Google's Aging Delay for New Sites

Chrissicom

Feb 9th 2005, 1:35 am

You've Got To Pay Your Dues Many site owners and SEOs are worried because their new sites that rank well in Yahoo and MSN, aren't doing well in Google, and they're blaming it on the "sandbox." The current theory is that new sites are somehow being penalized for obtaining too many links, too quickly.

Is There a Sandbox?

Is there some sort of link analysis going on; some sort of threshold that will get links to new sites discounted? It sounds like a logical possibility. However, many of us who don't buy volume links or participate in linking networks are seeing the same ranking delays. New resource sites with a few good relevant links are taking just as long to climb Google's ranks as the instant link pop sites. I think a lot of people are confusing the sandbox, with an "aging filter" that appeared earlier this year.

6 Months For Results in Google

I haven't seen any brand new sites with new domains appear at the top of the search engine results pages (SERP) since early in 2004. There seems to be a delay of about 6-8 months. I've checked with many site owners and SEOs and I haven't found anyone who's gotten a brand new domain ranked well in Google. If there's a magic bullet, no one's spilling the beans. What happens is new sites get indexed, they appear for some obscure queries and they may appear at the top for a week or so, but then they drop to the bottom of the SERP for several months. The page shows a PageRank in the Google toolbar, as well as backlinks. Everything else works fine but it just doesn't rank well for any terms in Google. Many times, not even the company name.

I thought this was quite some interesting info.

stephaneggy

Feb 9th 2005, 1:44 am

Thats very annoying, experiencing it now too, what I wonder is, does it also happen to new PAGES you create? Let's say you have domaina.com ranked nr1 for keyword domaina, you make a page domaina.com/new.php can you get that page ranked quick or does the sandbox effect also appeers on that new page while the real domain doesn't have the sandbox effect?

Chrissicom

Feb 9th 2005, 2:02 am

I have a long #1 ranked domain and recently added many new pages but they are all sandboxed, the domain has PR5 and remains at this PR. Also the old pages which are replaced by the new, but are still on the server without internal links to cover links from external sites are still ranked PR3-5

ResaleBroker

Feb 9th 2005, 3:28 am

Here's a link to the full article (http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/2005/feb/9prt.html).

lycrafile

Feb 22nd 2005, 3:39 pm

Í have just had a site released from the sandbox today. My client rebranded and we repointed the old domain with a 403. Many of the links were from group companies (on different servers & continents) who were happy to relink to the new domain.

It has taken 8 months and a lot of stressfull meetings to get back in the SERPs.

I'm gonna have a party if the site is still listed tomorrow.

eddie

Feb 22nd 2005, 3:56 pm

I have to agree their must be some type of a filter or sandbox I really did not give much credit to the theory until today.

I have 26 keywords that i track for my site while i have held top positions for many of these keywords in Y and Msn for several months I was unable to make much headway with G until now in the last few days i went from 1 keyword in the top spot to 16 keywords in the top spot some of them from positions >200. 14 of these I hold the #1 and #2 spot and 9 out of the remaining 10 are <26
either I just came out of the box or some filter was changed!!
I started seo on this site in sep 04.

anusha

Feb 25th 2005, 12:20 am

That's right, I submitted an webpage on tsunami before 25 days and is still not indexed..
__________________

Online Directory (http://chdn.info/) | Advertising (http://chdn.info/advertising.htm) | Business (http://chdn.info/business.htm) | Computing (http://chdn.info/computing.htm) | Healthcare (http://chdn.info/healthcare.htm) | Human Resources (http://chdn.info/human-resources.htm) | Industry (http://chdn.info/industry.htm) | Money (http://chdn.info/money.htm) |Shipping and Transportation (http://chdn.info/shipping-transportation.htm) |Telecommunications (http://chdn.info/telecommunications.htm)

MattUK

Feb 25th 2005, 1:04 am

I tend to agree with this. I think that all new sites (I'm not sure about pages as I've not seen this) are filtered in some way. This happens despite your linking strategy. I hear lots of people advocate just building 2-3 links per day in an attempt to avoid the sand box - this I don't agree with, firstly beacuse I don't believe this works and secondly if your competitors sites have several thousand IBLs, then it'll take several years to get up to this level. I'd rather be sandboxed for a few months than not comepete for severl years.

