On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:34:02 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:lndss2t0ferpmp93evrj5bhh4t9mimo1i3@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:53:22 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
>> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
>>>The only thing with newer sites not ranking as good is plain and simple.
>>>The
>>>older site have plenty of links and have been established by Google as
>>>being
>>>good stable sites.
>>>
>>>Stacey
>>
>> Ah. Established. You'll be aware of my thoughts about Google and
>> establishing provenance?
>
>I mean the older ones will rank above the newer ones especially if they keep
>gaining links. I know you thoughts and I know mine also. I have always said
>well established sites are the ones to get links from.

Their gift is provenance. They bestow provenance.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/google-mountain.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-tips.htm

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:38:44 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>"1100000" <see_reply-to_address@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:12ssnrei3kpr272@corp.supernews.com...
>> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>>
>>> "1100000" <see_reply-to_address@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You two are behind the times a little.
>>>>
>>>> Behind the times? In what way?
>>>>
>>>> If you are referring to "sandbox", I use it for lack of a better word
>>>> (hence
>>>> the quotes).
>>>
>>> The sandbox is outdated really. There isn't any and really there wasn't a
>>> sandboxing to the site per say as the links that went to it. There
>>> doesn't
>>> seem to be anything with newer sites being sandboxed or even the links
>>> that I have seen recently.
>>
>> By "sandbox" I mean the 6 to 8 month delay that new domains often face
>> when
>> trying to rank in Google. It does not exist for every site (I think
>> depending on the subject and the pattern of link building). I also had
>> the
>> opportunity to see the inner workings of a large domaining operation, and
>> they said it was like clockwork -- 8 months after registering a domain it
>> would began to rank.
>
>I know what you mean by sandbox. It just isn't happening ATM. Read my reply
>to Borek. Also it never was the site that was sandboxed, but the links.
>>
>> You can pick up some long-tail traffic in the beginning -- even get #1 in
>> Yahoo and MSN... but Google generally shows resuts on a new domain after 6
>> to 8 months.
>
>
>Not really no more. It depends on the links you gain.

Are you suggesting that it used to be different? I don't mean before
the sandbox, I mean the nature of the sandbox itself. Links is the
only way a site can gain in provenance. They are authentication of the
content, which itself has to be of good quality.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/google-mountain.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-tips.htm

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:57:18 +0100, Big Bill <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote:

>>> Why, how, and whether it should be called sandbox effect or not is
>>> another
>>> problem, but my observations tell me it is still in place. YMMV, which
>>> makes SEO more interesting.
>>
>> Don't think so from my point of view, you are only working with a
>> couple of
>> sites. But hey if you all want to believe in the sandbox or what ever
>> fine.
>> And it was never the site that had the delay but the links before. If
>> you
>> can not get links from well established sites then you will stay low.
>
> I agree with that. I maintain that it's establishing provenance that's
> the key to leaving the sandbox. Which, sort of, Stacey's said too. I
> think we're just defining it differently.

Do you have the same feeling we are talking about the same phenomenon
Stacey does, she just refuses to call it sandbox effect?

Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&right=pH-calculator
http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-electrode
http://www.bpp.com.pl/?left=dysleksja&right=dysleksja
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl

"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:efbus2t9nbs0v7dco2d7i6gss31dvs7miq@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:38:44 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>"1100000" <see_reply-to_address@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:12ssnrei3kpr272@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>>>
>>>> "1100000" <see_reply-to_address@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You two are behind the times a little.
>>>>>
>>>>> Behind the times? In what way?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are referring to "sandbox", I use it for lack of a better word
>>>>> (hence
>>>>> the quotes).
>>>>
>>>> The sandbox is outdated really. There isn't any and really there wasn't
>>>> a
>>>> sandboxing to the site per say as the links that went to it. There
>>>> doesn't
>>>> seem to be anything with newer sites being sandboxed or even the links
>>>> that I have seen recently.
>>>
>>> By "sandbox" I mean the 6 to 8 month delay that new domains often face
>>> when
>>> trying to rank in Google. It does not exist for every site (I think
>>> depending on the subject and the pattern of link building). I also had
>>> the
>>> opportunity to see the inner workings of a large domaining operation,
>>> and
>>> they said it was like clockwork -- 8 months after registering a domain
>>> it
>>> would began to rank.
>>
>>I know what you mean by sandbox. It just isn't happening ATM. Read my
>>reply
>>to Borek. Also it never was the site that was sandboxed, but the links.
>>>
>>> You can pick up some long-tail traffic in the beginning -- even get #1
>>> in
>>> Yahoo and MSN... but Google generally shows resuts on a new domain after
>>> 6
>>> to 8 months.
>>
>>
>>Not really no more. It depends on the links you gain.
>
> Are you suggesting that it used to be different? I don't mean before
> the sandbox, I mean the nature of the sandbox itself. Links is the
> only way a site can gain in provenance. They are authentication of the
> content, which itself has to be of good quality.

