Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Url Age


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
19 replies to this topic

#16 PatrickGer

PatrickGer

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 285 posts

Posted 21 September 2010 - 03:39 AM

Highly interesting, thanks Michael. I'm not 100% sure if I should believe information that comes out of Google (whether directly or through an intermediate), to be honest, but it's a very interesting perspective.

Did you ever test (or observe) a very new site get a couple of links from trusted places and get into the top10 (or close) of Google?

QUOTE
Of course, many people have devoted years to building up networks of trusted sites to help launch new sites into the trusted space that has become the highly coveted first stop on the road to Google success.


I assume you might have observed it this way?

What confuses me a bit, and makes me remain a bit skeptical is that...people such as Jim Boykin who made that post about "sorry, but I wont do SEO for your new website!" (I thikn he said he only worked with sites that were 2 years and older) said the same thing. I fidn it hard to believe that SEOs like him noticed this sandbox effect and found it so annoying simply because they got links from well-known, easy-to-get-links kind of places...i remember a post by him where he totally obsesses on where to get a link from and that getting links from the right places was better than link baiting or something along those lines.

Do I misunderstand something about what you said? I really find it extremely hard to believe that someone like him would fail to rank a new site, because he got links from the wrong, over-used places.

really confused, now!

QUOTE(Michael Martinez @ Sep 21 2010, 07:52 AM) View Post
The Google Sandbox Effect was first documented around April or May 2004. Around that time an SEO named John Scott reported that he had heard from someone who knew a Google employee (yes, this is a three-person chain of reference) that the effect really had nothing to do with sites so much as it had to do with links.

Several years later, after much really bad speculation by the SEO community about what caused the effect (which did not actually impact all sites -- just the majority of new sites that were not really notable), some information started seeping out of Google. They more-or-less confirmed that they had been evaluating links in a completely different way from what the SEO community had assumed.

So, typically, a new site would obtain some easy-to-get links in various well-known, frequently used places. Google apparently didn't care about those links. Instead it waited for what could be called "a better sort of links" from well-established, highly trusted sites. And it took more than just a handful of such links but not a great number of them to reach some (still undisclosed) threshold where a site could then start to rank competitively.

Since then, more years have passed and Google appears to have altered its link evaluation methods in yet more ways. Many people have noted that it is now easier to get new sites ranked in Google no matter how unnotable they may be, but occasionally someone still seems to suffer from the Sandbox Effect -- where a site cannot rank, not even for its own name -- simply because it doesn't have any (or perhaps enough) trusted links pointing to it.

Of course, many people have devoted years to building up networks of trusted sites to help launch new sites into the trusted space that has become the highly coveted first stop on the road to Google success.

In a way, things have become more complicated AND much simpler since all this came out. People are no longer obsessing over the Sandbox Effect -- they just know they have to get some value-passing links from somewhere. But whereas six years ago the SEO community wasn't really set up to create/obtain those links (either legitimately or illegitimaely), now most people have at least a few trustworthy resources to work with.

I should note that a very small number of SEOs had all along encountered few instances of this Sandbox Effect. These people had from the 1990s on been practicing good link development already, and their clients benefitted from that work, even though they were obtaining links for traffic and visibility rather than to manipulate Google's search results.



#17 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,120 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 21 September 2010 - 09:34 AM

QUOTE(PatrickGer @ Sep 21 2010, 01:39 AM) View Post
Highly interesting, thanks Michael. I'm not 100% sure if I should believe information that comes out of Google (whether directly or through an intermediate), to be honest, but it's a very interesting perspective.


I've never seen any reason to doubt what Google says about its algorithms. After all, since they don't disclose everything, rampant (bad) speculation by the SEO community obscures any significant impact or details anyway.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Of course, many people have devoted years to building up networks of trusted sites to help launch new sites into the trusted space that has become the highly coveted first stop on the road to Google success.


Did you ever test (or observe) a very new site get a couple of links from trusted places and get into the top10 (or close) of Google?
I assume you might have observed it this way?


Sure. But the "top 10" wasn't for a competitive query in most cases. Sites that zoomed past the link trust filter or whatever you want to call it usually received a LOT of links from a broad diversity of sites. Often they were recognized by news stories, or spread across the blogosphere very quickly. This pattern -- once it was noticed -- led to the concept of creating "link bait" (now more commonly spelled linkbait). But the difficulty in creating linkbait is that most of it doesn't work -- i.e., it doesn't really draw many links. Hence, people began gaming social media sites like DIGG, StumbleUpon, etc. for trusted links.

QUOTE
What confuses me a bit, and makes me remain a bit skeptical is that...people such as Jim Boykin who made that post about "sorry, but I wont do SEO for your new website!" (I thikn he said he only worked with sites that were 2 years and older) said the same thing. I fidn it hard to believe that SEOs like him noticed this sandbox effect and found it so annoying simply because they got links from well-known, easy-to-get-links kind of places...i remember a post by him where he totally obsesses on where to get a link from and that getting links from the right places was better than link baiting or something along those lines.


Different strokes for different folks.

I'm not going to comment on any specific people's linking practices.

#18 PatrickGer

PatrickGer

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 285 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 07:49 AM

thanks for sharing all of this (as usual)!

#19 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 6,934 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 22 September 2010 - 11:34 AM

Being a registrar does NOT give any "extra information" regarding hostnames that are NOT "tagged" to you and Google are only accredited for .biz, .com, .info, .name, .net, .org, and .pro TLDs

#20 PatrickGer

PatrickGer

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 285 posts

Posted 22 September 2010 - 09:53 PM

QUOTE(chrishirst @ Sep 22 2010, 06:34 PM) View Post
Being a registrar does NOT give any "extra information" regarding hostnames that are NOT "tagged" to you and Google are only accredited for .biz, .com, .info, .name, .net, .org, and .pro TLDs


thanks chris..need to read up on this a bit more in the future. apparently google "being a registrar" is only half the story.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!