Google Danced at last

[temi]

Paul,
The sandbox effect is real and I have seen it in action on about tree sites I have been working on. Basically new links pointing to a site are not credited for about 3 months. If the links are still in place after 3 months or so Google then credit the site the link is pointing to.

This is Google's attempt to curb temporary links but up for about 6 weeks to boost a sites ranking. However I think its rather more complex than my simplistic explanation, I think some sites seem to be exempted I don't know why. Some SEO guru claims it does not exist others say it does. I seem to want to agree with those that say it does because I have seem it at play on about 3 of my sites whist some of my site does not seem to feel sandbox effect but I don't know how Google determines the site to apply it to and the one to exempt.
Temi

 

[smeagain]

Google would never state or confirm something like the "Sandbox" however many SEO experts, that I hold in high regard, have proven by controlled experimentation that such a phenomenon exists.

There are many factors that contribute to the Sandbox effect and it's severity, the pattern of inbound link growth definitely being one.

There are ways to introduce a new site to the net that can reduce the Sandbox effect compared to the all too tempting enthusiastic approach adopted by many.

If you stop to analyse Googles reasons for introducing the Sandbox, you can work out the factors that play a part in the degree of Sandboxing.

 

[temi]

smeagain,
Please give us the low down on how to launch a new site without incurring sandbox effect, an article I read claimed that if the site the links are coming from are very high PR site that can trigger sandbox effect, is that true?

Thanks
Temi

 

[smeagain]

There will always be a Sandbox effect to some degree for a new site.
The only influence that you have is the depth of the sand and the rate of climb on the way up.

It is not a simplistic procedure, there are many variables making a step by step guide to "Launch a New Site" probably harmful without a high degree of "Knowledgeable Analysis"

There is also the danger of confusing Sandbox with deserved bad SERPs.

 

[temi]

I see, but would one of the things to avoinb be:
too many links from a single website
liks from very high PR site ?

Thanks

 

[smeagain]

Google introduced the Sandbox to prevent heavily spammed sites bouncing back with new content on a new URL immediately after being Expelled from Gs index. In the past these sites emerged into the index within a short time depending on spider/indexing schedules. This meant there was little or no deterrent for "Spam Masters" to toe the line if they were back earning revenue so quickly. Now with the Sandbox, they lose revenue for long enough to think twice about stealing that extra inch.

Knowing WHY makes compliance into an UNDERSTANDABLE science, but be careful.

I would publish the site up to about 50% of the pages depending on the number of pages.

DO NOT submit to Google , let the bot find the site.

During the first week or so, I would get about 6 to 8 (certainly less than 10) links PR3 to PR5 at about one a day (but not too regular). These links must be from ORDINARY sites that share the same THEME as the new site. They must also be only moderately optimised. Also look at the other sites that that they link to making sure you don't join a bad neighbourhood.

During the next 2 weeks or so (again depending on size) publish the remaining pages and at a reasonable rate, introduce more links.

DO NOT get a perfect set of incoming link text all exactly character faithful to your "Search Phrases".

What we are simulating is the natural growth and propagation of a new site as innocent as possible while managing this growth and propagation to achieve Google SERPs in a reasonable time.

 

[Paul_KY]

I'm so confused

If this is so, how can I make a page/site one day, link it from a low/high PR page, then start seeing 5-10 hits per day within a week?

I see the so called, "SEO guru's" post over at WBW/SEForums, posting about this, "sandbox" theory all of the time. They really love trying to make themselves look,"smart", when their theory/s are groundless, or based on so-called, "Controlled Experiments". Yeah, right. :roll: Then, the other 99.99% of the board, "followers" take their posts as, "Fact", and then start following accordingly. Myself, I like to ask, "Why?" prior to joining the herd, jumping off the bridge.

To analyze the analysist’s complex analysis :eyepop: , makes this, "sandbox" theory seem so, "in the know", but I believe it's simply common sense. And you don't need a, "SEO guru" to know the following:

#1 Naturally, a search engine wants to deliver the most relevant and popular websites atop its listings.

