New Sites Put Into a "Sand Box" by Google Options

[wize]

I am usually just a "reader" but after seeing john's -dfsdgsdsd -sdfgsdgsdfg -sdfgsdgsdg -sdfgsdfgsdfg -dsfgsdgsdg -sdfgsdfgsdfg -sdgsdfgdsfg and after having over 30 sites affected over the past 3 months by exactly what is being described in this forum, I am AMAZED!

By typing in the search terms that they used to all rank in the top 5 under (prior to Feb.) and adding the -dfsdgsdsd -sdfgsdgsdfg -sdfgsdgsdg -sdfgsdfgsdfg -dsfgsdgsdg -sdfgsdfgsdfg -sdgsdfgdsfg
The old rankings show up perfectly!

Without the jibberish, the sites are no where to be found. I have been stalling the clients' concerns for months now telling them to just be patient. What else can we do? This obviously proves that the correct rankings are there, but hidden?

Very frustrating!
Thanks for listening anyways.
Angie

[peter_d]

BTW - This isn't new, it happened with the Florida update. See Danny's article here.

This obviously proves that the correct rankings are there, but hidden?

No, the correct listings are showing. The game has changed.

[projectphp]

No, the correct listings are showing. The game has changed.

Hhehe, reminds me of Fliorida when people would say "Put -asdasdasd -adasd after the result and you will see the Real results || the results the way they should be || the proper results".

As if it makes any difference that a page should be ranked higher. if it isn't on a page regular non-rankings obsessed people can see, then the result isn't "proper || correct || the real" result.

If this "sand box" is real, it just changes the timing. Three months is not a long time to wait in business, and it just really encourages a pre-launch to do proper user testing, bug checking and other user centric testing that should really occur anyway.

[peter_d]

Aman,

techniques employed (deployed?) by SEOs could, in essence, be reduntant in the short- to medium-term rather than longer-term.

Agreed. I think that is happening now, but few are prepared to admit it.

an effective and efficient user vote system rather than a smiley face in the Google Toolbar

Yah, interesting eh. That toolbar is tracking user behaviour on the target site, which is essentially a background voting mechanism. Your site had better be what the user was looking for

change the need for PR building and hoarding, and focus more on the on-page techniques like ensuring you have well written SEO'd content and well built sites, rather than link strategies.

All elements mentioned above will come into play, and then some.

Or you could say that I'm talking nonsense. Sorry, I've strayed somewhat.

On the contrary. It's nice to read such a well considered post

[JohnScott]

My source for that minus out thing, and the idea of links being on probation, is a fellow who used to work with Krishna Bharat at another company. (Not Google.)

The probation does not apply to new sites. It applies to links. When the algorithm was deployed certain older links were grandfathered in. After that, links will be (are being) given partial credit, and be essentially on "probation".

It applies to links, not sites. And the age of the link is not the only factor. The IP range of the links and other considerations are made, and the person who I discussed this with said that Krishna Bharat is at Google primary to develop and implement this new algorithm. It is supposed to radically change the way links are evaluated.

If you do a search for "web directory", and you'll see BlueFind is back behind #150 or so.
Old Algo puts us in the #13 spot

With new filter we're in the 150's

BlueFind is, as you call it, "sandboxed". But BlueFind has been up for quite a while now. It's not the age of the site or domain; it's the age of the links.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion and that's all it is.

[bwelford]

My hat off to you, JohnScott. When I go birding, we often cite a particular bird seen (say the yellow-bellied sapsucker) as the Bird of the Day. Well for me your post is probably Post of the Month.

That's a real insight. I checked it out with my brother's new site, the BrainwareMap, which deals with knowledge and is an aid for Creative Learning. This is a pretty tough field with 6.83 million web pages for a search on Creative Learning. The website was on the web on April 13. For the regular search for creative learning it is currently at #169. I just did the 'creative learning -nonsense' search and the web page shows at #29.

This is all very intriguing.
:glasses:

[peter_d]

Yah, nice one John. Here's some papers Mr Bharat has authored:

[JohnScott]

Just replied to a PM and I though I'd post here as well.

Hi, so how long would new links be on \"probation\"?

