12 replies to this topic

[tcustomgolf]

I did a rewrite of my site taking advantage of CSS in December of 2004 and since have seen my MSN and Yahoo rankings increase from the upper 100's into the low teens and even single digits....and are still there! Yeah!

My Google rankings which were over 700 started coming down and eventually made it to about 100...best ever. Then started going back up and now have disappeared and have not ranked for over a month.

In discussing the aging delay in the pinned topic above, you keep mentioning it applies to new sites, but is my site considered new? I kept the same URL...but did change the front page. Any other thoughts as to why??

Thanks....

[Jill]

As far as most people have seen it's only for new domains.

[Scottie]

It has nothing to do with the code, the words, or the images on the page. It's only affecting new domains. I would say you have other issues- waiting won't fix them.

[tcustomgolf]

Thanks....just not sure what since Yahoo and MSN are doing well. Almost afraid to touch anything!

I have been started to add more reciprocal links, and updating the home page every week describing new products, etc. so will have to wait and see.

[nuttakorn]

How can we check that the site is in sandbox, google delay or filter? My site is almost about 2-3 years age. But there is a few links in Google. There are ranked very excellent in both Yahoo and MSN. That causes might come from the link right? Google is almost focus and interested in link value.

[Randy]

Right nuttakorn. The very general prescription for a site that ranks well in MSN and Yahoo, but not in Google, is to perform some strategic link building. Meaning links from authority sites that are relevant to yours, and include anchor text that fits the phrases/market you're targeting.

As long as the site has some age on it you should see some positive results from that. If it's a newer site you're still not out anything, because it'll be something you will benefit from as soon as the site gets released.

Either way you can't go wrong with a well thought out linking campaign. It'll help with Google, and all of the rest too!

[Michael Martinez]

The gut feeling among many people in SEO is that a six-month wait is typical, but sites only seem to come out at that point if they have a good selection of natural links. I find that 20-30 usually suffices in non-competitive categories (the vast majority are NOT competitive).

The more competitive your targeted search terms, the more links you need.

People don't really agree on what constitutes "competitiveness". If you get millions of results for your search phrase, most people would probably agree it's competitive. If you get only hundreds or thousands (not tens of thousands or more), most people would probably agree it's not competitive.

The "sandbox effect" appropriately describes the seeming inexplicable ability of a relatively new, good-content site with natural inbound linkage to appear in Google's results. Many people question whether the same factors have been responsible for the blackout. It is reasonable to argue that many factors may be involved, and that some degree of coincidence is at work.

But the widespread frustration expressed by people whose sites fail to appear (or at least to stay around) in Google's results does seem to validate the naming of the effect, if not any of the theories for explaining it.

I think people have put too much credibility into the recent patent application where some Google people described possible uses for tracking a document's history. This patent came out after I and other people had proposed age- or time-related factors which might explain some or all of the effect.

But the seeming validation of those hypotheses isn't as solid as some people feel. We still have no direct proof that Google has implemented any of that stuff, much less that it was implemented more than a year ago, when sandbox effects were first noticed.

NOTE: The age-factor is not to be equated with the time-factor. My TimeRank hypothesis proposes that the time-penalty can be increased, decreased, and reinstated or removed on the basis of random factors. The AgeRank hypothesis holds that after a site passes a certain chronological threshold, it should be okay, provided it doesn't cross any boundaries.

[storyspinner]

The gut feeling among many people in SEO is that a six-month wait is typical, but sites only seem to come out at that point if they have a good selection of natural links.  I find that 20-30 usually suffices in non-competitive categories (the vast majority are NOT competitive).

I'm not so sure you can say there's a magic way to get out of the "sandbox", especially since Google itself still denies its existance when you ask them. Saying that having a good selection of natural links ... and quoting a number, IMHO is really misleading.

The sites I've designed and optimized that have taken anyway from 2 weeks to 6 months to start to rank never had 20-30 links (inbound or outbound) when they got ranked, so I guess that's why I have an issue with this statement. I've actually had blogs for clients rank within 2-4 weeks in Google and they had under 10 links going out and not a lot coming in at the beginning.