Right, it was never in my opinion a new site being on hold. But the links
that were not being used. Especially those gained to fast, would make a site
never get out of the sand if that is how you want to look at it. It is
really how you can gain your links, what kind of links you have. I feel it
has always been like this.

Plus even before there was any mention of a sandbox type thing, it has been
mentioned by some people here that newer sites need to be seasoned(by me for
one, this is long ago) and this is because they need to gain links. That is
why it appears to suddenly jump up sometimes. All the links probably haven't
been crawled. Especially those gaining links from people who get links that
are stuck on links pages. It may take 6 to 8 months for all their links to
start showing up.

Anyway, it was quick links being on hold for the most part. Especially links
from high PR sources would put a hold on them as they look like purchased
links. It is all on the way you link and how you gain the links.:-)

Now I have actually seen a hold put on older previously owned or registered
sites. By this I mean there wouldn't even be cached even with links. They
were no where to be seen in Google for 6 months. Exactly 6 months. That is
why I went to new sites as I gained ranks and getting indexed much quicker.
Although I still use my older previously owned sites, the newer ones get
noticed better! Although, I put one up Christmas from a previously owned
domain and it got indexed where I didn't have to wait 6 months, which is why
I said previously in this thread that even that seems to be out the door
also.

Stacey

--
Valentine Stuff - Valentine Gifts - Trinkets
http://valentine-stuff.net/valentine-trinkets.htm
Irish Stuff - Saint Patrick's Day Decorations
http://irish-stuff.net/irish-plaques-signs.htm

"Borek" wrote :
Do you have the same feeling we are talking about the same phenomenon
Stacey does, she just refuses to call it sandbox effect?

What's in a name?
A sandbox by any other name would still smell of dog sh*t.

There's definitely 'a phenomenon', and 'sandbox' is as good a name as any!
--

Andrew
Editor
http://www.seo2seo.com/

"Borek" <m.borkowski@delete.chembuddy.whats.com.invalid> wrote in message
newsp.tnla3njnu0t02r@borek...
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:57:18 +0100, Big Bill <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote:

>>>> Why, how, and whether it should be called sandbox effect or not is
>>> another
>>>> problem, but my observations tell me it is still in place. YMMV, which
>>>> makes SEO more interesting.
>>
>>> Don't think so from my point of view, you are only working with a
>> couple of
>>> sites. But hey if you all want to believe in the sandbox or what ever
>>> fine.
>>> And it was never the site that had the delay but the links before. If
>> you
>>> can not get links from well established sites then you will stay low.
>
>> I agree with that. I maintain that it's establishing provenance that's
>> the key to leaving the sandbox. Which, sort of, Stacey's said too. I
>> think we're just defining it differently.

>Do you have the same feeling we are talking about the same phenomenon
>Stacey does, she just refuses to call it sandbox effect?

Sandbox, I am stating doesn't exist anymore. Low rankings has always existed
even before someone stated sandbox. Your site is never sandboxed even when
people called it sandbox. There was a while ago something that links were
not being used and those I suppose were sandboxed. But read what I posted to
Bill. Most new sites people think it takes so long to make it is because the
whole time they are slowly gaining links. It can take 6 months to actually
get all of there links crawled. So to them it seems they were sandboxed. I
am stating you can have a site, a new one and gain PR, ranking, and
everything. It all depends on how it is done.