#2 The search engines have a formula, for which they determine what site ranks where.

#3 Since the human mind can out smart any, "Software", we can use this to our advantage, and manipulate our way to the first page. :up2:

#4 Sometimes sites are listed high and have absolutely nothing to do with the search phrase. And they made their way to the top by manipulating the search engine (Hidden text, cloaking, etc.). :nono:

#5 This is not good for a search engine, as it drives away searchers (High Alta Vista :wave: )

#6 Folks who run/own these search engines, although some aren't the brightest bulbs around, are human beings, and understand sites, which are most popular and relevant, have been around a while. :brow:

#7 Search engines, such as Google, realize the majority of the, "Manipulated/SEO"'s sites are fairly new (JMHO).

#8 The folks running the search engines may feel the need to scratch one's head and think, WOW! How did this site, which is 2 months old, receive 5 million back links? Yes, I realize a media/celeb site may achieve this in a day or two, but a, "Shopping Mall", or a, "Web Host", or a new, "WYSIWYG" type site? Hmmm... :dev2:

#9 Now, since we're dealing with millions of sites here, no human can check out each new site and investigate all 15 trillion of its recently added back links. Alas, a change in the search engine software/ALGO.

#10 Now, since the search engines are making MAJOR changes in their ALGO, we're seeing the, "Professional" SEO companies going out of business (Quick check at WMW or SEforums will show you that). While the folks sticking to the, "Basics" are prospering :mrgreen:

I'm not sure of the publication, but I recall a Google rep stating something to the effect of, "Flying under the radar".

Ahhhh...so perhaps one could design their site, obtain 2 or 3 relevant links from sites, which are constantly updating and highly ranked in the SERPS (Forget PR IMHO), then spend the rest of your time adding new pages to the site based on relevant keywords, misspellings of keywords, etc., etc., etc. Then start it all over again with a new site. :idea2: :idea2: :idea2:

Oh, and make sure you block at least 2 hours a day to you read/post on msg boards lol, because that's fun. And everyone needs to have a little fun in his or her day, right? arty:

This is all JMHO, based on what works for me. I hope you can read between the lines :wink:

I hope it helps.

Paul opcorn:

 

[smeagain]

Did that help anybody ?????????????????

 

[Paul_KY]

:banana: :banana: :banana:

Think outside the box...

:toast:

 

[Paul_KY]

:shock:

 

[Duke]

I actually feel dumber after reading this thread. I've added links to my site that have PR ratings from 2 to 6, mine was a 0 at the time. I've added the links at an alarming rate of 2-4 per week over the past month. My sites been around for just over 3 months now.

This means I'm not a spammer and am likely putting too little effort into attaining a better PR right?

Also, nothing should look fishy to the Search Engines right?

Many of my links are to sites with similar content or a similar subject that is in my forums, good right?

Does it hurt me if I'm linking to a lot of directory services?

Sorry, all likely dumb questions. I'll just put on my newbie hat so you all recognize me.

 

[Eric]

two sites went from 0/10 to 4/10 :armada11:

the weird thing is....

One site has NO meta tags, NO descriptions and I havent even titled the pages.

It went from 0/10 to 4/10.

check it out!

http://www.traveljive.com

So is content really king?

 

[Eric]

ok ok so the index page has descriptions and keywords, but thats it!

(forgot I added that a few months ago)

 

[smeagain]

backpackearth, you said:
"One site has NO meta tags, NO descriptions and I havent even titled the pages."

None of these will influence your PR because Google calculates PR from information about INBOUND LINKS ONLY.

 

[smeagain]

Duke
Is this your "http://www.lifesupporters.com" site or another one.
If it is this site, I can give you some PDG pointers.
Also what is your Geographic target Zones in order of preference.
Plus what are your 5 primary search term targets in order of importance.

