285 replies to this topic

[projectphp]

So what do we do ghergich? 5 pages later, and you still believe this strongly. OK, cool. So what do we do??

Do we all write to Google, contact the FTC... what?

You see, IMHO, the purpose of learning is to progress. This and the Google full debate are two examples in which said learnings teach us nothing that helps us make more money, make better sites or drive better converting traffic. If your conclusion is "Google is evil and this is wrong", we are left nowhere but complaintville. I personally get depressed when stuck in that town, and that is why I make a conscious effort to avoid complaining, and look for ways to get better.

If you can offer me a way to change teh phenomenon you observe, and to do something useful and practical, I am all ears. If not, this is an issue that, as i can't change it, I will just have to have the strength to endure.

i can see knowone here but mcerian cares about the sandbox issure and new sites not being indexed. I guess I will go search for the why at a forum that actually cares why things are happening instead of being

In that case, can I recommend SEOChat? A great forum, and this sort of issue gets a lot of attention over there. http://www.google.co...box&btnG=Search is an example of all the threads that have run over there on this topic. Happy reading

[Hyperformance]

Hello ghergich -

I have been reading this post for 2 days. If you look back over the entire thread - you should agree that it has become extremely redundant. I saw many professionals giving advice/suggestions/ and comments which were not being acknowledged - and then being again repeated by others.

My comment is inciteful as you say - as your argument has little "beef" to it. Speculation is part of the industry, but the fact remains...

Is there anything ghergich can do about it? ...whatever the reason/explanation truly is?

It did not appear to be educational to you at all... It appeared (opinion) that you needed someone to disagree with - or someone to jump on your belief wagon and it just did not happen (here).

It was very difficult for me to 'add' any more commentary to a thread that was already abundantly full of professional opinion and fact. I can appreciate your seeing it differently... for you are 'in' the forest my friend, and I am outside looking in.

I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else - this was not my intent. I had the same right to make a point as you did - and I used it.

Good Luck with your website,
- Scott

[ghergich]

BrianR sooooooo like I have been saying...lets research and figure out the why and the how, it will be to our benifit. Maybe some of our more experienced users could come up with a testing ground to submit sites and see why they are ranked or filtered....is this not the kind of thing worth doing?

[Jill]

My feeling is (and perhaps I already mentioned this some pages back, but forgot), that very, very, very few "normal" sites would be put up one day, and within a month have 1000+ links.

That just doesn't happen in the real world.

So, if Google is suspicious of sites that do this, who can blame them? I don't know why you see this as a bad thing. It's a GREAT thing.

It means that the truly good sites might start having a chance again one day. The sites that work hard and spend months/years to put together something really great. The sites that real people actually link to because they just like them! What a concept!

Can you blame Google or any engine for wanting this?

[ghergich]

Show me the person here that has proben that google is not sandboxing...is that even debateable...open your eyes read....its everywhere. It is happening and to my knowledge the EXPERTS have said so themselves...but what I dont understand is that they dont care....thats what gets me. We should care and figure out why so we dont have to speculate...that all I am say...that i think google is doing it on purpost to make money...but that part does not matter I cant prove that....I just think that...what is proven by tons of other post and users is that Google is Sandboxing, I m not going to wast time proving to you what is easily out there for you to read....all I want is some research and Its not helpful to make comments that dont offer any facts or theories of your own...you can discredit an idea withouth ideas of your own...tell me Im wrong..but you should at least come with examples. Again please show me where someone has said that google is not sandboxing.

[ghergich]

Php im practicly on my knees begging help with research...your right who cares what why I think Google is doing it....lets research why and how not to fall into it...this is worth money to us and for those of you with clients...is it not.

[projectphp]

Php im practicly on my knees begging help with research

Research why?? So we discover that this is true, what can you do about it? All I can think of is that you have to factor in three months of no free traffic into a business plan at the start. But really, any business pl;an that relies upon free traffic, or as I prefer to think of it, charity, is survivingon borrowed time to start with.

this is worth money to us and for those of you with clients...is it not.

No it is not. Sorry, but it really means nothing. A business that is successful is more than a set of great rankings that come and go. It is more than three months of exrtra traffic. If you have a business plan and model that is so tight three months at the start will shut you down, man, you are living dangerously.