I really think it more has to do with the bots/algos figuring out its a legitimate site. Is the content relevant, is it fresh, is it updated, ... and now... who is linking to it (is it a legit source as opposed to a link farm)... and that you aren't trying to trick them with shady practices.

Of course this is all speculation ..... if Google, Yahoo, MSN, or Jeeves gave away their secrets, EVERYONE would be an SEO professional!

[Michael Martinez]

Michael:
The gut feeling among many people in SEO is that a six-month wait is typical, but sites only seem to come out at that point if they have a good selection of natural links.  I find that 20-30 usually suffices in non-competitive categories (the vast majority are NOT competitive).

storyspinner:
I'm not so sure you can say there's a magic way to get out of the "sandbox", especially since Google itself still denies its existance when you ask them. Saying that having a good selection of natural links ... and quoting a number, IMHO is really misleading.

Suggesting that I claim a "magic way to get out of the sandbox" is misleading. Saying that I find 20-30 links usually suffices is both accurate and truthful because THAT IS WHAT I FIND TO BE THE CASE.

I have examined several hundred Web sites over the past year whose operators claimed they were not in the index. Those sites which were in the index had between 10 and 30 inbound links. Most of them had fewer than 20 links, but they were IN THE INDEX.

A lot of people seem to have the mistaken idea that if they get into Google, they should be ranking well for whatever keywords they think they should rank well for. Of course, it doesn't work that way. But just getting into the index is different from not getting into the index.

The sites I've designed and optimized that have taken anyway from 2 weeks to 6 months to start to rank never had 20-30 links (inbound or outbound) when they got ranked, so I guess that's why I have an issue with this statement....

You didn't actually stop link-building at 10-20, though, did you? So you have no basis for establishing what the threshold may be, based on your own experience.

My personal domain came out of the sandbox with fewer than 10 unique inbound links. Nearly all of them came from other Web sites. I was linking to it on multiple pages on one of my domains, but if I had 40 links altogether by November, I would be surprised. Even today, most of the pages on my other domains do not link to that site. But other sites are starting to.

Now, many of the so-called sandbox sites are commercial sites, and they are targeting keywords that have been optimized by their competitors. Optimization today, unfortunately, includes an extensive reliance upon link-building. Although I often out-perform link popular sites in search results, many people are quick to point out that I probably can produce high-quality links to help boost my new content.

So, assuming all other factors are equal, if the other guy has 100 inbound links and you only have 10 inbound links, mostly from small directories and advertising sites, odds are pretty good you won't outrank him.

SOME people say that their poor performance in Google's results means they are "in the sandbox". I am one of the people who doesn't agree with that assessment, but it is by no means a universally accepted point of view (either way).

...I've actually had blogs for clients rank within 2-4 weeks in Google and they had under 10 links going out and not a lot coming in at the beginning.

If they were on unique domains, then I would say that supports my point of view. However, if they were part of larger domains (blog-hosting sites), I would discount them.

The sandbox effect is generally applied to domains. I, at least, have not had any problem getting new content I add to existing, currently indexed domains, to rank well. I don't know of anyone else (off the top of my head) who has complained about that kind of problem (except where it turned out to be due to easily correctible on-page factors).

I really think it more has to do with the bots/algos figuring out its a legitimate site. Is the content relevant, is it fresh, is it updated, ... and now... who is linking to it (is it a legit source as opposed to a link farm)... and that you aren't trying to trick them with shady practices.

Well, shady practices are still working very nicely for some people. Whatever led to the evolution of what we call the sandbox effect, I think the majority of people agree there is more than one factor involved.

[storyspinner]

Michael...
It just seemed that you were stated a fact of 20-30 links.... that was my concern. Apologies if I mistook what your wrote in the wrong manner.

You didn't actually stop link-building at 10-20, though, did you? So you have no basis for establishing what the threshold may be, based on your own experience.

No I did not stop building out the links, however I do know the point of which the amount of links I have had on the sites and the point where they started to appear in Google (thus establishing a type of threshold) and then start to rise consistently. And that is where I'm basing my experience from.