I am sorry, but it can be almost impossible to knock my site down from the
rag rugs SERP. Why? Because I have been there stable and sure, I keep
gaining links, I never stagnate. Most of the sites do. If a new comer comes
and can't make it to the top 10 in 6 months they think they are in a
sandbox, that would be wrong. They need to gain as many links as most of the
older ones there to gain there position in the ranks. But not rush and get
50 links in a day or something like that.

Stacey

--
Valentine Stuff - Valentine Gifts - Trinkets
http://valentine-stuff.net/valentine-trinkets.htm
Irish Stuff - Saint Patrick's Day Decorations
http://irish-stuff.net/irish-plaques-signs.htm

"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3@heenan.net> wrote in message
news:vQGzh.5811$tz6.4649@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> "Borek" wrote :
> Do you have the same feeling we are talking about the same phenomenon
> Stacey does, she just refuses to call it sandbox effect?
>
> What's in a name?
> A sandbox by any other name would still smell of dog sh*t.
>
> There's definitely 'a phenomenon', and 'sandbox' is as good a name as any!

You all go ahead and feel what you need to feel. There are those of us out
there who really never believed in it, or who is also stating it doesn't
appear to be there. Just go do some searching on forums and such. You will
find them.

There have been filtered sites with linking schemes and such, newer sites
that take a while to gain ranking because of not enough links, and so forth.

If someone say has 10 old(older domains but new site content) and new sites
that they have made in a year and have done different linking and watched
them. This would be the person I would know that they could see what has
happened and would listen to.:-) I don't go for some people who only listen
to others who don't see the whole effects. A person has to be in control to
actually see and believe.:-)

Stacey
--
Valentine Stuff - Valentine Gifts - Trinkets
http://valentine-stuff.net/valentine-trinkets.htm
Irish Stuff - Saint Patrick's Day Decorations
http://irish-stuff.net/irish-plaques-signs.htm

"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i3bus2lrsnhjfbi1acpmfn92k70ms12u04@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:31:56 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
<snip>

>>Well, I am going with my sites I have. I have new and older registered
>>domains. It is links that causes it, and if you links are not being picked
>>up then your site will stay lower. It isn't the site. I did a site for a
>>client, designed it and all. It has been at the top for the keywords since
>>indexed.
>
> That doesn't tell us a whole lot. Are they competitive keywords? How
> long has it been indexed for? Was it a new domain with no history?
> Etc.

It was a new site, indexed for 6 months now, indexed a week after gaining
links and going live, a so so SERP. It has a PR of 4 now.:-) I am done here.
I have got to much work to do. I am working on 3 sites that need to be
up(well close to done) soon!

You boys have fun!

Stacey
--
Valentine Stuff - Valentine Gifts - Trinkets
http://valentine-stuff.net/valentine-trinkets.htm
Irish Stuff - Saint Patrick's Day Decorations
http://irish-stuff.net/irish-plaques-signs.htm

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:34:00 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:efbus2t9nbs0v7dco2d7i6gss31dvs7miq@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:38:44 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
>> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"1100000" <see_reply-to_address@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:12ssnrei3kpr272@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "1100000" <see_reply-to_address@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You two are behind the times a little.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Behind the times? In what way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are referring to "sandbox", I use it for lack of a better word
>>>>>> (hence
>>>>>> the quotes).
>>>>>
>>>>> The sandbox is outdated really. There isn't any and really there wasn't
>>>>> a
>>>>> sandboxing to the site per say as the links that went to it. There
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> seem to be anything with newer sites being sandboxed or even the links
>>>>> that I have seen recently.
>>>>
>>>> By "sandbox" I mean the 6 to 8 month delay that new domains often face
>>>> when
>>>> trying to rank in Google. It does not exist for every site (I think
>>>> depending on the subject and the pattern of link building). I also had
>>>> the
>>>> opportunity to see the inner workings of a large domaining operation,
>>>> and
>>>> they said it was like clockwork -- 8 months after registering a domain
>>>> it
>>>> would began to rank.
>>>
>>>I know what you mean by sandbox. It just isn't happening ATM. Read my
>>>reply
>>>to Borek. Also it never was the site that was sandboxed, but the links.
>>>>
>>>> You can pick up some long-tail traffic in the beginning -- even get #1
>>>> in
>>>> Yahoo and MSN... but Google generally shows resuts on a new domain after
>>>> 6
>>>> to 8 months.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not really no more. It depends on the links you gain.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that it used to be different? I don't mean before
>> the sandbox, I mean the nature of the sandbox itself. Links is the
>> only way a site can gain in provenance. They are authentication of the
>> content, which itself has to be of good quality.
>
>Right, it was never in my opinion a new site being on hold. But the links
>that were not being used. Especially those gained to fast, would make a site
>never get out of the sand if that is how you want to look at it. It is
>really how you can gain your links, what kind of links you have. I feel it
>has always been like this.