I think Google may be shooting themselves in the foot with this policy. With stagnated SERPS and little fresh content people will soon start looking elsewhere.

CiscoODI

Feb 26th 2005, 9:55 am

iconrate

Feb 26th 2005, 10:02 am

l234244

Feb 26th 2005, 10:06 am

I am not a firm believer of the sandbox theory. I have a domain registered 24th January which has been ranked number one on google for the last 3 weeks for a moderate keyword. On the other hand I had a previous site which took 3 months to rank using the same techniques, so there does appear to be a delay for some sites compared with others, what the criteria for selection is who knows.

CiscoODI

Feb 26th 2005, 10:23 am

well, most people seem to think that a new site jumps to the top of the rankings for about a week, then plummet to the nether regions for a couple of monthes, and then slowly come back towards the top if they are good.

I am launching a new site in the next two weeks so I hope you are correct. With that said, I put up an old site that we don't use anymore on the domain about a month ago so google will start indexing it. Then, when I launch the new site, google will be used to going there.

fryman

Feb 26th 2005, 10:37 am

I created a landing page and 2 days later it was indexed ald already sending visitors from Google.

Maybe big sites suffer, but landing pages and minisites have no problem at all.

MattUK

Feb 27th 2005, 11:25 am

I've never experienced this 'sandbox' effect...
An example:
site I created just 2 days ago already 25 pages indexed and in serps...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.facko.com
I think as long as you have natural links pointed at it there won't be any sandbox.

The sandbox doesn't affect the site being indexed and cached but the appearance of that site in the SERPS for any competitive keywords, is your site ranking well for any of your search terms?

I've several sites that were built around the tail end of last year. They are ranking well in Yahoo and MSN but now showing in Google. I'm not expecting them to either for another couple of months. However they are showing well if inanchor: and allinanchor: searches.

msj484

Feb 27th 2005, 12:45 pm

What exactly is a landing page?

MattUK

Feb 27th 2005, 3:23 pm

What exactly is a landing page?

A page that is optimised for a particular search term designed to rank highly in the SERPS for that term

stephenmunday

Feb 27th 2005, 7:29 pm

My site (see my sig) has the sub-domain nicely indexed, but the main domain is not. Although recently the main www domain has been appearing in the SERPs but only as the domain name with no extra info.

I think if Yahoo and MSN marketed themselves as search engines rather than do-anything portals they would find they could get a lot of people coming who would not switch back to G when they realize how old G's DB is. At the moment only people on these kinds of forums know what a poor service G is starting to look like, particularly next to the new MSN.

They really have to stop letting stuff like the sandbox happen, because if the consumer gets wind of it, they will go over to the other side.

HansV

Feb 28th 2005, 12:40 am

I haven't seen any brand new sites with new domains appear at the top of the search engine results pages (SERP) since early in 2004. There seems to be a delay of about 6-8 months.

Exatly after 9 months our site was out. Even on the started on 21, ended on 21 nine moths later.

There IS a sandbox.

l234244

Feb 28th 2005, 1:38 am

What criteria do people use who believe in the sandbox to establish when a site comes out of it?

MattUK

Feb 28th 2005, 2:16 am

What criteria do people use who believe in the sandbox to establish when a site comes out of it?

I'd simply say when it starts appearing in the SERPS for your keywords. If it's not going to appear anyway then you'd have no way of telling, sandbox or not

l234244

Feb 28th 2005, 2:42 am

Is that not just an excuse, e.g. I can not get ranked because google has put me in the sandbox.

MattUK

Feb 28th 2005, 3:01 am

Many people seem to rely on that :-)

There is definately some kind of age filter in operation in Google at the moment though. I have a site that is #1 for allinanchor: inanchor: good on-page optimisation, a highy IBL count and has been live since September, yet doesn't even show in the SERPS yet. Most people see the same thing.

HansV

Feb 28th 2005, 3:04 am

What criteria do people use who believe in the sandbox to establish when a site comes out of it?

Is that not just an excuse, e.g. I can not get ranked because google has put me in the sandbox.

In my experience it's like a push of the button at the google machine. One day you have 50 to 100 visitors from google on some words you dont even target, and one day you have thousends a day on all keywords that are related to your site. If your out YOU WILL notice it.

