hi all, yahoo gives more important to new content and give instant listing but whatz the prob with google why google push new site in to sandbox? whatz wrong with G ? any method to get high rank in Google and Yahoo both ?? waiting 4 ur reply.. -Ronak shah
I am agree with you, google and yahoo both gives important to new and unique content. I think you are not clear with sandbox. It is some thing different then you are thinking. Google never push new and unique content pages into sandbox. But they do when with the competitive keywords any new site come up in SERPs.
Hi, I m new to this field and i want to know what is meant by sandbox exactly and does this sandbox plays any important role is SEO and in the point of google? jessica
I think the sandbox does not exist, it is just some filters that pussh suspicious contents away. if your website content is unique and optimized with some good inbound links , then no need to worry about being "sandboxed". Anyway I am starting a new website just to somehow test this I will let you know.
Here is an article that will tell you a lot about the sandbox: http://www.webconfs.com/google-sandbox-article-11.php
The sandbox does exist and having great unique content makes no difference. There are tons of great sites in the sandbox. I also disagree that constantly changing your content helps your ranking either. Having a quality site that has great content which is always keep fresh should lead to natural linking from other sites. That is the SEO benefit. Obviously from your user’s point of view updating your content makes sense, but I would not do it to try and help your search engine position.
you are right on my money I agree that there are many sites in google sand box Google is using sand box as a tool to promote its page rank technology as if a site is put in sandbox for 3 months Google would not index the site So siteowner msut be buying PR links to make Google completely indexes the site
Changing your content can, and does help. But there are some points to note If you have a super page on your site that attracts a high number of visitors from the SEs day in day out and is static with time - The SEs monitor the CTR and if it's high will carry on showing it until a better page replaces it. If the CRT drops, it is seen to be a time-dependent page (eg a news article). After a while the page is deemed to be 'stagnant' and not of great use to searchers. This is where refreshing the content comes in. Not all of it, just adding a few current affairs items to an old new article keeps it fresh and high in the index. The extreme - changing all the content is a bad idea, the SEs see this and know that your content will be different tomorrow, so why send a user to a page on which of which you have no idea what the content is?
Please.. I implore U - if you are new DO NOT bother with 'theories' of the sandbox. It will skew your thinking unnecessarily. TRUST ME there is no SandBox ( now leave me alone U SB Cult followers.. go learn Black Hat) It is an oft used 'theory' that many top SEOs (and all Black Hats) know to be untrue. Even Google has said there isn't one.. there are a series of aging filters that may give the appearance. Problem is, there is no one definition, you will find HUNDREDs.. not exactly a science now is it?
- New sites are checked in Google's sandbox, they put new sites under probation. Some tells that sandbox is a myth. - What rank? SERP or webrank/pagerank?
hi frnd, I think the base of google rank is links ,not only links but the quality links. as u know that google's crawler reads very fast so it usually ignores the new web sites initially. but when it finds the links of those websites then it becoms worthy. further relevency is also an additional advantage. More over crawler reads high pr website more times as caomared to low pr websites.
Nearly all top SEOs believe in the sandbox. Matt Cutts admitted there was a sandbox in a conversation with Rand Fishkin. Aaron wall, Rand Fishkin, Jim Boykin all believe in a sandbox. There are so many definitions of the sandbox and that is the problem.
Matt Cutts did not admit there was a sandbox. To interpret what he said otherwise is foolish. It's a simple matter of trust. Trust is built up over time, or you can demonstrate trustworthiness in a proactive way. Why list a here today-gone tomorrow site? People who believe in th sandbox are those who are unable or unwilling to show google they are trustworthy. Hence google has to wait to see if the site sticks around. Think of everyone you've met in your life. Who do you favour the most? Who would you recommend for a certain job? Ever slept with someone the first day you met? trusted him/her, right? that person did something to earn your trust or respect. The gardener who landscaped your garden and did a really good job. You don't know him, but you'd recommend him to a friend. The above are proactive examples A random passer-by on the street, someone you said 'hello' to getting on a bus etc - they tell you their good in bed, or are a great landscape gardener. Do you believe them? No - they haven't earned your trust or respect, but will do over time if you see them more often, eg every morning on the same bus - -building up a relationship. Nothing here is proactive here. Would you say that you had a personal sandbox for everyone you met? of course not, so why believe that a search engine has? Ignorant or naive webmasters are the only ones who experiance the sandbox effect. [the gullible believe in it] rant over! (until the next believer says something)
So basically you are saying that it takes time for new sites to build up enough trust to rank well in Google? Isn't that exactly what everybody calls the sandbox? Just because you want to call it something different doesn't change the end result. Everybody knows new sites take time to rank. If you want to call it a lack of trust then thats fine, just don't say something doesn't exist just because you call it something different to everybody else.
Problem is that folks have a zillion definitions for the sandbox and blame it regularly for there problems. As North has said, it is simple logic that a NEW site won't rank for competitive terms.. what's so tough about that? A new business is NEVER instantly successful.. nor an entertainer or anything else in life (except the lottery?) The factors people abuse to create personal reasoning for the SB is; Link maturity and authority (age)... that's about it really... Anyways, I hate SB arguments because believers are like cult followers.... Many of us have no problems consistently ranking sites in short order. You ALWAYS build out the 'long tail' terms while you are working on the 'money terms' - stiffer the competition, the more work you have to do....
Matt cutts never said the words "there is sandbox" but is pretty near to that. The Sandbox theory started when SEO guy made a post on a webmaster forum titled the 'The sandbox effect' before is was much easier to rank for competitive keywords with new sites. The sandbox theory is a delay on new sites ranking for competitive keywords. I don’t understand why people are posting there is no sandbox then describing an ageing delay. That is what the sandbox is.
Thought I would post Andy Hagans post on beating the sandbox. Lots of good information in there http://www.linkbuildingblog.com/2006/09/secrets_to_beat.html