*Charity sites are immune to google filters, becasue they are morally good?* It may have escaped your notice, but both "Africa" and "charity" have been somewhat in the news these last few months. For G to take this into account, is not outside MY bounds of comprehension.
I think (speculate, guess, etc) it's based more on past linking patterns than the "theme" of the site. I would assume a brand new charity site set up tomorrow that received thousands of links next week because of "news" would get the same penalty (sandboxed) as any other site.
My jury is out on that GFC, IMO anything "newsworthy" will get treated differently as far as time/links are concerned.
Interesting. To me "newsworthy" is such a broad term I don't see how it could be taken into consideration. What's newsworthy to me might not be to you and vice versa. How do you think "newsworthy" could be defined?
*To me "newsworthy" is such a broad term I don't see how it could be taken into consideration.* G is into news, if a site on an African charity suddenly got thousands of links it would be a lot less surprising than if a site on Irish baseball teams suddenly did. Until we beat the "Septics", that is ;-)
How is this site performing in the serps now... I've had a look but got it wrong a few times... so: google, yahoo, msn... where does this site rank for a search on 'charity'
I haven't checked in a long time, but it looks like it ranks #15 in Google to me (coming up on 5 months now).