Second you can backlink whatt you want you can write what you want but it will not show in the serps when you ARE in the sandbox. If you are out, and you write an article and you are using good content with the usual seo stuff you in the serps the other day. even in good places and even in higly targeted KW. like the link on top (rss feed) highly targeted KW in the serps next day after posting it to my site.

It is not an excuse to do nothing in the first moths, you have to build links, write content etc... But thats mainly for the long run when your out.

But again it's only my experience not an expert talking.

l234244

Feb 28th 2005, 3:11 am

We should do a really simple test to check.

Choose a really obscure keyword and add a backlink from an established site to a new site/domain. Make sure the keyword is not mentioned in the text of the new webpage so its not ranked because of onpage factors. If the site is ranked inside a month then there is no sandbox and the delay is caused by the competitiveness of the keyword, if it fails to rank in 1 month+ then there is a delay.

HansV

Feb 28th 2005, 3:20 am

the competitiveness of the keyword

Well that's just what the sandbox is about. It's no problem to rank for an obscure word or fantasy word.

l234244

Feb 28th 2005, 5:06 am

HansV, are you saying the more competitive the keywork the longer the sandbox is?

HansV

Feb 28th 2005, 10:46 am

From my own experience I would say that with really non competetive words there is no sandbox. I was ranked from day one, well very soon for kw like Druuna ( comics ) and for example the artist names. But the real competetive KW like Erotic art, nudes etc... exactly after 9 months.

aspotism

Feb 28th 2005, 2:48 pm

In my experience the "sandbox" nukes everything, non competetive words included.
I had a #1 site and did a re-design.
No new links but the design and page names (site structure) were all different.
My site has been gone for over a month now, still being crawled but nothing in the SERPS.
Not even very obscure words, my last name...whice is rare.
Sucks, so now I wait.

CiscoODI

Feb 28th 2005, 2:53 pm

are you saying that you had an existing site, re-designed it, and it fell of of the SERPs? That is horrible news.

sji2671

Feb 28th 2005, 2:54 pm

You can rank for non-competitive keyword because even with any filters there is little/no competition, this would not mean that the filters are not applied, just that you dont feel them.

My keywords are "always" in the top 60 and my branch of sites feel this affect, thankfully I have my "daddy" site which can send traffic until such a time as google accepts the content.

Catfish

Feb 28th 2005, 3:39 pm

I've never experienced this 'sandbox' effect...
An example:
site I created just 2 days ago already 25 pages indexed and in serps...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.facko.com
I think as long as you have natural links pointed at it there won't be any sandbox.

This doesn't prove anything man. Show me your top 10 listings on a keyword that gets over 1000 searches a month from Overtures tool and commands at least .50 to .75 a click in PPC. If you have rankings like that, I will give your story some credence. The sandbox doesn't prevent you from being indexed, it prevents you from ranking for competitive keywords.

Catfish

Feb 28th 2005, 3:52 pm

What criteria do people use who believe in the sandbox to establish when a site comes out of it?

I do SEO on over 60 travel sites. Until the last update, all 16 that had been stared after March 2004 were sandboxed. Last week I had two escape and another that I think has escaped this week although I will probably need to check the rankings again in a week to be sure. For my sites, Sandbox is not being able to rank in the top 100 to 200 SERPs for competitive keywords (ie. City Name Hotels) despite being optimizaed correctly and being in the top 10 for the same phrase using the allinachor. The 100 to 200 goes way up in more competitive cities like Las Vegas or New York so I imagine it depends on the market. The thing is since I have 30 other sites that do have numerous top 10 listings, I know that the techniques I use work. Furthermore, since I just had two sites escape the sandbox and now "suddenly" list in the top 10 for city name hotels, I am sure that my techniques still work and that in fact some sort of aging filter is in place. However, my sites that have escaped are not the oldest nor do they have the most page rank or backlinks so there is no pattern that I can derive yet from my observations other than to say without a doubt that the "sandbox" does exist even if it's definatition is not as clear. I have had one site in the box for 11 months now. The one that escaped was made in July 2004. But at least having now had a site escape and rank how I more or less anticiapted it would, I can continue to use my techniques and just wait a little longer.

