How can I change my URL without losing good google rankings?

  • netribution
  • Born
  • Born
  • netribution
  • Posts: 2
  • Loc: Glasgow, UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hi,

Forum newbie and not sure if this is the best place to ask this.

Basically in 1999 I set up a website - netribution.co.uk - which got good traffic and google rankings (no. 1 for terms like film funding, film network, etc) even now three years after the site was last updated properly in 2002.

I'm now looking at relaunching the site - but would like the domain to be less UK focussed - so have got the domain netribution.org on which I'm planning to build a new php based site (the last one was all html).

So my questions this - is it possible to move the site across in some way so that google recognises the new versions of the old pages (eg netribution.co.uk/interviews/rachel_weisz/1.html will become something like netribution.org/content.php?interviews=rachel_weisz ) with the same interest? ie by using auto redirects or a slow transitional period from one to the other.

Secondly - will google rate this site less favourably. I recently set up http://www.ukfilmfinance.com with a php CMS structure, and this ranks terribly, despite links from the front of netribution, and sites like the BBC.

Hope this is clear - and thanks in advance

n
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

I would not recommend it. A big factor in ranking is the length of time a site has been live on the net. If you have done good work with this URL, it could become a real authority site, something you don't want to give up...but if you are going to still start up with a new domain, I think you should read up on 301 redirects.
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

Although I don't completely agree with vetofunk that the time online
plays a huge role in ranking, I do agree that changing your URL is
not going to be an easy, smooth transition.

If you had only a few pages on the first site, you could 301 redirect
each one of them, but more than that is awkward at best.

I suggest that you first rethink your goals here. Is it really that
the .uk bothers you or are you just in the mood to write php?

Personally, I think the .uk adds character to the domain name.


Bompa
  • netribution
  • Born
  • Born
  • netribution
  • Posts: 2
  • Loc: Glasgow, UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

Thanks for the replies.

No I'm not up for PHP programming :D I'm actually only in the process of learning how to code anything with PHP at the moment, so the less new things to learn the better!

It's really the uk thing - good if you think it adds character, but I'm sure there must be people in the rest of the world who will be put off posting news / information local to them if they think it is a British site. Maybe I'm wrong.

The site still gets 5-8,000 page impressions a day of which maybe half comes from engines. There's about 4,000 html pages there (although done with Dreamweaver Templates) so putting redirects in would be a bit tricky.

Is there an easy way to mirror the site at netribution.org and encourage new visitors and links to point to that. Then after 12 months (or however long it takes) netribution.org would be recognised as a serious live and active domain..?

Cheers
Nic
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5735
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bompa wrote:
Although I don't completely agree with vetofunk that the time online plays a huge role in ranking,

You need to do some reading up yourself on Google's Patent application(s) last year. :)

Google's Patent application itself states that site longevity (both how long it's been alive already, and how long it's still registered for) plays a pretty decent part in how well URLs on a particular domain are ranked.
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

Axe wrote:
Bompa wrote:
Although I don't completely agree with vetofunk that the time online plays a huge role in ranking,

You need to do some reading up yourself on Google's Patent application(s) last year. :)

Google's Patent application itself states that site longevity (both how long it's been alive already, and how long it's still registered for) plays a pretty decent part in how well URLs on a particular domain are ranked.


Hi Axe,

So are you saying that the very act of applying for a patent is proof
that Google is actively employing everything contained within every
patent application?


Bompa
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

netribution wrote:
Is there an easy way to mirror the site at netribution.org ...



Well, if you mean what I think you mean, you could redirect everything
from domain1 to domain2 with

redirectMatch 301 (.*) http://domain2.tld$1

But please do not trust me on the exact syntax of that. please do some
research on '301 redirects'.


Bompa
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

Axe wrote:
Bompa wrote:
Although I don't completely agree with vetofunk that the time online plays a huge role in ranking,

You need to do some reading up yourself on Google's Patent application(s) last year. :)

Google's Patent application itself states that site longevity (both how long it's been alive already, and how long it's still registered for) plays a pretty decent part in how well URLs on a particular domain are ranked.


That is just a patent. A patent is on an idea. It does not say that any of the ideas in the patent are actually being used. All large scale testing so far on the time a site has been live have been inconclusive to date.

