Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Sand Box Theory And Pagerank Updates
Posted 20 September 2004 - 01:21 PM
I would tend to trust information that had withstood the test of time, and I would program my search engine accordingly.
Posted 20 September 2004 - 02:04 PM
Its foolish to value multiple links from the same site. IF I have 50k page and link to your relevant site...IMO you should get one link that counts. You should be able to vote for multiple candidates, but not the same candidate more than once. This is the best way of doing it IMO. You give the power to the people, you dont have to filter because its based on popularity. In reality you would have to make it a little more complicated but google can already tell a link farm and an unrelated link so this woudl be easy for them to do.
Posted 20 September 2004 - 02:10 PM
who told you that you could not do that?
ALso please do a search on sandboxing and you will find a ton of ppl not ranking who are being filtered down the results. Also please post your links that are ranking for competitive terms that are new in the last 3 months....so far nobody has been able to do this, more than likely (save for a few instances) you cant because the G wont let you.
Edited by ghergich, 20 September 2004 - 02:18 PM.
Posted 20 September 2004 - 02:16 PM
Posted 20 September 2004 - 02:32 PM
In the meantime, we'll just work on giving the existing engines what they actually want, not what they should want!
Posted 20 September 2004 - 02:33 PM
Anyone who could actually do it, would surely not be that foolish!
Posted 20 September 2004 - 02:41 PM
Posted 20 September 2004 - 02:52 PM
I had posted a reply, but as you have decided that no-one here other than Ian cares, I really do not see the point in continuing to debate, with that in mind I deleted the post. NO-ONE least of all me denies there is a sandbox, you post here regularly so you MUST have seen me posting about it. The trouble is though that many aspects have been rolled into one.
SANDBOX. it has ben totally agreed by the worlds best link mongers that it is NOT sites that get sandboxed, it is phrases that are heavily linked in anchor text.
The fact is that in order to rank for a competitive term in Google you need lots of links. In the current Google setup, if you get enough links quickly, your link benefit is sandboxed.
So there is no way that your going to get a site that is new, that requires volume backlinks, to show for a competitive phrase.
BUT, and this is where I am wound up and lost, What is new about all this? It was agreed months ago that this was happening. Why the sudded rush of adrenalin?
Why do you say that no one cares? People only care about that which affect them the most. Not many people here go the route of the volume needed to trip the sandbox effect. We are not talking about handfulls of links, we are talking thousands. and thousands quickly at that.
Posted 20 September 2004 - 05:01 PM
Anyhow if you do some looking its not even that...ppl are being sandboxed no matter the links..I believe as you do that its the links not the site. However, I still say I does not take thousands of links. For many comeptitive terms 1k relevant links would have you rankings nicely...usually a lot lower. However, you dont rank because you are filter...you filtered so they make money....now...what we should be doing in researching sites that are new since the last update that are rankings well on competititve terms and figure out why....that would be helpful...so far I have requested and nobody but you has said they have such a domain....not sure as jill put it you would be foolish to post it....there are no hidden secrets, you must just have good links and good content...nothing to hide....but if we all have a look we could see why your ranking and others are sandboxed.
I just want to find some ppl to reasearch it and figure it out....we could do it if we all tried.
Posted 20 September 2004 - 05:13 PM
Just like mice can reproduce in 6 weeks, link monger sites were growing at an alrming rate. With each update, millions of backinks were being picked up, with new hub and authority sites being created by the savvy link spammers.
I will not name names, but there are a handfull of websmasters who control millions of pages via sprawling sites and huge directories. Had google not done something, then they ran the risk of the tail wagging the dog. They put in place some sort of link brake. This is now making it very difficult for the linkmeisters to see how their efforts are panning out. The 'link' facility was the first to go, now the PR element of measure has also gone.
IMO all of this is to prevent the abuse of links & PR. It is going to be interesting to see exactly what Google do to put things back on track, and regain the confidence of the bulk of Web Marketers who control the bulk of ad spend online.
As the ancient proverb goes "may we live in interesting times" Or was that Terry Pratchett
Posted 20 September 2004 - 05:16 PM
Posted 20 September 2004 - 05:30 PM
I for one truly enjoyed this "conspiracy theory" thread.
Unfortunately, not enough to spend any more time on it.
Whew! I think I improved 3 sites in between reading it -
The best idea here was "to build your own search engine" or better yet, send your resume' to Google and see if you can help them with all their problems.
I can't say I'll be waiting for that to happen, that would also be counter productive -
Posted 20 September 2004 - 05:42 PM
Posted 20 September 2004 - 05:49 PM
However, if google counted only unique Ip's and only one vote per site...(you can vote for multiple sites but not more than once will it be counted) this problem would not be there. Hosting companies cant sell one person 1k unique IP c classes..they would get shut down so fast. However, googles current soloution does not fix the problem just delays it...whic makes me think they dont want to fix the problem and its just all to convienent that as a byproduct of their solution their ad network benifits........does that make sense? Any how .....so why dont we look at sites that are not sandboxed and collectively figure out why...that seems like a logical think for us to do.....right?
Posted 20 September 2004 - 05:49 PM
For the moment, let's just say that you're right about the above, ghergich. Google is well within its rights to alter its business model in order to make more profit by funnelling more siteowners towards AdWords. Our options are to adapt accordingly, or quit using Google.
So we go to Yahoo and we find the ludicrous site match business model which marries paid inclusion and PPC. I've warned my clients off that; what's more, I've also said that Yahoo directory is no longer worth the money. So we either wait for them to pick up the odd page or two via their free crawl, or we quit using Yahoo.
So we go to MSN, but they are probably going to launch a brand new SE before the end of the year, so we should really wait for that before we commit.
Oh dear! - we seem to have run out of major SEs - now what do we do?? Well exactly! In sum, we either play by their rules or we don't play at all.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users