Why George Bush is a failure in Google

[incrediblehelp]

http://yooter.com/blog/index.php?ent...y050709-183500

What do you think? I tend to agree.

[The Founder]

I think it's real.. but I am biased.. I wrote the article :)

[incrediblehelp]

Well it is not a cause to anoint genius status to simply suggest this is happening, but do you have other notable cases to back it up? I am sure some would be easy to find...

[The Founder]

I have several.. but this one is the largest in terms of size.. it does push the sandbox theory into mainstream because of the nature of the Google Bomb, and how in an Non-Election year the bomb grew in intensity with less bloggers and less links but with far more dramatic results.

[incrediblehelp]

Care to post the other examples?

[The Founder]

I will.. but I want to discuss this one first... the reason is the others are not exactly as clear cut as this one... and in your words they are far less 'notable'.

There is no way that during a non-election year the Google Bomb grew in size, in fact as bloggers post and keep sending the inital 'google bomb' post down to page 2, page 3, page 4.... so it leaves us having to explain why less promiate links were able to do more 'damage'.

The only thing I can think of is sandbox.

[tcampione]

Originally Posted by The Founder

There is no way that during a non-election year the Google Bomb grew in size, in fact as bloggers post and keep sending the inital 'google bomb' post down to page 2, page 3, page 4.... so it leaves us having to explain why less promiate links were able to do more 'damage'.

The only thing I can think of is sandbox.

Founder:

I agree completely. For some time there has been debate as whether sites get sandboxed, or links get sandboxed. My contention is that both do.

Although I have no evidence, I suspect that all sites are assigned a trust factor of between 0 and 1. Further I think that new sites get a rather low default value, for example maybe .3

I think that as G learns more about a site, it begins increasing the trust factor. But, if suspicious activity is detected, the factor is either not graduated, or possibly reduced.

If true, a new site really can't do much other than behave well and wait it out. Of course adding content and building links is still required, but they would be best done in moderation.

Now we go to links and aging. It is probably safe to assume that G is at least somewhat practicing what they applied for in the patent doc. If a link's value increases over time, this would certainly explain the behavior you have documented.

If you buy into the 'trust factor' for sites concept, it is easy to conclude that links might have the same rules. New links may have a low initial trust factor, which may in part be inherited from the originating page. If over some time, the link behaves normally (changes to anchor might be considered) its trust factor increases over time.

It may not be the only explanation, but it is certainly is viable in my view.

/*tom*/

[The Founder]

Although I have no evidence

You do now... what else could explain the current results for the keyword 'failure'

The members of Search Guild for example think that I am off the wall for believing in the sandbox theory... however when pointed with evidence such as the current example of the whitehouse or even the recent Google Patent.. they can't give a valid answer.. It's good to know that I am not alone in the theory.. hence why I have been pushing it with solid examples such as this.

I know it exists.. the age of the links and the site do play a large factor in the rankings in SERPS.

It's good to know that in WebProWorld it's more accepted (so far).

I still don't quite understand how people can say it doesn't exist even when the patent said it does.

[incrediblehelp]

Founder,

I tend to not want to mix the two thoughts you have here.

One is the sandbox theory which can be debated until we fall over asleep, so I don't want to get into that again.

I think it is a separate issue that you have pointing out about the "aging of links". All though the sandbox theory probably takes into account the age of links and probably does come into play when your newly created website gets out of the sandbox, I think what you have pointed out here with "miserable failure" simply shows that ages of links are greatly important. I don't think we should jump to any conclusions on the sandbox theory just because the age of links seem to be important. Other factors keep websites in and takes websites out of the sandbox theory besides age of links. This is probably why you facing opposition to sandbox talk and getting no responses for the point of link age at SG.

[The Founder]

This is where I have a problem explaining.

All new sites only have new links... hence they are going to have a far greater chance of Sandbox.

I never assumed that the sandbox was just only due to the age of the site.. but if you have a brand new site..all the links going to it are going to be by nature brand new.

[maxseo]

I have not read all the replies to this forum.

But I guess if people think that George Bush is real failure in life (and I am one of these people) than Google search results don't lie. At least Google shows true democracy in their search results.

I would not call it a google bomb; I would call it 'and the people spoke'

I would imagine that Google was already pressed by white house about this fact, but not back out.

And if this holds up, then Well done Google

[tcampione]

maxseo:
Please stay on topic. I for one do not care for your political statements.

Founder:
Those who say there is no sandbox probably never experienced it. IMHO they are living in denial.

That said, I do believe there is more than only link age involved in sandboxing. One of the other indicators of being sandboxed is that the site ranks for secondary terms.

If link age were the only factor how could a site rank for terms that are found in anchor for an even smaller number of links?

/*tom*/

[The Founder]

I would like to keep it narrowed to technical reasons why the links are more powerful now than last year. We could debate for 1000 years the political side of it.

I think it exists.. and I feel that this example proves that the age of the links do get 'sandboxed'.

If anyone has other opinions I would love to hear them.

[activeco]

Originally Posted by The Founder

I think it exists.. and I feel that this example proves that the age of the links do get 'sandboxed'.

Now, that 'sandbox' word begins to be used just everywhere in order to prove sandbox.
The cornerstone of the sandbox theory is that newborn site can't rank well due to - being new.
And that's why I didn't believe in the theory from the first moment.
Sure, new sites need more tests in order to prove being higher authority.
And yes, the age of links plays a role @Google.

[The Founder]

The cornerstone of the sandbox theory is that newborn site can't rank well due to - being new.

Exactly... because new sites only have new links..

[tcampione]

Originally Posted by The Founder

Exactly... because new sites only have new links..

While true, I don't think that is the sole reason. It is widely known that an old site can add a topic and rank well for the topic in a few short weeks.

I believe link age is a part of the sandbox phenomenon, but that a trust factor is equally important. I suggest that in G's attempt to protect itself from spam, a trust factor of 0 to 1 has been put in the mix.

Every doucment has doc score relative to a keyword or keyphrase within that document's topic. Search results simply pull docs for indexed keywords and present them in descending order.

I think the new formula is: doc_score = doc_score * trust_factor. So if the original score is 9000 but the trust factor is .4, the new score is 3600 which means this site might now appear at #700.

/*tom*/