I can patent any idea to make sure someone else does not beat me to it, but that in itself does not make that idea valid or even viable.

The fact is, I have a site that is 4 months old ranking better than sites that started in this sphere years ago. So until large scale tests are conclusive, I have to disagree that time is a factor also.
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

I did say the time factor played a role...but that was if you have done good work with this URL, it could become a real authority site, something you don't want to give up. If the site was put up, but no seo work was done as far as related links, quality directories, it would only make a up a small factor. But if you did good seo for the past 6 years, I bet any one-two year old site would have a hard time matching the positioning in the engines of a 6 year old site.

For a new site, your going to get sucked into this "sandbox" of Google. This has been debated time and time again, but something is there, that delays any new site from getting good positioning for a long time, depending on the industry.

I don't think to many people get turned off by the domain name. Of course I would never recommend keyword-keyword-keywords-kewords-online.com. If you have good prices and can show that you are a trusted site, your good to go.
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5735
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bompa wrote:
Hi Axe,

So are you saying that the very act of applying for a patent is proof
that Google is actively employing everything contained within every
patent application?


That may have been how it looked, but no, that's not what I meant. People were been seeing possible evidence of this before the patent was submitted, and people have seen the evidence through experimentation since the patent was submitted.

I've got about 35 domain names right now, and the ones that I've had for several years (basically just parked with a single "Under Construction" page until I get around to creating the site), generally get Google exposure much quicker than those I've registered recently.

I've also seen that even with new domains, those that are registered for 4-5 years in advance also get more exposure quicker than those I register for just 1-2 years.

Search engines like to see that you've been around a while, and they also like to see that you're going to be around for a while. If you don't have faith enough in your own site to register the domain for a few years, why should the search engines show faith in your site?
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

Axe wrote:
I've got about 35 domain names right now, and the ones that I've had for several years (basically just parked with a single "Under Construction" page until I get around to creating the site), generally get Google exposure much quicker than those I've registered recently.

I've also seen that even with new domains, those that are registered for 4-5 years in advance also get more exposure quicker than those I register for just 1-2 years.

Search engines like to see that you've been around a while, and they also like to see that you're going to be around for a while. If you don't have faith enough in your own site to register the domain for a few years, why should the search engines show faith in your site?


Good debatable comments, and i understand your thinking on this, but as far as I have seen and any large scale testing has shown it just is not the case currently. Whether it will be in the future is anyones guess.

We registered a site 5 days ago, launched it yesterday officially. Today it is sitting at #11 for one of its main 2 keywords, and #160 for its other already.
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5735
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

But what's the competition like on those keywords? And is your site going to stay there?

New sites do get bumped up short-term, I've seen this too often in some of my domains when I register them for the first time, they start off on page one of my chosen keyword results, then they disappear into oblivion within a couple of weeks. Then out of the blue after a year or so, they'll start ranking highly again (with minimal page changes or additions - and without soliciting any backlinks).

And, like I said, then there's the domains I've just had sitting around for a couple of years, that rank highly when I actually get a site on them, then continue to rank highly, none of the effects I've noticed in the above example.

Short-term, the only real solution is regularly adding new content (new PAGES of content, new URLs), so that those URLs are getting the "new content effect" and coming up highly for a week or two before being bumped down.

Like you said, the observations are debatable, but I've never seen any of the large scale testing you've mentioned that confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not the case.

If you can show me with some reputable reports, I'd be really interested in having a look at them. :)
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

Axe wrote:
...If you don't have faith enough in your own site to register the domain for a few years, why should the search engines show faith in your site?


No offense Axe, but I don't think SERPs are about faith.
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5735
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

Let me rephrase.

The fact that you register your domain for several years shows the search engines that you are serious about your website. Google sees this as a positive sign and thus influences how Google positions your site accordingly.

That better for you?
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

Axe wrote:
But what's the competition like on those keywords?


very competitive.

Quote:
And is your site going to stay there?


Damnit, my google crystal ball broke!!

Quote:
New sites do get bumped up short-term, I've seen this too often in some of my domains when I register them for the first time, they start off on page one of my chosen keyword results, then they disappear into oblivion within a couple of weeks.



