31 replies to this topic

[Scottie]

Florida=FLorida
Austin=Gladys
Brent=Jason (it started on Friday the 13th)

I think they may have stopped naming them

[Randy]

Back when the gibberish filter first came up the guess was that by using that you were putting your search into Advanced mode and thus defeating something new on the post-processing side of Google algorithm. Who knows if that's true or not, but it makes sense seeing as all the filter does is exclude pages which might contain the gibberish phrase.

I'm not sure I could ever buy that such a search would tell you much about any "sandbox" effect though. From the programming perspective I would think any sandbox effect would be imposed on the pre-processing side of things. One would think that any such new site filter would be much easier applied to Google's internal PR levels.

But who knows...

[chrishirst]

I don't see this "sandboxing" either. This site for Dj Rio a DJ in Blackpool, went live on April 7, fully spidered by April 12th, in the SERPs by the 16th. It has been crawled fully 3 times since and is currently showing a PRG (PageRank Guesstimate) of 4 on the homepage.

And just to add something to the Dynamic\SSI debate every page is built using SSI and ASP scripting and for the most part the content comes from a MySql database using my own CMS that I've been coding up for for some time now, and on it's first venture out into the real (virtual) world.


[sidenote]
I just need to do something with my site now!
[/sidenote]

[OldWelshGuy]

This gibberish thing could disable a whole lot of filters, and it makes sense due to the processing power involved, and the lack of need for a filter on an8 word search term. The search term would HAVE to be considered as way too specific in the eyes of any search engine to need to be filtered.

That is my theory any how, I think it is all about the numbers of characters in the search term, and it shutting off 'post sorting' filters rather than removing any particular filter/sandbox effect.

Not many people optimise for 6-8 word phrases, so the need to deal with them is less important.

As this theory spreads, more and more people are proving that all it does is skew the results of any and all sites, as we have seen on this thread. I have noticed that new sites come in, rank high, then go out. Has anyone thought that it is just a way of lengthening the lead time for the link farmers? makes more sense to me, seeing as link abuse is probably THE biggest factor skewing results at the moment.

Link farmers = short term intentions.
online companies = long term intentions.

Who knows , apart from Google

[bkernst]

I don't remember seeing search phrases in my logs where words were removed from the search results.
Doing a search like "site:<url>" does show in the log files.
In many cases I remove certain words from the results after getting the initial SERPs. The only problem is that I sometimes run out of space or number of words I can remove to find what I am looking for.

Bernhard

[Steve Sardell]

I have noticed that new sites come in, rank high, then go out. Has anyone thought that it is just a way of lengthening the lead time for the link farmers? makes more sense to me, seeing as link abuse is probably THE biggest factor skewing results at the moment.

Hi OWG,
From what I have read re the *sandbox* hypothesis the prevailing thought is exactly what you imply, a way to for G to determine the relevancy and purpose of the links before inclusion. In my observance G has always done this to some degree. When a site is first launched they would give it a little pop in the SERPs and then it would disappear, only to reappear later. Now some are saying the waiting period has been extended. Who knows for sure, certainly not me? I just keep taking baby steps, inching along, trying to filter the good info from the bad.

[ghergich]

I have a new website up for about 2 1/2 months or so......We have pr now but are no place to be found in google serps...When I apply the filter we are number two for a fairly competitive term 2.8 million results.

[ghergich]

I ment jibberish not filter...

[Webmaster T]

I've not heard of this new "sandbox" hypothesis, but, have seen a few posts, pre-sandbox hypothesis, over the last year along the lines of we got into Google, we placed very well for a short period and have now disappeared.

As far as the jibberish filters go, all of them, IMO, including the Florida SEO filter are conjecture with no real proof they are what people say they are. They could be a guess that has been substanciated with facts, however, facts can be made to support any hypothesis if you're willing to look long enough for the right queries to supply the results needed to substanciate the hypothesis and ignore those that are anomalies to the hypothesis. There are IMO, always anomalies, if they aren't mentioned then... I'm skeptical about accepting them as anything but an educated guess.

[Jill]

Wow...methinks some people have waaaaaaaay to much time on their hands to be pondering sandboxes and jibberish filters...

Why do we care?

Jill

[ephricon]

Well if these jibberish filters are any indication of any possible future results than that's quite valuable info to know. If not, than its just terms no one is ever going to search and thus of little value.

[amabaie]

Well if these jibberish filters are any indication of any possible future results than that's quite valuable info to know.

If my suspicion is correct, that the gibberish filters show how well a site would rank without some/all aspects of inbound links, that tells me that the new site I launched has awesome on-page optimization and I should not touch anything on-page. Comparing the very high ranks with the giberrish to the somewhere off-the edge of the world ranking of the normal search ranking, it tells me I have a lot of link-gathering to do to catch up off-page with what I have done on-page.

Edited by amabaie, 13 May 2004 - 01:29 PM.

[darciusrex]

I guess I'm with Jill on this one. It sounds like just something else to make me lose focus and get all paranoid about.

[ephricon]

If my suspicion is correct, that the gibberish filters show how well a site would rank without some/all aspects of inbound links, that tells me that the new site I launched has awesome on-page optimization and I should not touch anything on-page. Comparing the very high ranks with the giberrish to the somewhere off-the edge of the world ranking of the normal search ranking, it tells me I have a lot of link-gathering to do to catch up off-page with what I have done on-page.

Okay I don't think I understood your point here earlier (I skim ). This too is still quite valuable information. Of course the contribution of the links is still quite significant. Indeed in my case too I'm #1 for many terms with the filter, implying my on page optimization is solid, but in some cases I'm not #1 for some terms or even drop down towards the 10 spot. This would then conclude that links are likely the difference - which is sort of something I've suspected before in looking at the competition and seeing their on-page SEO is adequaate at best, but they've got many inbound links...

[magellan]

Jill, I am sure that people do care if their sites or their clients sites are not showing up in the SERPs like people expect.

We are just trying to come up with logical theories. That is all