Nope, I don't agree, it's where the links are from that counts. Get a
link from The Pope's Blog to your brand new Catholic site and boom,
you're out of the sandbox. Get 1000 forum sig links and you'll still
be in it.

>Plus even before there was any mention of a sandbox type thing, it has been
>mentioned by some people here that newer sites need to be seasoned(by me for
>one, this is long ago) and this is because they need to gain links. That is
>why it appears to suddenly jump up sometimes.

OK, you get 999 links from forum sigs, you rank nada. You then get one
link from a site the Pope's Blog links to, you're out of the sandbox.

>All the links probably haven't
>been crawled. Especially those gaining links from people who get links that
>are stuck on links pages. It may take 6 to 8 months for all their links to
>start showing up.
>
>Anyway, it was quick links being on hold for the most part.

Well, depending on where they were from.

> Especially links
>from high PR sources would put a hold on them as they look like purchased
>links. It is all on the way you link and how you gain the links.:-)
>
>Now I have actually seen a hold put on older previously owned or registered
>sites. By this I mean there wouldn't even be cached even with links. They
>were no where to be seen in Google for 6 months. Exactly 6 months. That is
>why I went to new sites as I gained ranks and getting indexed much quicker.
>Although I still use my older previously owned sites, the newer ones get
>noticed better! Although, I put one up Christmas from a previously owned
>domain and it got indexed where I didn't have to wait 6 months, which is why
>I said previously in this thread that even that seems to be out the door
>also.

I've not tried this, I don't have loads of new sites.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/google-mountain.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-tips.htm

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:10:25 +0100, Borek
<m.borkowski@delete.chembuddy.whats.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:57:18 +0100, Big Bill <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> Why, how, and whether it should be called sandbox effect or not is
>>>> another
>>>> problem, but my observations tell me it is still in place. YMMV, which
>>>> makes SEO more interesting.
>>>
>>> Don't think so from my point of view, you are only working with a
>>> couple of
>>> sites. But hey if you all want to believe in the sandbox or what ever
>>> fine.
>>> And it was never the site that had the delay but the links before. If
>>> you
>>> can not get links from well established sites then you will stay low.
>>
>> I agree with that. I maintain that it's establishing provenance that's
>> the key to leaving the sandbox. Which, sort of, Stacey's said too. I
>> think we're just defining it differently.
>
>Do you have the same feeling we are talking about the same phenomenon
>Stacey does, she just refuses to call it sandbox effect?
>
>Borek

Yeah, she calls it Harold, probably.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/google-mountain.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-tips.htm

"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42nus21np523mf2gh58adg6qp8pdov6f08@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:34:00 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
<snip>

>>Right, it was never in my opinion a new site being on hold. But the links
>>that were not being used. Especially those gained to fast, would make a
>>site
>>never get out of the sand if that is how you want to look at it. It is
>>really how you can gain your links, what kind of links you have. I feel it
>>has always been like this.
>
> Nope, I don't agree, it's where the links are from that counts.

Bill, look at what I just said above. How you gain, what kind of links you
have.:-)

>Get a
> link from The Pope's Blog to your brand new Catholic site and boom,
> you're out of the sandbox. Get 1000 forum sig links and you'll still
> be in it.

There isn't any sandbox. You gain a quality related links (which is what I
have always said) and you are there. You gain small piddly links you aren't
going anywhere. It has always been that way if you gained piddly links.
There is nothing wrong with them though. It doesn't you as much.