Yes, we have seen this also on quite a few sites, but never forreally competitive keywords. Only semi competitive and lower.

Quote:
Like you said, the observations are debatable, but I've never seen any of the large scale testing you've mentioned that confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not the case.


The ones I have seen done in bulk by DP, seochat, and webworkshop members have all been inconclusive. They didnt prove or disprove. Thats why I said above that I dont feel it is there yet. That was my opinion based on what I saw. Just as yours is yours. Either case is prolly debatable, but with the majority of tests inconclusive, it wouldnt last too long :P

Inconclusive = majority go with unknown, which means not an issue to worry about yet.
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

Axe wrote:
The fact that you register your domain for several years shows the search engines that you are serious about your website. Google sees this as a positive sign and thus influences how Google positions your site accordingly.


Or they could get a patent which says they *could* use that data, then watch all the SEO's scramble to register their domains for another 5 years and hit em all in one shot :P

The arguement for them using it has too many holes to exploit.
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

Axe wrote:
[
...generally get Google exposure much quicker than those I've registered recently...

I've also seen that even with new domains, those that are registered for 4-5 years in advance also get more exposure quicker than those I register for just 1-2 years.


Hi Axe,

Hope you don't think I'm attacking you, I'm just trying to understand
and clarify what you are saying. In your previous post, you said:
"...plays a pretty decent part in how well URLs on a particular domain are ranked."

In the above quotes you seem to be talking about
'quickness of exposure'. I don't mean to nickpick, but did you mean
the same thing with those two expressions?

I mean, quick exposure is different from ranking, right?


Bompa
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5735
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

Yes, quickness of exposure is different from rankings, but if you're not showing up in SERPs at any decent rank, you're not going to get any useful level of exposure through the search engines.

By exposure, I mean people actually seeing your site coming up in the results.
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

"We registered a site 5 days ago, launched it yesterday officially. Today it is sitting at #11 for one of its main 2 keywords..."

I'd like know what competitive keywords you saw jump up to #11 in 5 days and remain there.
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

Btw what are you asking for a side button on phpsector?

Nice site btw. You obviously put a lot of work into it.
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5735
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

Nope, I'm seeing it at #10, reg'd only like 3 days ago.

BUT! let's see how long it stays there :)
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

Axe wrote:
Nope, I'm seeing it at #10, reg'd only like 3 days ago.

BUT! let's see how long it stays there :)


Oh I agree 100% on that. As I said above, my google crystal ball broke, it may be there a few days, it may stick and stay. But it can be done again, which hasn't been possible in awhile now.
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

If it sticks at #10, somehow you got past the "sandbox", which is very rare.
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

It actually is now #26, however I know why. I lost a prominent link when a well known blog entry got moved off the front page. I expect it will be back on first page in a couple days :)
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

Well, keep us updated.

I would like to still see this on a pretty competitve keyword. This keyword has about 119,000 results, but seeing this in the 500,000+ results range would be pretty amazing.
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

Maybe you didnt read it right :P

Results 1 - 10 of about 95,600,000

95 million results is not a bad number at all :P
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

You need to put them in quotes to get the correct amount of results for the individual term.
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

True enough. That would give a better identifier. Still not bad for competitiveness tho.
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

Yeah, I am still amazed that is was able to get that high in such a short term. But as Aex said, we need to see if it stays there.
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

vetofunk wrote:
If it sticks at #10, somehow you got past the "sandbox", which is very rare.


Okay, I promise, (fingers crossed behind back), this is the last time
that I will try to wake up my fellow webmasters that have been
mezmerized by the term "sandbox".

Have you heard of the SERP contest they had at searchguild?


They annouced a term "nigritude ultramarine" that had zero
results with a Google search at that time, and told all those interested
to try for the #1 SERP.

There would be a #1 winner after one month and another #1
winner after two months.

All the participating webmasters knew that the particpant with the
most links would win, (most links with high PR actually). There was
no debate about that.

They had a winner after one month and they had a winner after
two months. The contest ended in July this year and both those
winner's pages are still in the top ten.


Give it up. There is no such thing as a Google "sandbox".

