70 replies to this topic

[greatone]

Hi,

Anyone knows how to prevent a brand new website from being sandboxed?
what is the maximum link to build in order to prevent being sandbox?

[chrishirst]

you don't, the aging delay will occur whatever you do

[Jill]

Please read the aging delay thread as the "sandbox" has nothing to do with linking, despite what you may read elsewhere.

[arlen]

Just wanted to jump in and ask the HRF Gurus to clarify a little ... so we don't confuse people.

Scottie's article actually does state that ... "As far as we are concerned here, they are 2 different issues [aging delay & sandbox]. If you post and tell us your site is in the sandbox, we will ask you about your linking strategies that may have caused this."

This was written back in early February, so the definition may have changed, but I think it's more likely people just use the 2 terms interchangeably. But if we're going to refer to this article for clarification, we should be consistent with what it says. Is there a difference between the two? ... and if there is as Scottie states, then greatone is not in the sandbox, but is affected by the aging delay.

Concerning a new site "oh greatone" ... it's real, dig in and get used to it. My site stayed in oblivion for approximately 1 year and 10 days, then magically moved up to more competitive positions. It sucks, without a doubt, but unfortunately there's nothing you can do but be patient and wait till Google decides to release you from it. Most sites seem to be released sometime after 6 months, but others have to wait longer. It initially appeared they released sites in large batches, but I've not heard of many released at the time mine was.

<edit>pretty cool that aging delay automatically links to the article when you post ... maybe sandbox shoud too?</edit>

[Jill]

My personal opinion on the sandbox and the aging thingee is that it's ONLY about time.

Anything that has to do with getting links too quickly, or whatever, is strictly a business as usual spam filter.

Again, that's just my opinion.

Unfortunately, the sandbox (or maybe we should call it the spambox!) is a term bandied about for any site that simply can't get rankings in Google these days.

[chrishirst]

I agree there

there seems to be two things in place.
The domain age factor and a link age factor which seems to be proportional to the perceived competitivness of the link anchor. If one don't getcha, the other will

[Scottie]

Well, as I posted in that thread, I haven't seen any linking sandbox effects, so I don't know if it exists or not. There's a lot of talk about it, but I don't do mass linking on any scale and can't say firsthand what that would mean.

AS Jill points out, we can't really define the term in our narrow definition because everyone everywhere who can't get their site to rank well in Google claims they've been sandboxed.

[cheethebee]

does the domain age filter apply to subdomains.

[Jill]

does the domain age filter apply to subdomains.

It used to be that subdomains did not get caught in the delay. I'm not sure if that loophole has been filled or not.

Anyone know for sure?

BTW, I am a HAPPY CAMPER today as the one new site we designed and optimized starting nearly a year ago has FINALLY paid its dues and is outta the stinkin' sandbox!

[Shane]

We launched 10 to 15 brand new subdomains late last July and had them indexed almost immediately. That was after the aging delay started, right?

[arlen]

Yeah it was Shane. I didn't have any problem getting indexed, I just sat in oblivion (page 50 - 55 depending on keyphrase) for a year. I haven't personally heard of problems w/ getting indexed, just ranking well.

[Jill]

We launched 10 to 15 brand new subdomains late last July and had them indexed almost immediately

Right, indexing is definitely not a problem.

When you're hit by the aging delay, basically you won't rank for anything of any interest to you, except maybe company name, or a geographic phrase or whatever. The site I mentioned couldn't rank for exact title tag stuff even with 5 or 6 words from it.

Now that it's out, it's ranking just as one would expect. Still needs some work (links) to gain the most competive phrases, but all is going as one would expect sans sandbox.

[Shane]

Yeah, when I said "indexed" I meant "ranked," and now you're forcing me to go back down to the server room to dig up old data just to make sure

[Shane]

Whew, remembered this one correctly.

We launched the revamped site, complete with subdomains, on July 23. We saw our first new rankings for the main site on July 26. On August 10, we saw the first rankings for the subdomains -- some of them even top 5 rankings for some very competitive phrases.

[digitalplatypus]

Although we'd all like immediate results of our work, probably the best thing to do is plan for the aging delay. Instead of working on a site offline for months until you're ready to have it leap full-grown onto the Web, build it, as much as you can, one logical piece at a time. Get a self-contained portion (enough to feel complete and not under construction) of it up and get a few links in to it. Then keeping adding more and more pieces and more and more links as you go along.

The aging delay doesn't feel nearly as oppressive when your mindset is one of "I'm still building it," instead of, "How long do I have to wait!" Then as you plug away at the next piece, suddenly you have the pleasant surprise of finding that you're showing up in the rankings.