>>Plus even before there was any mention of a sandbox type thing, it has
>>been
>>mentioned by some people here that newer sites need to be seasoned(by me
>>for
>>one, this is long ago) and this is because they need to gain links. That
>>is
>>why it appears to suddenly jump up sometimes.
>
> OK, you get 999 links from forum sigs, you rank nada. You then get one
> link from a site the Pope's Blog links to, you're out of the sandbox.

There isn't a sandbox. Just a site not ranking then gains a quality links,
and you rank. If there was a sandbox then a link wouldn't get you out.

>>All the links probably haven't
>>been crawled. Especially those gaining links from people who get links
>>that
>>are stuck on links pages. It may take 6 to 8 months for all their links to
>>start showing up.
>>
>>Anyway, it was quick links being on hold for the most part.
>
> Well, depending on where they were from.

Not if they are loads of quick links even from the Pope or Arch Angel
Gabriel. You gain loads of links say 900 in a month you drop. You would drop
even if you have an old site.

>> Especially links
>>from high PR sources would put a hold on them as they look like purchased
>>links. It is all on the way you link and how you gain the links.:-)
>>
>>Now I have actually seen a hold put on older previously owned or
>>registered
>>sites. By this I mean there wouldn't even be cached even with links. They
>>were no where to be seen in Google for 6 months. Exactly 6 months. That is
>>why I went to new sites as I gained ranks and getting indexed much
>>quicker.
>>Although I still use my older previously owned sites, the newer ones get
>>noticed better! Although, I put one up Christmas from a previously owned
>>domain and it got indexed where I didn't have to wait 6 months, which is
>>why
>>I said previously in this thread that even that seems to be out the door
>>also.
>
> I've not tried this, I don't have loads of new sites.

I do. I have newly registered and re-registered(previously owned) domains.
In fact, I have my own links now and I am not bothered to much on gaining
from other sites. I gain one or 2 of them from other sources to out and
gain outer circle PR.

Stacey
--
Valentine Stuff - Valentine Gifts - Trinkets
http://valentine-stuff.net/valentine-trinkets.htm
Irish Stuff - Saint Patrick's Day Decorations
http://irish-stuff.net/irish-plaques-signs.htm

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:45:12 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:42nus21np523mf2gh58adg6qp8pdov6f08@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:34:00 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
>> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
>>>Right, it was never in my opinion a new site being on hold. But the links
>>>that were not being used. Especially those gained to fast, would make a
>>>site
>>>never get out of the sand if that is how you want to look at it. It is
>>>really how you can gain your links, what kind of links you have. I feel it
>>>has always been like this.
>>
>> Nope, I don't agree, it's where the links are from that counts.
>
>Bill, look at what I just said above. How you gain, what kind of links you
>have.:-)

The way you interpret things... one gets the impression that what you
actually say is not what you think you say. Often. I speak Stacey but
only a little. Still!

>>Get a
>> link from The Pope's Blog to your brand new Catholic site and boom,
>> you're out of the sandbox. Get 1000 forum sig links and you'll still
>> be in it.
>
>There isn't any sandbox. You gain a quality related links (which is what I
>have always said) and you are there. You gain small piddly links you aren't
>going anywhere. It has always been that way if you gained piddly links.

Um... don't think so but I'd have to do research to back that up I
don't have time for. We're on the same page here though Stace.

>There is nothing wrong with them though. It doesn't you as much.

I think crappy links present Google with a well-rounded link profile.
It's more natural.

>>>Plus even before there was any mention of a sandbox type thing, it has
>>>been
>>>mentioned by some people here that newer sites need to be seasoned(by me
>>>for
>>>one, this is long ago) and this is because they need to gain links. That
>>>is
>>>why it appears to suddenly jump up sometimes.
>>
>> OK, you get 999 links from forum sigs, you rank nada. You then get one
>> link from a site the Pope's Blog links to, you're out of the sandbox.
>
>There isn't a sandbox. Just a site not ranking then gains a quality links,
>and you rank. If there was a sandbox then a link wouldn't get you out.

The right link would. Another one from a forum wouldn't, but a
high-grade one will.