Stop living in an illusion.

Snap out of the hypnotic affect of that term.

If ten people or 100 people say it true, that does not make it true.

Stand on your own feet. Take your brain out of neutral.


Bompa
/end rant
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bompa wrote:
Okay, I promise, (fingers crossed behind back), this is the last time
that I will try to wake up my fellow webmasters that have been
mezmerized by the term "sandbox".


Excellant post, it is a shame that it is as incorrect as they come. Matt Cutts, googles head of search, said differently. Only he used the term aging filter instead of sandbox if I recall properly.

The sandbox, or aging filter, whichever, also came into effect shortly after the nigritude competition, so using that as an example is really not helping your arguement.

The sad fact is that before Jagger nothing was ranking for any semi to highly competitive keywords if it was a new site, with a multitude of new links to it.

Perhaps you should spend some time networking at the conferances talking to the people that have the facts :)
  • meman
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3431
  • Loc: London Town , Apples and pears and all that crap

Post 3+ Months Ago

yeah, it didn't happen once for people who were competing for SERPS of a nonexistent search term.

That dosn't disporve the sandbox theory at all.

Maybe the sandbox dosn't effect sites that would fill an empty corner of the net, if nobody else has sites about "nigritude ultramarine" then what does it matter if google gives them good serps?

Do the same for the search term "download mp3" or "weather forecast" and see what happens.

Googles algorithm probably assumed that these people were an authority on "nigritude ultramarine" as nobody else had that term anywhere on thier site, so naturally included them straight away for that term.
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
Give it up. There is no such thing as a Google "sandbox".

Stop living in an illusion.

Snap out of the hypnotic affect of that term.

If ten people or 100 people say it true, that does not make it true.

Stand on your own feet. Take your brain out of neutral.


I see you have never tried to optimize a site from scratch and competed with competitor sites that have been live for years. Maybe you should try it...

I said sandbox, because this is the most recognized term for this delay of positioning well in Google. If you think one doesn't exist...I don't know what to tell you. I have worked with dozens and dozens of sites over the past few years, and their is a delay...at least for very competitve keywords. You can get in the top 10 of MSN within weeks (geez...just have the keyword phrase in your URL), Yahoo within a month possibly, but for very competitve keywords...it can take months and months for Google.

I have noted many times that once I get my listing in the Google Directory, my listings pop up within a few weeks. I have a theory that this is one way to help get through this "sandbox", "litterbox"...whatever you want to call it.

I am not throwing this term around because that's what everyone says, it's because I have witnessed this time and time again, with dozens of sites...as I am sure many other people have as well. I am sure you could get top 10 positioning for "purple nightmare monkeys from hell" within a few weeks, but try terms like "christmas ornaments" or "scrubs" or "wine clubs" and see how long it takes.
  • ATNO/TW
  • Super Moderator
  • Super Moderator
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 23473
  • Loc: Woodbridge VA

Post 3+ Months Ago

It took nearly 5 months to get my domain name keywords listed number 1 with Google results, and nearly 3/4 of a year to hit a PR 5. I was number 1 result at MSN and Yahoo within a month with the same keywords. Pretty much just echoing veto's thoughts.

//edit. Try boasting rights (without quotes) two VERY generic words. Although I had to work hard for it, they are now number 1 result out of about 1,850,000

I can live with that *lol. But it most definitely didn't happen over night and there were two times, when I fell off the google map during updates, once for almost two months.
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

nuclei wrote:
..Matt Cutts, googles head of search, said differently. Only he used the term aging filter instead of sandbox if I recall properly.


Well, if he used a different term has it not occurred to you that he
might have been talking about something different?

No, because you believe what you want to believe.

Matt Cutts is not Google's "Head of Search".

At a recent conference, Matt Cutts was asked if the sandbox exists
and he said "No, ..."

I thought the searchguild competion was this past summer; June
and July. Are you saying the sandbox only started two or three
months ago?

Google is your god and sandbox is the latest demon/curse inflicted
upon you.

Whatever, I'm no longer spending time on this issue. I have done my
best, now I'll move on.


over & out,
Bompa
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bompa wrote:
Well, if he used a different term has it not occurred to you that he might have been talking about something different?