You can post info or send by PM if you prefer.

 

[Paul_KY]

"two sites went from 0/10 to 4/10

the weird thing is....

One site has NO meta tags, NO descriptions and I havent even titled the pages.

It went from 0/10 to 4/10."


Eric,

Has this increased Google traffic to your site by a significant amount, in relation to your link obtaining efforts? :armada25:

"So is content really king?"

HAHAHAH I love it!

"Content" sites... :blue: :blue: :blue:

 

[Paul_KY]

"This means I'm not a spammer and am likely putting too little effort into attaining a better PR right?

Also, nothing should look fishy to the Search Engines right? "

Duke,

Don't worry about what the search engines think, or what they define as, "Spam", as long as you're doing, what appears, what's right in your mind. Make your site for your traffic, not the engines. You'll find little, "Glitches" in the ALGO's sooner, rather than later. Don't post them too often, just exploit them in a way, which makes the SE's say, "Oops", not you. :wink:

I see nothing, "fishy" in your techniques, although I'd work to increase pages, as you'll find in the next 5 years, people will link to you without you having to ask. And those links, Duke, are the best links IMHO.

You just mentioned your site has tripled its traffic this month. Would you rather have that traffic and those subscribers, or a higher PR? Which would you rather have, 50 thousand UV's per month or a PR8, which yields 50 UV's per month? Do you want the almighty, "Googliods" to think you're site's important, or to you want your bank teller to think, well, never mind (Only if she's a hotty :brow: ).

Oh, and your site is only 3 months old, yet already receiving thousands of SE UV’s. Huh, so much for the, “Sandbox†theory, in your case.

Good Luck

This isn't easy, but it’s well worth the effort.

Paul

 

[Duke]

Duke
Is this your "http://www.lifesupporters.com" site or another one.
If it is this site, I can give you some PDG pointers.
Also what is your Geographic target Zones in order of preference.
Plus what are your 5 primary search term targets in order of importance.

You can post info or send by PM if you prefer.

Smeagain,

Yes the site I'm referring to is Lifesupporters, not sure why I keep failing to mention it, I guess just because it's in my sig, sorry bout that

Geographic target zone is not an easy answer as it's a family site for all members within the family. Target age is approx. 6 - 8 years old and up. The site is for everyone and content is being added daily to reflect it.

Search terms are: family support, family support forums, online community support forums, family communication, understanding our family, and other terms to this affect. I haven't really put a lot of thought into it at this time or edited my <meta> to reflect these words.

I'll actually be running a topic at the site to ask my members how they would best describe the site and it's focus so I can get ideas from "outside the box".

 

[Duke]

Paul,

Whether you know it or not, you and temi have both been a pretty big help so far. Just wanted to say thanks.

As far as hitting page one in the search engines, that would be great. As far as taking it to the bank, that too would be great. My focus however is members communicating openly with each other and within their own families. Everyone gaining understanding of everyone else, that's what brings people closer together. I'm interested in reaching as many people as possible, creating a centralized resource for all family related issues, and giving them a place to communicate their issues. That is my primary focus.

If I make some money from it, it will be through a structured tiered membership program that has a percentage going to the site and it's costs and the remainder going to a charity from a preset list of approx. a dozen choices such as breast cancer, abuse, heart disease, homeless, etc.

 

[smeagain]

Duke
The site you have built is a credit to you and your Do-Good approach to life.
However (at the risk of being shot down) in its present form the chances of generating any traffic via S/Es is remote indeed.

As for getting visitors in 3 months proving there is no sandbox, I think "Put brain into Gear before uttering fact" is a good motto. Your site does not appear in the top 1000 (yes that is thousand) on Google for what is potentialy your most productive Search Phrase "family support forum". I did not check other terms.

I would guess that if you check your server logs, you will find virtualy ZERO referals for your prefered search terms. Looking at your HTML code reveals many reasons why this is.

I could write a brief summary for you if you are interested.