Look, the solution to this is simple: soft launch three-4 months before you actually launch. Get a few links in so Google finds you, and put up a "coming soon, XYZ corp will be providing {LIST A FEW PRODUCTS AND SERVICES HERE}. To receive email notification of exclusive launch day offers, enter your email address below".

How hard is that, and why does it require research and discussion? Note sandboxing as a factor in the threats column of your SWOT, and move along.

Businesses should be built upon repeatable phenomenon. Unfortunately, SEO is not in this category, and no ammount of research into the "sandbox" has much business value IMHO.

[ghergich]

thanks Php you have made the case for me to go to a forum with this discussion that cares about ALL ASPECTS of seo....apparently at least you do not...if you do not even want to research it...I mean that speaks for itself. Its math...you can figure it out...unless of course you decide you dont want to....You keep telling your clients it takes at least 3 months to rank....but if eveyone else figures out how to do it sooner you will loose clients...why...because you didnt take the time to research something...can you even hear yourslef. "why so you can prove that its true" IF its true then I bet there is a way around it or steps we could prove that if you follow you wont get sandboxed....if you knew this info its worth money because it helps your clients...why settle for being sandboxed when you have no done the research to see why or how to avoid it...this is terrible seo, if you think your client cant be ranked for 3 months because of a possible sanbox then you should research the hell out of it and figure out how to not sandbox them or avoid it. If you cant see that it just poor judgement on your part and I hope your accept this.

"hey you may be sandboxed for 3 to 6 months posssibly longer" "oh whys that" "Not sure I never took the time to research it" Just trust me on it...lol...good luck with that..thats just what I want to hear from my SEO. You keep giving the worst advice I have heard from a mod at the forum.

[mcanerin]

Just to muddy up the waters a bunch, Teoma does do the kind of processing and analysis that many are suggesting, and honestly they have a better search engine, except for one thing - it's not big enough.

The reason it's not big enough is because the horsepower needed to do the in depth analysis necessary is huge, and both sides admit it's prohibitive. Google is very proud (read their patents - it's considered a major aspect of PR) of pre-processing websites, thus allowing them to have a larger database and faster reponse time.

Teoma processes things on the fly based on the search, and therefore has a much better result, BUT since it is drawing from a smaller pool it's not as well known, and many times you can't find a specific site. Also, since the information is not preprocessed, the kind of traffic that Google has would crush Teoma right now.

Not to say Teoma is perfect by any means, but the documents that the major SE's have put out differentiating themselves from each other seem to indicate that you can have a search engine that is:

1. fast
2. accurate
3. large

pick any two....

The irony is that it seems that having a huge index is more important than accurate results, since you end up with more sites to choose from, and can fake accuracy anyway because of it. Personally, I would have gone the Teoma route and stuck with quality over quantity, but I guess that's why I'm not a billionaire...

Ian

PS - Teoma is currently a bit broken too, so don't take this as full hearted support, but generally their accuracy is way better than Google.

[Jill]

ghergich, the main point you seem to be missing here, and why we are all yawning about the sandbox is that none of us are looking for any quick fixes.

We're all in it for the long haul, and we've learned 5+ years ago that happens in SEO and figuring out the reasons for something that we can't control won't help us.

We've already learned many, many years ago how to get high rankings that will last and last and last. We don't need to study this sandbox that has no bearing on our long-term success.

It's not an issue unless you're looking for quick fixes.

Go to SEO Chat and have fun researching that which you can't do anything about...

[Kackle]

I think everyone is overlooking something. Google, in the first six months of 2004, generated 98 percent of its revenue from ads. No, I'm not hallucinating, I merely read the August 18 prospectus.

Over the next five months, Google employees who are vested will be able to sell their stock.

We're talking about billions of dollars here.

Can anyone claim that Google's first priority is the main index and not ads? If anyone claims this, then I'd have to say that this is the first time in the history of the known universe that billions of dollars didn't mean that much.

Get real, folks. If Google thought they could keep their stock price high by deleting the main index entirely tomorrow, they would have done it yesterday. Even if Larry and Sergey are pure (which I don't believe for a second), the pressure on them would crush their ideals.