Since he said it in response to a direct question about the sandbox, No, I never did think he might be refering to anything else. Nobody with any intelligence would.

Quote:
No, because you believe what you want to believe.


Read above.

Quote:
Matt Cutts is not Google's "Head of Search".


Actually, yes he is. Everything that happens to the search engine backend, and quite possibly the front end, passes thru him. Nobody knows more about the workings except possibly sergey or larry themselves.


Quote:
At a recent conference, Matt Cutts was asked if the sandbox exists and he said "No, ..."


Now quote the rest of that speech. I take it you were not there and are just regurgitating.


Quote:
Google is your god and sandbox is the latest demon/curse inflicted upon you.


Actually I think of things as quite the opposite. Google is but a signpost on the net. It is not THE net. There are far more ways of getting better quality and sometimes quantities of traffic.
  • meman
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3431
  • Loc: London Town , Apples and pears and all that crap

Post 3+ Months Ago

Matt Cutts wrote:
There isn’t a sandbox, but the algorithm might affect some sites, under some circumstances, in a way that a webmaster would perceive as being sandboxed. So, for some sites, in effect there IS a sandbox

So hes saying that a "sandbox" dosnt exist, but effects identicle to the "sandbox" DO exist, but in something not called the "sandbox".
Source
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

nuclei wrote:
Bompa wrote:
Well, if he used a different term has it not occurred to you that he might have been talking about something different?


Since he said it in response to a direct question about the sandbox, No, I never did think he might be refering to anything else. Nobody with any intelligence would..


ouch!




nuclei wrote:
Quote:
At a recent conference, Matt Cutts was asked if the sandbox exists and he said "No, ..."


Now quote the rest of that speech. I take it you were not there and are just regurgitating.



Right, I was not there. Please clear me up on that quote.


thank you,
Bompa
  • ATNO/TW
  • Super Moderator
  • Super Moderator
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 23473
  • Loc: Woodbridge VA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bompa wrote:

Right, I was not there. Please clear me up on that quote.


thank you,
Bompa


http://www.searchenginejournal.com/index.php?p=2534
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5735
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bompa, once again, proving the old adage that once you think you know everything, you actually know nothing :)
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

wow 2 people posted the link to the quote before i could even get back here. :P
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

ATNO/TW wrote:
Bompa wrote:

Right, I was not there. Please clear me up on that quote.


thank you,
Bompa


http://www.searchenginejournal.com/index.php?p=2534


Thanks Atno,

I had seen that article and it's obviously BS.

Here are three parts of it..


First, the sensational headline:
"Matt Cutts Confirms Google Sandbox Exists"


Next paragraph...
"He confirmed basically that there is a sandbox like effect for some industries..."


A bit of backpeddling there :roll:



Next paragraph...
"In reply to a question from Brett Tabke, Matt said that there wasn’t
a sandbox, but the algorithm might affect some sites, under some
circumstances, in a way that a webmaster would perceive as being sandboxed."

(bold, italics, underscore are mine)

I see a "wasn't" in that paraphrasing of Matt's answer.

What I get from "a webmaster would perceive" is that from a
webmaster's point of view, it would appear to exist. The sandbox
is as real as a refreshing pool of water in the middle of a desert.

Those webmaster's that value illusions as much as reality will
not see the "wasn't" in Matt's answer. They will deny it was ever
said. They will say that I am stupid. They will say that I have some
ulterior motive. They will accuse me of anything to discredit me in
order to enable themselves to ignore reality.


But we still don't have a quote of exactly what Matt Cutts said,
word for word. So, I am waiting for Nuclei to give us that since
he implied that because I was not at the conference, it follows
that he, (nuclei), was at the conference and at that particular
session and that he heard exactly what Matt Cutts said and that
he can remember it clearly now and give it to us.

Well Nuclei?


:D


Bompa
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9189
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bompa wrote:
I thought the searchguild competion was this past summer; June
and July. Are you saying the sandbox only started two or three
months ago?


