Isn't that the same as saying multiple links from the same domain are diminished? IE 10 links from 1 domain are worth less than 10 links from 10 domains?
No. Not at all. The diminishing value of multiple links is true but it is not a penalty/filter ... it is saying the additional links don't continue to help. But, what I am saying is if the ratio of incoming links divided by the total number of domains providing the links exceeds some threshhold for a specific anchor text, then google filters the page from the SERPs for that KWP (the anchor text) because it is an obvious and easily detectable attempt to manipulate the SERPs.
I would almost agree with you. However, I am the firm believer that a link can not hurt your positioning in the SERPs. Otherwise, you could come up with a website, just to take down others sites in the SERPs.
Couple of thoughts: 1) Personally, I have never seen a site that is not sandboxed for a KWP suddenly get sandbox'ed. It always seems to happen to sites (whether new or established) that go after a new KWP. 2) Even if the sandbax could apply to a site that was already performing well in SERPs for a KWP, it would be extremely difficult to pull this off. The site would already have a strong diversity of sites and so you would have to really overload it and take a HUGE risk that you would help rather than hurt your competition. But, maybe worth a test someday ...
If there is going to be a debate about the "sandbox", perhaps we should all agree on its definition. Virginia refers to the sandbox as a dampening effect concerning entry into the SERPs. Others refer to the sandbox as a dampening effect on new pages. ie a newer pages links don't really count in the SERPs. So which is it?
Me - Perhaps an example then? Me- It is worthwhile to the search engines and what page you are listed upon. We were not discussing alternatives searches for bling. <snip>witty snide retort</snip> <snip>humorous snide comeback</snip> I am feeling Christian today.
dirtdog - as I said in my original post, I can't prove my theory... which is why I called it my "theory" and not "fact". I really don't care to convince anyone of buying into MY theory .... but I'm sharing my thoughts for anyone that may find it useful. If you don't, then by all means, feel free to disregard it. As for examples, I gave "Link Exchange" as an example sandbox'ed KWP for www.seopark.com and explained why/how it does not show in SERPs even though it is ~41 in allinanchor. Another example is "Realtor" for www.top-real-estate-agents.org... currently 7th in allinanchor and ~30 in SERP. It used to be 5th in allinanchor and non-existent in SERP just over a month ago (and the previous 4 months). It used to have almost all of its backlinks with the anchor text of "Realtor" from 3 large site-wide arrangements. I dropped 2 of the site wides and also used some of the ad network inventory to get a broader base of sites. These examples don't prove the theory ... but, they do support it. I have many other examples where the results seem to be in line with the theory. But, no, I won't share the search terms or URLs on all the examples.
Vr - dirtdog - as I said in my original post, I can't prove my theory... which is why I called it my "theory" and not "fact". I really don't care to convince anyone of buying into MY theory .... but I'm sharing my thoughts for anyone that may find it useful. If you don't, then by all means, feel free to disregard it.[/quote] Me - yes well said. vr- As for examples, I gave "Link Exchange" as an example sandbox'ed KWP for www.seopark.com and explained why/how it does not show in SERPs even though it is ~41 in allinanchor. Yes you did give an example, sorry. I will take a look later. Very interesting. Vr - Another example is "Realtor" for www.top-real-estate-agents.org... currently 7th in allinanchor and ~30 in SERP. It used to be 5th in allinanchor and non-existent in SERP just over a month ago (and the previous 4 months). It used to have almost all of its backlinks with the anchor text of "Realtor" from 3 large site-wide arrangements. I dropped 2 of the site wides and also used some of the ad network inventory to get a broader base of sites. me - and then? Your serp improved? vr- These examples don't prove the theory ... but, they do support it. me - yes i suppose they do. However you will agree there are several other factors affecting Serps no? me - Let me know if you think this is helpful. http://www.webworkshop.net/florida-update.html I believe it supports you. off topic- I have a friend that needs to sell a house very fast. not in your state though. he asked me about ebay selling cause he thinks I am an internet guy I am clueless. any interest in answering his question. If yes I will pm you more details.
LOL! Of course, it is an obvious/natural assumption given my username and that many of the sites I openly discuss are Real Estate related. I am sure it must be what everyone thinks - that I am a REALTOR dabbling in SEO. But, I do SEO/SEM full-time for my own sites and for clients. I almost said I am an "expert" but what a can of worms that would open, eh? Instead, I'll say I earn a very good living doing SEO related activities and yet there is so much more in the field that I DON'T know vs. what I have learned in a fairly short amount of time. My wife is a REALTOR. Your friend can feel free to email her at ann[@]equitysafeteam.com any questions though I don't think she has any experience trying to sell a house online. Heading to london in a couple of hours for a week vacation so I won't be continuing this discussion ... but, I enjoyed it ... thanks.
Today I am 3rd in "inanchor:bling" and "allinanchor:bling" searches. This is some forward movement. However I have jumped into the SERPs at number 488. Is this a sign that I am brushing the sand off and finally coming out?