It really makes you wonder if the index size problem theory is true as there is no logical reason that Google would want to exclude the newest sites from its SERPs. I understand that page rank in a natural world would take time to accomulate but developing a system that says "oldest is always best" seems contrary to the idea of the web and Google's mission statement.

aspotism

Feb 28th 2005, 3:54 pm

"are you saying that you had an existing site, re-designed it, and it fell of of the SERPs? That is horrible news."
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Yes, it's horrible.
I suck.

JonahViaKeyboard

Mar 1st 2005, 11:30 am

The sandbox exists. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean that it's all an excuse.

You know you're in the sandbox if you're #1 (or somwhere near the top) for keyword allintext, allinanchor, allinurl and then you're somewhere like #400 for a natural search. Also, if you search for keyword: -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf -asdf, you can remove the sanebox filter and see your site's intended ranking.

Design Agent

Mar 1st 2005, 12:03 pm

Liminal

Mar 1st 2005, 1:33 pm

i am probably teh only person around who does not know this but what is "Google sandbox"?

paymentapprovaltooslow

Mar 1st 2005, 4:09 pm

i dont know either..

DarrenC

Mar 1st 2005, 10:22 pm

Ive seen brand new domains, ranking in the top 10 for allinanchor, allintitle etc and using the mcdar tool SHOULD be ranking on the first page, but they haven't, and no matter how many links you point to that domain it doesnt rank.

I was never a believer of the sandbox, but I definatly, think there is some filtering going on for new domains.

l234244

Mar 1st 2005, 11:25 pm

Same here, I have seen a slight delay but it was nowhere near as much as some quoted, and I have also seen sites for semi competitive keywords rank in the first month. I have read people saying they have come out the sandbox after 9 months+, this makes no sense at all for google to do this.

rbucich

Mar 2nd 2005, 3:55 am

I personally believe in the sandbox theory when it comes to new sites, but not new pages. I think that new pages on old sites are indexed immediately and hit the SERPs quickly. This piece from the article that is listed above sort of validates the new page question:

Pages on subdomains are generally treated as part of the main
domain, making them a possible workaround. If your client has
the option of building their site on a subdomain instead of a
new top-level domain name, let them know that this may avoid
the time delay.

I agree that pages don't seem to get sandboxed. I just added a couple new pages on my site. Perhaps it's out of lack of competition but I started receiving traffic within 24 hours. Keep in mind however that they keywords are unique, i.e. names of local businesses.

Also something that you all may find interesting. My site has been real estate related for only about 10 months. Prior to that it had been a personal photo album built in frames and zero relevance for anyone outside a few friends and family.

It seems to have avoided the sandbox effect relating to real estate terms based entirely on its age. It had no IB links and naturally not SE friendly.
Once I converted it to a real estate site, I began climbing the charts immediately. I had top 10 rankings on some of the medium competetive keywords within just a few months, I am now top 10 for just about every term I care about.

I guess what I am saying is that just the fact that a site existed at the domain seems to have made all the difference, despite relevance. I purchased a better domain name almost immediately and had planned to move it but it began doing so well right where it was I scraped that idea.

rbucich

Mar 2nd 2005, 4:21 am

But, PR seems to be gravely overestimated for Google ranking...at least in my industry.

For one of the most competetive keyword combinations the PR for the sites are as follows:
PR4 PR3 PR3 PR4 PR0 PR5...
If PR was such a big deal, shouldn't they be in order? If not, keyword density seems far more important but far less emphasized (or talked about) in these forums.

just 2 cents

l234244

Mar 2nd 2005, 4:33 am

PR is only a component of the algorithm used to rank pages. If after taking into account all the other criteria, two website have the same score they will be ordered via pagerank. If you look in the google directory, websites are ordered by Pagerank so google does think higher pagerank sites are the best.

permie

May 4th 2005, 4:27 am

I started a site in December 2003 and it ranked very well for all my keywords for the first month or two, receiving 100's of visitors from google then it completly disapeared from google for about a year.

Until I got a listing in yahooo.

Then google stated to slowly rank pages using searches that didn't include only popular keywords or rank pages that didn't have only popular keywords in the title. If it included a mix of keywords e.g. popular and not popular in the title then the page would rank in the top 10 for a phrase which is included in the tittle.