Hi Bompa,

Actually I think this was the summer before last. You can see Axe even started a thread here about it in May of 2004:

http://www.ozzu.com/other-google-information-and-resources/nigritude-ultramarine-t24627.html

Just wanted to make sure things were correct as I am sure much has changed in a year and a half too.
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

Ok, I stand corrected on that, thank you BWM.





Bompa
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

Ahh so now Barry (RustyBrick) is full of BS. I will make sure he sees that himself in the morning, seeing as I see him everyday. Knowing Barry, he may even get a laugh out of it when he blogs this thread on seroundtable :)


Bompa: Don't feel bad, we all have these days where we say the wrong thing and look silly mate.
  • meman
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3431
  • Loc: London Town , Apples and pears and all that crap

Post 3+ Months Ago

The sandbox effects have been confirmed by a google engineer. It seems bompa only has a problem with what we call it. Should we call it the "cloud jar", or maybe the "fluff bucket"?

Whatever you want to call it, it was confirmed that allthough google dosn't name this effect the sandbox, effects identicle to the sandbox are sometimes produced for some sites because of the google algorithm.
  • Axe
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5735
  • Loc: Sub-level 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

Oh man, don't even start talking on that one. I've got a site right now that's being fluff bucketed by Google :mrgreen:
  • rustybrick
  • Born
  • Born
  • rustybrick
  • Posts: 3

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hi,

I wrote that article (or blog entry).

It is not a direct quote.

But I know a hell of a lot about what Google thinks about the sandbox.

(1) They did not coin the term sandbox internally, it was founded at WebmasterWorld Forums.
(2) Because they didn't use the word internally, they have said in the past that there is no such thing as the sandbox.
(3) As Google because more Webmaster friendly they start to give us more hints.
(4) They tell us # 1 and 2 listed above.
(5) Google starts to use the word sandbox internally, probably mocking it.
(6) Matt Cutts does acknowledge that there is sandbox-like filters for "some industries." That was confirmed at the conference, he said it in public.

Matt Cutts is one of the top people at search at Google. He is now in charge of the spam team (search quality). But that is where much of Google's efforts are going these days. At least, outside of those other products and add ons.

Any questions?
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hahaha Hi Barry :)

I figured you would like this thread :P
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

vetofunk wrote:
"We registered a site 5 days ago, launched it yesterday officially. Today it is sitting at #11 for one of its main 2 keywords..."

I'd like know what competitive keywords you saw jump up to #11 in 5 days and remain there.


if you check that site again today, it is now at #8 :)
  • meman
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3431
  • Loc: London Town , Apples and pears and all that crap

Post 3+ Months Ago

It would be interesting to know specifically what he meant by "some industries", im assuming he meant sites that have content that use highly competitive keywords and search terms to get traffic?
  • rustybrick
  • Born
  • Born
  • rustybrick
  • Posts: 3

Post 3+ Months Ago

meman wrote:
It would be interesting to know specifically what he meant by "some industries", im assuming he meant sites that have content that use highly competitive keywords and search terms to get traffic?


He did not expand on what he meant by "some industries".

But I would guess your assumption is correct. :)
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

nuclei wrote:
vetofunk wrote:
"We registered a site 5 days ago, launched it yesterday officially. Today it is sitting at #11 for one of its main 2 keywords..."

I'd like know what competitive keywords you saw jump up to #11 in 5 days and remain there.


if you check that site again today, it is now at #8 :)


Nice...well I guess some sites get through this, as I am reading above, some industries are not effected. I guess I am going by more of the experience I have had with dozens and dozens of sites, like many others. But you have shown me that there are circumstances when you can get right in, though we need to see the longer term effect, not just a few weeks.
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

This thread is getting pretty interesting...one of my favorites ever here...
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

rustybrick wrote:
Hi,

I wrote that article (or blog entry).


Hi Rusty,

Thanks for that article, even tho I called it BS, hehe. I was only
referring to the relationship of the headline to the next few statements.
But anyways.



rustybrick wrote:
It is not a direct quote.


Thanks for saying that, imo most people think it is. Their eyes seem
to skip over the "Matt said" part.


rustybrick wrote:
(6) Matt Cutts does acknowledge that there is sandbox-like filters for "some industries."


