Proof that IBLs are "sandboxed?"

[PHPfan]

We are in a very competitive industry and in late April 2004 we launched a new site and started on a small link-building campaign (didn't want to do too much at once), but have not yet seen any results despite having what we think is a site that should be ranking much higher than it is. When we launched this new site we also switched domain names, using a 301 redirect to the new domain from my old domain.

Since we have not seen the results that we were expecting we have also began several experiments to try and pinpoint the reasoning. One thought was that perhaps our IP had been flagged as "bad" due to some "borderline spammy" things we had tried years ago.

To test this theory we recently launched a brand new site with a brand new domain name (and IP) and exactly copied one of our pages to this new domain/IP. After 2 weeks the "experiment" site ranks as #297 for a three word keyphrase and has only 2 IBLs (Google actually reports no IBLs using link:www.experimentdomain.com, but I put 2 links, both on un-related sites with a PR of 6 - just to get Google to discover the new site.) Both the home page and the page targeted by the three word keyphrase have a Toolbar PR of 0.

The site launched in April ranks as #298 for the exact same three word keyphrase. This site has many IBLs and is listed in many top directories including Yahoo! The home page has a Toolbar PR 5 and the page targeted by the three word keyphrase has a Toolbar PR of 4.

We interpret this to mean that Google is currently ranking both sites based purely upon "on page" characteristics and is not yet "giving us credit" for any of the inbound links, either new ones or ones that point to our old domain (that is now 301 redirected to the new domain).

Does this theory make any sense? It seems to be similar to the March Filter but we're also open to the idea that we just suck. :)

[mj2043]

I have site for almost 4 months now, not that cometitive keyword, it is about #600. Google not giving much chance to new sites, may be so called 'sandbox'

[greeneagle]

Neither DMOZ or GOOGLE seem to be responding as they were before the last alg update about 3 months ago. I sincerely believe we are going to be taught a new "Dance" this time around. Are Primary Sites sporting pseudo-gateway pages going to be smashed this time? Doesn't GOOGLE need to make a splash after IPO? Are they going to present a "step" technology alg alteration this time? ----- Probably so.

Ken

[jestep]

From my observations across multiple sites over the last year, I have to say that your observation leads to about the same conclusion.

Sites themselves are not sandboxed, but the links coming into the sites are sandboxed.

=> The links coming into a site will take several months before they are allowed to pass full value to the page they are linking to.

The age of the site does seem to have some importance, and it also looks like there is some sort of tracking that google uses. This tracking tracks how often new links are directed towards a site. If there is a huge deviation from the history of a page, such as the buying of 50,000 links, when the site usually only gets 3 - 4 new links per week, google makes the links take longer to take full effect.

This is an attempt at eliminating a huge ranking boost all at once, which helps make the SERPS more stable.

If google allowed the full value of every link to be passed on immediately there would be massive shuffling of the SERPS continuously.

[greeneagle]

We are seeing the same thing jestep. We have mounted a strong linking campaign for 2 clients in well researched high ranking directories recently. To our consternation one has been running for 4 months as part of a maintenance program for a client with very little effect.

We believe it is part of a major GOOGLE initiative against SEO in general.

It may be good for GOOGLE to protect IBL information on a competitive basis... You do realize that, that is why GOOGLE dimished the webmaster value of "link:www.competitordomain.com", RIGHT?

A savvy competitor might be vying to replace GOOGLE webmaster tools as they are phased out, Do you know of any?

Maybe this would be a good place to list them.

Ken

[fathom]

Let's see if we can clear some of this up.

Originally Posted by PHPfan

We are in a very competitive industry and in late April 2004 we launched a new site and started on a small link-building campaign (didn't want to do too much at once), but have not yet seen any results despite having what we think is a site that should be ranking much higher than it is. When we launched this new site we also switched domain names, using a 301 redirect to the new domain from my old domain.

Quick question? What happen to all the old text copy, I'll assume:

1. The complete old domain is now defunct, or

2. all old text copy is on the old website and the new website has brand new text copy?

Since we have not seen the results that we were expecting we have also began several experiments to try and pinpoint the reasoning. One thought was that perhaps our IP had been flagged as "bad" due to some "borderline spammy" things we had tried years ago.

Not likely

To test this theory we recently launched a brand new site with a brand new domain name (and IP) and exactly copied one of our pages to this new domain/IP. After 2 weeks the "experiment" site ranks as #297 for a three word keyphrase and has only 2 IBLs (Google actually reports no IBLs using link:www.experimentdomain.com, but I put 2 links, both on un-related sites with a PR of 6 - just to get Google to discover the new site.) Both the home page and the page targeted by the three word keyphrase have a Toolbar PR of 0.