Google also ranks the front page of the site in the top ten for phrases that contain the most popular keywords (e.g. the ones in the title of the index.html page) plus any other random keyword/s found on the page. But if I search for only the keywords in the title of the page, that is my most popular keywords, my site is nowhere to be found. Even if I look back for hundreds of pages I don't find my index page using my popular keywords. But I do find sub directories on my site.

However, if I search for all in title, all in url, all in links using the most popular keywords for my site, my site ranks number 1-3. Also if I search for the keywords then click on related to the number 1 listing, my site is the first site in the list of related sites. Infact I seem to pick up a reasonable amount of traffic this way.

My site has a PR of 6 and is listed in the yahoo directory.

Does it sound like my site is still in some kind of sandbox for its most popular keywords? Could it be possible to be in the sandbox longer for very popular keywords, than for not so popular keywords?

It would actually be a great relief to know my site was in the sandbox because untill I read about this sandbox theory today I thought my site was being penalised and I couldn't figure out why :confused:

Thanks in advance for any help. This thread has been very helpful.

e10

May 4th 2005, 5:04 am

iconrate,

How is your site coming up for keywords? Your site can be indexed and in the SERPS and be seo´d to perfection but may not show up on competitive keywords because it has been hit by a filter - sandboxed.

If it does come up well for terms in MSN and Yahoo but is nowhere for the same search on Google then the chances are your site is in the sandbox.

Jez

May 4th 2005, 8:11 am

I don't like to worry anyone about the sandbox - but my travel site has NEVER come out of the sandbox in over a year and now does not rank for any search terms at all. I have only ever seen one site come out of the sandbox (not say say that they don't but that I just haven't seen another with sufficiently competetive keywords come out that I have followed). Also, the one site that I have seen and followed through the sandbox is still outside the top 10, despite being PR6 with lots of backlinks. The SERP for that site is Silver Jewellery.

I think - and this is from my own personal experience - don't overdo keyword density - don't overdo links too fast - mix anchor text. In fact, keep SEO to a minumum and hope and pray that google do away with the sandbox. As MattUK said "I think Google may be shooting themselves in the foot with this policy" I tend to agree.

grantmoney

May 4th 2005, 9:39 am

from my limited experience, the penalty a new domain receives depends on the number of results for a given keyword (how competitive the keyword is). the less competitive the keyword is, the higher a new domain will rank for it.

it's a scaled system relative to the keywords, so if keyword1 has a few hundred results it'll rank well, keyword2 has a few thousand results and ranks a little worse, and say keyword3 has a million results and it won't rank at all. if it's a non-targeted keyword (ie. local, eastern, etc) it doesn't seem affected by the penalty.

now if you combine your keywords, keyword1 keyword2 might put you in the top 5 without problem, but keyword1 keyword3 won't rank at all.

a real world example, let's say i'm trying to rank for mittagong in the southern highlands, searching for mittagong gets me on the front page. then if i search southern mittagong i come up as 1 and 2 with southern not really being a competitive keyword. now here's the strange thing, if i search for mittagong highlands i'm nowhere.

the thing is, if keyword1 and keyword2 are used, 99.9% of the time, keyword3 will be on the same page, but as it's fairly competitive, you just can't rank using it. i've noticed it with a lot of different combinations on different sites, but in the initial new domain period (3 to 12 months), you just can't get results on competitive keywords. once you're out of the new domain trial period (sandbox or whatever), the penality is lifted and you start ranking for any of those words.

i could be wrong of course, but from what i've noticed, it definitely seems to be the way it's working.

Clearwater Florida

May 4th 2005, 9:48 am

I have been saying this for over the last year now, that the age of the site and its links are the most important factors in googles algo. IMHO PR has very little to do with the algo and serps.

Sure I believe in relation to links you can bomb your site with purchased links and get a top 20 ranking, but if the site is reported or you lose any of those links at all within 6 months, your site will fall like a rock from google.

Imran

May 4th 2005, 10:14 am

If you site is 40-45 days old send one email with proper subject to google here is the email: help@google.com <help@google.com>, They will update the Pr table for your site!

jlerner

May 4th 2005, 11:11 am

From my own experience I would say that with really non competetive words there is no sandbox. I was ranked from day one, well very soon for kw like Druuna ...