Google is Greed. Google is not God. Get used to it. If this is news to you, then I blame everyone who has not spoken out against Google over the last four years, starting with the stupid mass media, and continuing with the SEOs who aren't stupid but were making money by keeping quiet.

[Jill]

Don't think anyone's disagreed with that, Kackle.

Their main priority is their ads. Yes, most definitely.

They'd be dumb to let their regular results flounder (like engines before them) but so far, they're doing a good job just that!

[projectphp]

.I mean that speaks for itself. Its math...you can figure it out...unless of course you decide you dont want to....You keep telling your clients it takes at least 3 months to rank....but if eveyone else figures out how to do it sooner you will loose clients

Any business that needs to rank for free in the first three months of launching a or they wont survive is not likely to have the money to afford SEO. That is the reality IMHO. Besides, launching a brand new domian is an infrequent event. The vast majority of SEO clients already have sites that have been running for many years. New sites are a very niche market, and if they are the group you are targetting in your business and marketing plans, this research may make sense.

For me, the effort simply isn't worth the expected returns. I hope this proves to be a profitable USP for you, though.

"why so you can prove that its true" IF its true then I bet there is a way around it or steps we could prove that if you follow you wont get sandboxed

What, like, say, a three month "soft launch" so the site is already in Google before the proper launch? What a radical idea. Why didn't someone think of that before

You keep giving the worst advice I have heard from a mod at the forum.

Glad to be of service.

you have made the case for me to go to a forum with this discussion that cares about ALL ASPECTS of seo

Fair enough, ghergich. Good luck to you.

I hope you enjoy SEOChat. They definately are a better fit for you, IMHO. Different forums for different folkes, I always say.

You never know, I may run into you from time to time over there when I infrequently visit. Hopefully, on such occassions, my posts wont disappoint you so much.

I look forward with bated breath to hearing the results of both your research into sandboxing and the success you have in selling this speciality to clients.

[OldWelshGuy]

and continuing with the SEOs who aren't stupid but were making money by keeping quiet.

Kackle you have weighed in again with the conspiracy theory, one which I might say, does not exist IMO.

IF there was a conspiracy of silence, then this very topic would have been deleted at the outset and not debated for the world to see.

I tell my clients 3-6 months, I do not arrange thousands of low level links, I do not buy links, I simply do the same as I have always done, I put the key phrase into my 'link search engine' and it comes up with the sites to submit to in order of importance. I then get on with submitting them. Not at a rate of thousands per month, but the normal tortoise style link building. Day by day, they climb the rankings until after a while a trickle of business comes in from the organic listings. day by day, more and more business comes in, until eventually we get what we were aiming for, and can drop our paid listings completely. the job is done. Just tweaks and maintenance/development from then on in.

I understand why so many people are up in arms, I openly admit that IMO the sandbox is real, (But I have done this before so nothing new there). The thing is that the bulk of people at HR do not go down the 'fast 'ink' route, and, as such the problem does not happen to them very often. It is not a case of conspiracy, or cover up, it is a case of apathy caused by a lack of vested interest.

If you want to run a test, how about this then. Make two sites about similar subject matter. Place them on different c class ip's, arrange bulk links to each page from the same pages and no where else, identical links for both!

Now optimise one traditionally as well as you can without going overboard. The second leave as rough as a badgers backside poor title tags, etc very little repetition of the keyword in copy. Now wait to see if one or other or both gets sandboxed. If none then add more bulk links until it trips the sand box. If both then fair to say that it is purely link volume that trips it, if only the optimised one, then you will know that the sandbox is linked not only to link volume, but to other aspects of the algo, and is applied 'after' on page factors have been evaluated.

I will not take part in the test, as I don't have the time, and really have nothing to gain from it, but that would certainly be the first test I would run.

[ghergich]

why make on with bad onpage factors...thats the part Im confused about. Why not make them both the right way and see what happens...since the sandbox is about the links not the site...I think you would want the onpage factors to be equal for the test to be pure...so let me know what you ment by that....and maybe we will set your test up.
Php thanks for the suggestion, im a member there just never post. I think i miss the (todays most active post button) Im lazy and that handy feature keeps me coming back and quickly finding what all the fuss is about that day....its good marketing on Jills part, something that SEO's should take note of, usability.