NO PR update since June 22/23 if all of this is after - meaningless

The site launched in April ranks as #298 for the exact same three word keyphrase. This site has many IBLs and is listed in many top directories including Yahoo! The home page has a Toolbar PR 5 and the page targeted by the three word keyphrase has a Toolbar PR of 4.

We interpret this to mean that Google is currently ranking both sites based purely upon "on page" characteristics and is not yet "giving us credit" for any of the inbound links, either new ones or ones that point to our old domain (that is now 301 redirected to the new domain).

Does this theory make any sense? It seems to be similar to the March Filter but we're also open to the idea that we just suck. :)[/quote]

Not exactly.

Some theories suggest something call "sandbox"

Some theories suggest Google has a bug

Some theories suggest Google's archive was corrupt and rebuilding

When you look at individual cases you get a limited perspective.

When you view from only a complaints stance only you get a bias perspective.

try broading your scope - I tend to believe you are way off - PARTICULARILY IF YOU HAVE DUP CONTANT - that's a hint!

[greeneagle]

My experience says that jestep is dead-on. We have never seen such slow linking results. We do not request links from any Directory Home Page with less than a PR4.

Maybe the "sandbox" effect and subsequent delays are consequent of new link filtering and valuation. That would make sense if they inherited a new level of complexity.

Ken

[DrTandem1]

Yes, I think there is some sandbagging by Google, but not without merit. Many sites disappear shortly after launch. Why should Google bother to do much more than acknowledge its existence until it has paid its "dues?"

This seems a bit different than the not too distant past. New sites were able to not only be indexed quickly, but receive PR and high placings in the search results. Part of this sandbagging may be due to sites that are launched for a purpose of only artificially inflating the PR and result placing of other sites.

[Keimos]

I do not think there s any sandbagging as such.

Google made is name from almost reliable results unfortunately the £$ has now infested the results with a lot of comercial enterprises that are ( Discusssions with people that have done it)making a true search a mockery, ans what really gets me is that gogle keeps spouting out the fact that they are going for relevant results.


My pet hates.

Top searches with "New Page 1"
Searches that reach No 1 when your search phrase is not in the right order.
The affiliates that link your search term into there search directory and give you exactly the same results
As above, why are they there.

Most hated site - Kelkoo.

We all spend time and effort getting our sites right, at the end of the day if you have 1000 competitors who is going to come first if you all have equally good sites that have all the correct content e.t.c.

To HPfan - maybe finally answering your question.
(Really good hindsite)
If you have the oportunity of a new domain name you should have cleared what you thought was crap and posted it live - no redirects or anything for a month (that's the normal turn around to get found

With a liberal amount of Directory submits and the rest. Simply you need to have some patience to see what works, and when it works build on it.

We have loads of companies trying to sel us keyword spaces yet our sites are found by over 2000 keywords.

To me that sends the message that each page , as we do, is set up and has the content that is relevant to what people are searching for?!!!!

Just my thoughts, and it is raining again :-(

[Gary Golden]

PR is just another way for GOOGLE or other sites that use a similar bar to win customers the difference is GOOGLE size. A lot of webmasters believe that their rankings are the correct one.

25 years in business have told me that this is just another way to sandbag the unknowing web master. I have read many post stating that even these figures can be manipulated.

All webmasters should base there satisfaction with their sites with how well they rank on important keywords. Nothing Else!

Additionally ranking high on one keyword, unless of course it is the top word is no basis for celebration. To succeed online you need to rank high on many keywords.

Good Luck

[PHPfan]

Originally Posted by Gary Golden

PR is just another way for GOOGLE or other sites that use a similar bar to win customers the difference is GOOGLE size. A lot of webmasters believe that their rankings are the correct one.

I'm not sure which post you were responding to, but the point of my original post had nothing to do with PageRank and it seems that many respondents here didn't quite what I was getting at.

The point of my original post was merely that I belive I have some proof that the "credit" bestowed upon a site from an IBL is not being "awarded" right away.

Whether that is due to sandboxing, the March Filter, an simply algorithm change we can only speculate.

[witchhead]

I have not seen much sucess with any linking campaigns lately and will just wait and see.

However a competitors site, with partly copied content from our much older site, only 7 pages and bad links from casino sites and linkfarms was rewarded with a PR 5 and a top ranking.

Google seems to love unprofessional pages these days.

Another competitor hosted on a free server (no domain name) and virtually no text on the home page has the top 1 position for a certain keyword.

It really makes me wonder...