Same thing happened to my new site.

It's number 2 for key words 150th GSAB. (a small National Guard unit out of New Jersey) But try the more competitive keywords like "Military Wallpaper", and I'm not even on the map .

Clearwater Florida

May 4th 2005, 11:26 am

If you site is 40-45 days old send one email with proper subject to google here is the email: help@google.com <help@google.com>, They will update the Pr table for your site!

That is very useful information, I did not know that. I am going to have to try this to see if it works. Thanks Imran.

toddieg

May 4th 2005, 12:23 pm

If you site is 40-45 days old send one email with proper subject to google here is the email: help@google.com <help@google.com>, They will update the Pr table for your site!

Is this really true? Have you tried it?

zamolxes

May 4th 2005, 1:47 pm

A backdoor to the google pr?! That sounds like dreamland to me! What do you mean by "proper subject"?

l234244

May 4th 2005, 2:24 pm

Cant see this being true, as if they dont have enough email to contend with never mind everyone asking for a PR update

toddieg

May 4th 2005, 2:39 pm

i agree... sounds pretty bogus to me also.

Imran

May 4th 2005, 7:03 pm

Your subject should be, My Site Pr is not updated or assigned, unfortunatly I dont have the copy of the mail which I sent to google.
It actually had details about my site and asking them their problems why not updating my sites PR, and other stuff, within 4 hours my sites got PR. :) quick work!

toddieg

May 4th 2005, 9:02 pm

so they just gave you PR just like that? do you mind if I ask you what PR you got? what if your site already has PR but you want a higher PR? can i write them a letter requesting a PR7 when i really have a PR3? what about rankings? Can i write them a letter and ask if they'll rank my site higher because it's 'better' than everyone elses?

does anyone else realize i just wrote a post with all questions? does anyone else think this sounds a little fishy? :D

Blogmaster

May 4th 2005, 11:33 pm

there have been a few reports out on Google validating incoming links late as well.

Imran

May 5th 2005, 3:42 am

Have asked not even a 7 year kid even think twice to ask.
I never said google's help desk will manually, what exactly I mean was If your PR table was not updated then you can send them and ask for a help, If you are lucky enough your PR table will be updated but no manually, they are not going to assign ranks based on the emaiol you send to them.
my sites have got the PR.
My site which I will disclose only one out of many. http://mypnthemes.com is exactly 34 days old, It gets very good traffic has backlinks from very good PR sites, its pr is now 3,. I hope it will improve in the next google update!
I hope you will make sense out of it!

l234244

May 5th 2005, 4:10 am

The adminsistering of PR requires the whole database to be queried not just your site. For example it will need to look at all the links pointing at your domain aswell as all the outgoing links. Lot of hassle for one webmaster requesting PR.

There is noway google will do this. All I can say is Imran either had a faulty toolbar and its working now or his PR was at the back of the cue for updating.

MattL

May 5th 2005, 7:00 am

I have quite a few sites that couldn't get ranked for about 6-8 months. I think it is an "ageing delay" as some people call it, put on newly registered domains.

Even though it is a pain, I personally like it. It benefits those of us that are in it for the long run and not just out to make a quick buck.

Imran

May 5th 2005, 7:25 am

I agree! its a huge process of updating the PR Tables :).
Maybe I was lucky enough to get my Sites Pr in just one month!
I was just sharing my experience with others, If I'm wrongly adviced any one SORRY for that, but there nothing bad in giving it a try!

l234244

May 5th 2005, 7:52 am

Maybe I was lucky enough to get my Sites Pr in just one month!

I can confirm this, one of my sites during the previous PR update was two weeks old and got a PR4.

chatgun

May 5th 2005, 11:20 am

I think Google sandboxes only based on age of site and not on the pages. As for Iconrate's site - the keyword is in the domain and might be an exception...

toddieg

May 5th 2005, 11:38 am

maybe i'm missing something here.

You guys are actually claiming your site had no Page Rank, and then you emailed google and asked them to update it (after april 22nd...when pr was last updated) and they just said 'sure, we'll update your toolbar'?

I'd really like to see the email google sent you if you don't mind.

Not trying to be mean, but I don't buy this for a second.