I have no idea. The fellow I talked to said that the link probation was set in phases, and it is entirely up to Google to determine at what point a link should be given full credit.

....

Also, I want to reiterate that I am totally ignorant in this matter. It's just something I heard from a "guy who knows a guy".

[rustybrick]

John,

If you look at my example in the first post on this thread, you will notice that a page with one link should rank #1 for that term. It is not competitive, no one really wants it. So the 'link' concept is visionary but I don't see how the links are being "sandboxed", I am still under the impression that the sites are being "sandboxed."

[Conqueror]

Google did a very similar thing during the "Florida" update. I believe after it was roughly two months and then the SERPS reverted to showing the proper ranking.

My site is now #20 for direct tv (am I allowed to say that?) but would be #7 with the extra characters typed in.

I think just like with "Florida" that eventually the SERPS will change to the non filtered? rankings.

[HHI Golf Guy]

Man, I hope that the actual SERP's end up the same as with the "gibberish filter". Our new client site will be at #2 and #5 for its primary keywords.

[HHI Golf Guy]

It's late - I guess I didn't read the previous messages properly.

So, is it the conclusion that we need to live with this new filtering process for a while and somehow this filter is tied to Adwords? Should we now recommend that all of our clients sign up with Adwords if they want to improve their Google ranking?

[John AlphaOne]

Sorry, have I missed something here? Where did Adwords come into the equation?

[HHI Golf Guy]

See the link on the post by peter_d. The article talks about Google's "money words" and AdWords.

[John AlphaOne]

Ah right. Actually I think that's quite a separate thing. The Moneywords hypothesis was just one of many put forward to explain the Florida carnage. I don't think it ever gained much credence - too many counter-examples of highly commercial sites who were doing just fine in the rankings.

JohnScott's explanation gives an alternative scenario that explains the arbitrary nature of Florida - some old links were "grandfathered in". I'm not sure what that entailed precisely, but it does suggest a process whereby some sites might emerge relatively unscathed, whilst others were pole-axed.

Mind you, if there was any prioritisation involved then it might be possible that Google gave preference to sites that it knew were registered with Adwords. Given a choice you would take care of your paying customers in preference to those enjoying a free-ride in the SERPS.

[janetldriscoll]

I've experienced this same problem, and my theory is that Google is trying to encourage sites to use the AdWords program.

In January, I launched a new site, and it performed well for a few weeks -- then -- it just dropped off the radar screen completely. It was all very strange. I don't have any sort of questionable content on the site, and I wasn't doing any of the "cheat" SEO methods that Google hates. So I wondered, what's up??

Well don't you know I ran an adwords campaign to boost myself. Then I was back. I'm not entirely sure the two are related, but it makes one wonder.

Also, from survey findings, users who go to Google click on natural search about 70% of the time and ads only 30% of the time. This makes Google's ads much less effective for advertisers than other SE properties, like MSN, which is about 50-50.

My theory... it's all about the ad money.

[rustybrick]

Google is not 'evil'. They would not force people to use AdWords.

I am sorry but I totally disagree.

[James]

I'm coming into the discussion a little late and in a rush. Not sure if this theory has been explored...

Google picks up on a new site, it gives it a boost. Soon after it drops out of the index because of a low PR. The site owner resorts to AdWords to maintain the initial traffic generated from the boost. This leads to more search engine visibility, and therefore other sites start linking to the site, increasing popularity, boosting the PR and the site climbs back in the listings.

The rules haven't really changed. Keep content fresh and enticing enough for sites to link to. Not just today, but tomorrow, the next day, etc, etc. There's no room to stand still and sit back on your laurels.

{ Damn the topic review for only letting me look back so far through the topic! }

[John AlphaOne]

James, you probably do need to read the whole thread. I think there's some evidence here of factors that lie outside currently accepted Google SEO thinking.

As for the Adwords question, well Google is a commerical organisation. Within reason it is quite legitimate for it to pursue policies that push its customers towards products that generate revenue as opposed to those that don't. Nothing 'evil' in that, assuming we are all willing particpants and beneficiaries of the capitalist system.

[rustybrick]

John,

When i referred to 'evil', I am talking about Google's modo.

Its an ethical thing that the CEOs *say* they wont step over.