>>>All the links probably haven't
>>>been crawled. Especially those gaining links from people who get links
>>>that
>>>are stuck on links pages. It may take 6 to 8 months for all their links to
>>>start showing up.
>>>
>>>Anyway, it was quick links being on hold for the most part.
>>
>> Well, depending on where they were from.
>
>Not if they are loads of quick links even from the Pope or Arch Angel
>Gabriel.

Just one quick link will do it from the right source. It will give
Google faith in its algo's interpretation of your content.

> You gain loads of links say 900 in a month you drop. You would drop
>even if you have an old site.

I couldn't substantiate this but I wouldn't agree.

>>> Especially links
>>>from high PR sources would put a hold on them as they look like purchased
>>>links. It is all on the way you link and how you gain the links.:-)
>>>
>>>Now I have actually seen a hold put on older previously owned or
>>>registered
>>>sites. By this I mean there wouldn't even be cached even with links. They
>>>were no where to be seen in Google for 6 months. Exactly 6 months. That is
>>>why I went to new sites as I gained ranks and getting indexed much
>>>quicker.
>>>Although I still use my older previously owned sites, the newer ones get
>>>noticed better! Although, I put one up Christmas from a previously owned
>>>domain and it got indexed where I didn't have to wait 6 months, which is
>>>why
>>>I said previously in this thread that even that seems to be out the door
>>>also.
>>
>> I've not tried this, I don't have loads of new sites.
>
>I do. I have newly registered and re-registered(previously owned) domains.
>In fact, I have my own links now and I am not bothered to much on gaining
>from other sites. I gain one or 2 of them from other sources to out and
>gain outer circle PR.

This is the SEO Dave way of doing things. The problem there is one of
potential vulnerability. If you piss off Google all your network can
go because it relies so much on its own internal link structure. I use
internal in a broad sense there.

I hope the rest of you kids are taking notes!!

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-mark...l-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/google-mountain.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-tips.htm

"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t50vs29b0dhl04h2k9jsv67cbn0b0565ap@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:45:12 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
<snip>


>>I do. I have newly registered and re-registered(previously owned) domains.
>>In fact, I have my own links now and I am not bothered to much on gaining
>>from other sites. I gain one or 2 of them from other sources to out
>>and
>>gain outer circle PR.
>
> This is the SEO Dave way of doing things. The problem there is one of
> potential vulnerability. If you piss off Google all your network can
> go because it relies so much on its own internal link structure. I use
> internal in a broad sense there.


Not quite, as for one I am not going to piss off Google. Another is they are
all sites built differently with different stuff. It is better as you do
have more control doing it this way. You now there isn't any linking to bad
neighborhoods. They are all related in some form, but different sites as a
whole.:-)

Stacey
--
Irish Stuff - Saint Patrick's Day Decorations
http://irish-stuff.net/
Easter Stuff - Decorations - Egg Tips
http://easter-stuff.net/

"1100000" <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:12sv1jntar7t552@corp.supernews.com...
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
>> "Andrew Heenan" <andrew3@heenan.net> wrote:
>>> There's definitely 'a phenomenon', and 'sandbox' is as good a name as
>>> any!
>>
>> You all go ahead and feel what you need to feel. There are those of us
>> out there who really never believed in it, or who is also stating it
>> doesn't appear to be there. Just go do some searching on forums and such.
>> You will find them.
>
> Forums often don't provide accurate information...

Nor to NG's as there is some wrong info coming out now.:-) I just stated I
am not the only one who feels the way I do.:-)



>> If someone say has 10 old(older domains but new site content) and new
>> sites that they have made in a year and have done different linking and
>> watched them. This would be the person I would know that they could see
>> what has happened and would listen to.:-) I don't go for some people who
>> only listen to others who don't see the whole effects. A person has to be
>> in control to actually see and believe.:-)
>
> I've talked with people that have thousands of domains. They say "8
> months, like clockwork". Even without those conversations, from
> experience I'm sure that there is a general delay on the ranking of new
> domains in Google. For lack of a better word, I call it the "sandbox"
> (with quotes). It is possible to bypass the delay, but I suspect that it
> is based on the pattern of link building and the theme of the content.