What bothers me most about the term "sandbox" is the lack of a clear
definition. I have read some experts insist that it only applies to new
sites, while others insist it can happen to a site of any age. Some say
it applies to all sites, others say it only applies for certain competitive
keywords. Terminology without definition is propaganda and
disinformation. Do you have any input on what effects Matt Cutts is
referring to
when he acknowledged a "sandbox-like filter"?




rustybrick wrote:
Matt Cutts is one of the top people at search at Google. He is now in charge of the spam team (search quality).


That's what I thought, but I wasn't positive enough to state it, I knew
he wrote the safe surfing filter, or whatever it's called.


rustybrick wrote:
Any questions?



Yes.

Were the attendees at Pubcon 10 asked to sign, (or otherwise agree
to), a "do not quote us" type of agreement by any of the Google speakers?


thanks,
Bompa
  • rustybrick
  • Born
  • Born
  • rustybrick
  • Posts: 3

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bompa wrote:
Hi Rusty,

Thanks for that article, even tho I called it BS, hehe. I was only
referring to the relationship of the headline to the next few statements.
But anyways.


Nothing like an eye catching headline to make the user click to read more...

Bompa wrote:
Thanks for saying that, imo most people think it is. Their eyes seem
to skip over the "Matt said" part.

I summarized, but it is hard to type verbatim.


Bompa wrote:
What bothers me most about the term "sandbox" is the lack of a clear
definition. I have read some experts insist that it only applies to new
sites, while others insist it can happen to a site of any age.
Terminology without definition is propaganda and disinformation. Do
you have some input on what effects Google is referring to when they
say "sandbox-like"?

IMO, the sandbox only applies to brand new domain names. Google knows the site is new and says, we will put you in a temporary holding cell (sandbox) until we feel you should have the right to rank well based on our algorithm. IMO...




Bompa wrote:
That's what I thought, but I wasn't positive enough to state it, I knew
he wrote the safe surfing filter, or whatever it's called.

Yes, he is well known for creating the safe search filter that does a great job of blocking out adult content.


Bompa wrote:
Were the attendees at Pubcon 10 asked to sign a "do not quote
us" type of agreement by any of the Google speakers?


Can't video tape or voice record it, iI believe. And there is no way I can type fast enough to get it down word for word. :)
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

meman wrote:
The sandbox effects have been confirmed by a google engineer. It seems bompa only has a problem with what we call it. Should we call it the "cloud jar", or maybe the "fluff bucket"?.


Hi meman, actually "sandbox affect" would be a better term, but what
really bothers me is not the name, but the lack of a clear definition.


Bompa
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

meman wrote:
It would be interesting to know specifically what he meant by "some industries", im assuming he meant sites that have content that use highly competitive keywords and search terms to get traffic?


Okay, I'll take a guess also :lol:

Since Matt Cutts background is that he authored Google's Safe Search
feature, and he is now heading up the spam team, my guess is
that "some industries" refers to those industries or niche markets
that are most known for their willingness to deliberately and
aggressively go outside Google's guidelines. Imo, that would be the
porn, pills, and casino markets; the same industries that spam our
Inboxes every day.

Although the keywords for those markets are highly competitive, I
would not use "highly competitive" as part of my guess because, don't
we all feel that the top ten SERPs are highly competitive in each of our
markets?


Bompa






Bompa
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bompa wrote:
Wow! Gee! Golly whiz! Aren't you special.


Nope, just stating a fact. :)
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bompa wrote:
Hi meman, actually "sandbox affect" would be a better term, but what really bothers me is not the name, but the lack of a clear definition.


That is not what you stated tho in your original post that started all this.

You stated "It does not exist"

That has been shown as being completely false, no matter what name you put to it.

And so ends my arguement with you that it does indeed exist.

Get back in your corner now :)
  • nuclei
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 147
  • Loc: On a mountain

Post 3+ Months Ago

nuclei wrote:
vetofunk wrote:
"We registered a site 5 days ago, launched it yesterday officially. Today it is sitting at #11 for one of its main 2 keywords..."

I'd like know what competitive keywords you saw jump up to #11 in 5 days and remain there.


if you check that site again today, it is now at #8 :)


For those interested, that site is now #2.

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 61 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
cron
 

© 1998-2016. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.