It is the assumption that more competitive sites stay in the "sandbox" longer, with that I agree.

on the blogs:

If they were on unique domains, then I would say that supports my point of view. However, if they were part of larger domains (blog-hosting sites), I would discount them.

My experience has been mixed. Some of my clients wanted to experiment with the blogs first before implementing them fully as a part of their marketing efforts (thus using blogspot/tyepad/livejournal). Some started off including it into their homepage area and some as a separate page or site all together. The results between them all were quite similar, and just meerly from my own experience I've chalked that up to a combination of factors: inbound linking, fresh & updated content, and relevant/LSI type content (related to optimized content).

I tend not to place all my focus on the "Google Sandbox" ... although Google is the "big boy" on the block ... there are technically 3 other major search engines to work towards rankings in too .. Yahoo, MSN, and Jeeves.

I'm just trying to point out that I don't think there's one "magic" solution ... overall .... and that everyone here has had a lot of different experiences with all different types of sites and implementations.

[Michael Martinez]

Michael...
It just seemed that you were stated a fact of 20-30 links.... that was my concern.  Apologies if I mistook what your wrote in the wrong manner.

Thanks. I might have been a little over-sensitive there. I apologize in return.

No I did not stop building out the links, however I do know the point of which the amount of links I have had on the sites and the point where they started to appear in Google (thus establishing a type of threshold) and then start to rise consistently.  And that is where I'm basing my experience from.

That does provide a useful metric, but you're looking at a lag-time scenario. Lag-time measurements allow you to estimate how long it will take for links to get into Google and start having an effect. That's good for people working with clients because, if the SEOs keep up with lag-time rates, they don't look lost when asked, "How long does it take?"

And overbuilding links doesn't hurt initially because it helps stabilize your link base. After all, there is no guarantee that any site will still be running tomorrow. Having a little extra padding helps, and you can keep your momentum going.

But the lag-time issue clouds other important details that SEOs need to be aware of. If you are optimizing for several sites at one time, you have to manage your workload. Knowing that 20 inbound links should get a site indexed and ranked well for non-competitive phrases, you can reallocate resources and come back to do some adjustments after the listings kick in.

It is the assumption that more competitive sites stay in the "sandbox" longer, with that I agree.

Well, a lot of people (including me) are speculating about what gets a site into and out of the sandbox. I know from what I have seen that most sites get into the index with fewer than 20 links. After that point, it becomes a matter of perceptions and priorities.

on the blogs:
My experience has been mixed.  Some of my clients wanted to experiment with the blogs first before implementing them fully as a part of their marketing efforts (thus using blogspot/tyepad/livejournal).  Some started off including it into their homepage area and some as a separate page or site all together.  The results between them all were quite similar, and just meerly from my own experience I've chalked that up to a combination of factors: inbound linking, fresh & updated content, and relevant/LSI type content (related to optimized content).

I tend not to place all my focus on the "Google Sandbox" ... although Google is the "big boy" on the block ... there are technically 3 other major search engines to work towards rankings in too .. Yahoo, MSN, and Jeeves. 

I'm just trying to point out that I don't think there's one "magic" solution ... overall .... and that everyone here has had a lot of different experiences with all different types of sites and implementations. 

Indeed. In fact, I know of some people who claim they are getting great results from MSN and Yahoo!. While I have excellent rankings with both services, I get far more traffic from Yahoo! than I do from MSN. So, apparently, my target audience doesn't like MSN (or, more likely in my opinion, they don't like Microsoft).

[Nathan Malone]

I recently redesigned a site with a domain name that has been registered for years and the rankings in Google went down immediately, although it still has decent rankings in Yahoo and MSN.

Note: The site has not been banned from Google (checked it with the site:site.com query) but the rankings have been almost nonexistant.

I'll try to remember to drop by and give an update when the rankings go back up.

BTW, one more interesting note on this domain name is that in the recent Pagerank update, the home page got a pagerank of 1 while ALL of the other pages got a pagerank of 3.

[Jill]

Nathan, did the content remain the same, or was it substantially changed?