and yet your main key word is not in the top 1,000; your not getting ranked.
Yes you are, you are being ranked as outside the first thousand.
Sorry to be picky over your use of language, but you are ranked because you are deemed to be 1001 or lower in the list. All those above you rank higher. The fact that you can't see below 1000 is a separate issue.
DerekH
What exists is a barrier for new, quality sites that searchers would objectively want to see if they type in a query, with the example of typing in a famous person's name and not getting a decently optimized four month old official site in the top 100 for that name. That is simply rotten search engineering, and there is one whole stream of issues relating to that. If adding 10,000 blog links would kick that official site free of the sandbox, that is just a tactical optimazation issue that flows among a very different stream of issues.
The barrier exists. Google's results and the searching punblic are poorer for it. Tactics to beat it really have nothing to do with that.
Good point.
So OK. The sandbox has *not* been abandoned, because it *never existed.* It's not a thing apart from the previous forms that G took.
The question, "Has the Sandbox been Abandoned?" is like asking, "Has Florida been abandoned?" Well, yes, and no. The current algo is an extension of Florida and all that came after.
Also, since people have been calling it the "sandbox" it has changed a number of times. Most notably in late September...and again just recently. So what is this? Sandbox 3? 4?
This algo is just that. An algo. Anyone who wants a sandbox should go to the playground. ;-)
PS, I agree, it's a dumb algo, but that also is a topic for another thread.
What I think can cause the problem is some of the things I have seen posted recently, i.e.
I very quickly got 20,000 pages indexed
I managed to get 1,000 incoming links etc etc
I venture to suggest that Google sees these sort of things as the territory of the professional high optimmising webmaster and that they regard them as most likely to spam the serps.
Whilst there are always exceptions to the above how many people here could build a site, add 20k worthwhile original pages and naturally attract 1000+ links in a few weeks?
Google are using a large hammer to crack a small nut and catching genuine sites but they have a track record for doing this!
No, most sandboxed sites don't get huge numbers of links. They don't add lots of pages at once. They don't do anything even mildly seo-y. That is because most sandboxed sites are simply almost all new sites. You don't "do something" to get into the sandbox (aside from put up a site). You can only "do something" to avoid the sandbox.
I'd repeat what I said before that maybe a combination of factors is more likely
Yeah right, it must be worth ranking in the top 100 if its decently optimised.... 'official'? So that's it, I'll go and stick the words official on my sites. Jeeze this easy.....
>You don't "do something" to get into the sandbox (aside from put up a site). You can only "do something" to avoid the sandbox.
Your talking dribble. You either rank well or you don't. If you've got a new site, it just got harder, that's all. This myth that new sites are worth ranking highly is nonsense.
Why talk such nonsense? No one says that. In fact, saying something so ridiculous proves that you aren't understanding this topic.
"If you've got a new site, it just got harder, that's all."
Um, did you just flip sides? I personally couldn't care less about how hard it is. That is a tangent. Google is not ranking domains based on quality of content and accuracy of reply to a searchers query. The tactical issues are just trivia.
This myth that new sites are worth ranking highly is nonsense.
WHAT A LOAD.
So, you're telling me if a highly respected researcher published a paper online that revolutionized "hydrogen fuel cells", and thousands of highly respected eductional sites linked to it of their own accord, it would not be worth ranking?
The fact that some have had sites that have been around longer does not necessarily make them better per se, only older. This myth that old sites should receive a boost simply because they are old sites is nonsense. To truly be RELEVANT, a search engine MUST be able to evaluate every document about every subject area, and rank them by that relevance. Plenty on info online is vastly outdated, but merely retains it's high ranking (in google, at least) due to their (seeming) inability to come up with an algo that filters out the crap while keeping and ranking ALL legit sites.
I owe much of my living to the big G.
However I have sat back and watched this long enough.
I was a early G supporter, as I was a Alta supporter earlier on.
Spread the word for G . . . I did it, just like I promote FireFox today.
However it is deja vu, just change the names and the dates.
[websitepublisher.net...]
[pcworld.com...]
I don't care what anyone says, G has taken it's eye off the ball this time.
Will anyone care? Not sure. But when G becomes a big yawn, and loses it's coolness, what does it really have left.
G was new and chic, but peoples perspective of what chic is changes when everyone thinks something is chic.
Which is why age is a valid algo ingredient, and was in the old Google, where it took a month or so to get a decent handle on true value. But then Google went down the fool path of "fresh is good", which made no sense on any level. And then Google went down this "new is bad" path which is almost as foolish.
Sites having to prove themselves is valid, but waiting six or nine months is absurd.
