Google "Sandbox" Effect

Nice aricle here concerning new sites not getting ranked.

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?p=99370



Tim

"Tim Arnold" <vgo_2000 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Nice aricle here concerning new sites not getting ranked.

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?p=99370



Tim

Very interesting. One of my sites has been nowhere even for non competitive
serps like "video editing jargon" since I launched it in March. When I add
the 7 exclusion terms it ranks #1. Any ideas what the release time frame
actually is for sandboxed sites?

Regards


--
Andrew Gibson

JELLYPIE SOFTWARE
Digital Video Editing Software, FAQ's, Resources and Filming Tips.
http://www.jellypie.co.uk

"Tim Arnold" <vgo_2000 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Nice aricle here concerning new sites not getting ranked.

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?p=99370

Tim

My impression is that Google gives new good quality pages a chance by
putting them higher up for a few months or so to see if they are any good
for human readers, rather as a librarian might put new books on a stand near
the library entrance. If no one likes them then they are relegated to where
they belong. You need quality content that people find interesting and
which answers their needs. Don't expect much with spam sites, junk mail
type advertisement sites, link farms, indexes or any site that has pages
with outgoing links to a link farms or bad neighbourhoods.

Regards, Eric.

My impression is that Google gives new good quality pages a chance by
putting them higher up for a few months or so to see if they are any good
for human readers, rather as a librarian might put new books on a stand
near
the library entrance. If no one likes them then they are relegated to
where
they belong. You need quality content that people find interesting and
which answers their needs. Don't expect much with spam sites, junk mail
type advertisement sites, link farms, indexes or any site that has pages
with outgoing links to a link farms or bad neighbourhoods.

Regards, Eric.

I think Google might "sandbox" new sites if it find lots of links to them
when the new site is first spidered. I went to a lot of effort to get
several quality links before my site was spidered. If Google is "sandboxing"
sites on this basis, it would prevent people with lots of sites from
manipulating the serps.

I launched another site at more or less the same time as my "sandboxed"
site. I haven't promoted this one (beyond 1 link from one of my other sites)
and it's in the serps without any problems.

I think the "sandbox" theory makes a lot of sense. The trouble is, if it's
just an arbitrary 3 month ban, then it'll lose it's effectiveness when it
becomes common knowledge.

Regards

--
Andrew Gibson

JELLYPIE SOFTWARE
Digital Video Editing Software, FAQ's, Resources and Filming Tips.
http://www.jellypie.co.uk

Eric Johnston wrote:

My impression is that Google gives new good quality pages a chance by
putting them higher up for a few months or so to see if they are any good
for human readers, rather as a librarian might put new books on a stand near
the library entrance. If no one likes them then they are relegated to where
they belong. You need quality content that people find interesting and
which answers their needs.

How would Google know whether people find the site interesting or not?

Don't expect much with spam sites, junk mail

type advertisement sites, link farms, indexes or any site that has pages
with outgoing links to a link farms or bad neighbourhoods.

Regards, Eric.

I have a site that fits the sandbox theory. First it could do no wrong -
getting results for the single most important phrase of a two word
phrase then slipped into obscurity (I assumed it was a freshbot listing
and would eventually come back up but hasn't as yet).

I, like Andrew linked it with quality links before it was spidered too.

I launched it around the 9th of Feb so it should if theory's correct
bounce back at any moment!

Jez.

--
Rustic Stone House Signs
www.rusticstone.net

Jez wrote in
<409be8e7$1_2 (AT) mk-nntp-2 (DOT) news.uk.tiscali.com>

Eric Johnston wrote:


My impression is that Google gives new good quality pages a chance by
putting them higher up for a few months or so to see if they are any
good for human readers, rather as a librarian might put new books on
a stand near the library entrance. If no one likes them then they
are relegated to where they belong. You need quality content that
people find interesting and which answers their needs.

How would Google know whether people find the site interesting or not?

That, in theory anyway, is the PR alogorithm. Whether it works or - as I
imagine is implied by your comment - whether it is possible for any
algorithm to make a realistic assessment of "interesting", is another
matter.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

My impression is that Google gives new good quality pages a chance by
putting them higher up for a few months or so to see if they are any good
for human readers, rather as a librarian might put new books on a stand near
the library entrance. If no one likes them then they are relegated to where
they belong. You need quality content that people find interesting and
which answers their needs.

You said "if no one like them"

Are you aware that google has somewhere around 10,000 computers
serving these pages?

As far as I can tell they do not have humans scanning the millions of
new pages to see which ones have good content. PCs do the work. That
is what alot of the discussion here concerns.

New pages being rank is not a matter of opinion but policy that
governs what computation Google uses to analyze the billions of pages
cached on its hard drives.

I dont mean to sound sarcastic. They could never hire enough manpower
to ever edit the results by hand.


And by the way the answer to the other question is 3 months.


Tim

And by the way the answer to the other question is 3 months.

I wish that were true, but I don't believe it.

My site has been up since May of last year.

www.rootmode.com does not show up in the top 1000 for the keywords
"multiple domain hosting" without quotes even though it is a PR5 and is
optimized for those keywords.

BUT... if I use the negative keyword trick, it shows up in the top 20.

Not in the TOP 1000:
http://www.google.com/search?q=multi...n&lr=&ie=UTF-8
&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&num=100

Top 20:
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
&q=multiple+domain+hosting+%2Dabc+%2Dabc+%2Dabc+%2 Dabc+%2Dabc+%2Dabc+%
2Dabc&num=100


--
Edward Alfert - http://www.rootmode.com/
Coupon Code (Recurring $5/month Discount): newsgroup
Multiple Domain Hosting * Private Label Nameservers

As of today, here is what we are seeing.

For SOME sites only (less than 30% of the "new" sites).

Site whent to top 3 right after freshbot visit in mid January
Site dropped off the radar (out of top 100) for very specific terms, site
well optimized, around the third week of February
Site reappears today at #2 Google AND #1 Yahoo.

We have made no changes in Links, content or page numbers for this
particular site since early March.
IBL's have not changed either in Google, AllTheWeb or our own toolset.

Very pleased with teh results...and so are the clients :-)
Older sites were not affected this way at all and remained the same.

NOTE: When we see schanges to SERPS, we see changes every Sunday

NOTE2: Our SERPS competition page has not been touched since the end of the
competition and yet finds itself consistently in the top 8 every month.

--
James
http://www.AICompany.com - SEO, Web Development and Hosting
http://www.SEO-highrankings.com -FREE SEO TOOLS

www.seo-highrankings.com wrote in
<oqGdnZb0nYTx-APdRVn-sQ (AT) adelphia (DOT) com>

As of today, here is what we are seeing.

For SOME sites only (less than 30% of the "new" sites).

Site whent to top 3 right after freshbot visit in mid January
Site dropped off the radar (out of top 100) for very specific terms,
site well optimized, around the third week of February
Site reappears today at #2 Google AND #1 Yahoo.

We have made no changes in Links, content or page numbers for this
particular site since early March.
IBL's have not changed either in Google, AllTheWeb or our own toolset.

Very pleased with teh results...and so are the clients :-)
Older sites were not affected this way at all and remained the same.

<aol>Me too!</aol>

Your experience matches ours with several sites. It's been a rather good day
hasn't it? I'm looking forward to making some self congratulatory phone
calls in the morning.

They'll be all the sweeter for the fact that even my, "Don't worry, these
things take time, it'll get there - we're dependent on Google, the site's
fine," was beginning to sound a little strained.

Whew! Never doubted it, honest


--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.