I am glad you have spoke to people with thousands of domains(sounds like a
little bit of exaggeration here):-))). I am not seeing any problems with my
newer sites once I get them going with links. As any site needs to have
links.:-) I would listen to people I know well and telling me the truth
before anyone I don't. I know what I know from my own experience. I am glad
some people think they can't do nothing and rank well for 6 to 8 months,
let's me do all the ranking ahead of them first!:-)

If it is possible to by-pass a delay, then think about it. It doesn't exist!
Why can some sites work and some not? That just doesn't make sense. The
little sandbox fairy picks and chooses? It is possible to have a site do
fine, the ones that aren't is because of either not enough links to rank
well with the older sites, too many links gained at once off the bat, all
the links haven't been crawled and counted(and can take time to), the links
not weighing good because of poor PR, and other factors. It can probably be
explained when looking the site over. Not just because it is new and
sandboxed.

Of course some older sites do much better only if they have gained links and
become stable, but you can have a site that is 7 years old and doesn't rank
well especially if it has poor quality links it will never rank.

Stacey
--
Irish Stuff - Saint Patrick's Day Decorations
http://irish-stuff.net/
Easter Stuff - Decorations - Egg Tips
http://easter-stuff.net/

"1100000" <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:12sv3l9akdrg515@corp.supernews.com...
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
>> "Borek" <m.borkowski@delete.chembuddy.whats.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> Sandbox, I am stating doesn't exist anymore. Low rankings has always
>> existed even before someone stated sandbox. Your site is never sandboxed
>> even when people called it sandbox. There was a while ago something that
>> links were not being used and those I suppose were sandboxed. But read
>> what I posted to Bill. Most new sites people think it takes so long to
>> make it is because the whole time they are slowly gaining links. It can
>> take 6 months to actually get all of there links crawled. So to them it
>> seems they were sandboxed. I am stating you can have a site, a new one
>> and gain PR, ranking, and everything. It all depends on how it is done.
>
> It doesn't take 6 months to get all the links crawled, expecially on IBLs
> with decent PR.

This I know, and if you get decent(quality) links with PR you will start to
rank.


>>They need to gain as many links as most of the older ones there to gain
>>there position in the ranks. But not rush and get 50 links in a day or
>>something like that.
>
> Do a link popularity analysis of the top 10 sites for queries and it's not
> the number of links.

I don't need to. It isn't just links to make website rank well. There are
other factors involved. They have to be sites that are of good content and
not your average made up crap out there now. I know what makes sites work
well.

> Spreadsheet -- use Yahoo SiteExplorer:
>
> URL | Links to Homepage | Links to All Pages (i.e., to see
> percentage of deep links)
>
> Also try it on some queries that are more competitive than "rag rugs".

Don't need to on that either. I used that term because most of the regulars
know my main SERP use to be rag rugs. I have many SERPs now, and am getting
tired of this as my work isn't getting done. But it was enjoyable to have
some fun for the day, I got a few laughs.

All I did was state something I have noticed to try and let everyone know
for SEO purposes. But as usual this group sucks when it comes to a
conversation on SEO. Nothing new here.:-) I learn more on my own than
anything coming from this group!

One you have not stated information from your experiences, all you have
stated is hear say.

Stacey
--
Irish Stuff - Saint Patrick's Day Decorations
http://irish-stuff.net/
Easter Stuff - Decorations - Egg Tips
http://easter-stuff.net/

"Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
> "Andrew Heenan" <andrew3@heenan.net> wrote:
>> There's definitely 'a phenomenon', and 'sandbox' is as good a name as
>> any!
>
> You all go ahead and feel what you need to feel. There are those of us out
> there who really never believed in it, or who is also stating it doesn't
> appear to be there. Just go do some searching on forums and such. You will
> find them.

Forums often don't provide accurate information...

> If someone say has 10 old(older domains but new site content) and new
> sites that they have made in a year and have done different linking and
> watched them. This would be the person I would know that they could see
> what has happened and would listen to.:-) I don't go for some people who
> only listen to others who don't see the whole effects. A person has to be
> in control to actually see and believe.:-)

I've talked with people that have thousands of domains. They say "8 months,
like clockwork". Even without those conversations, from experience I'm sure
that there is a general delay on the ranking of new domains in Google. For
lack of a better word, I call it the "sandbox" (with quotes). It is
possible to bypass the delay, but I suspect that it is based on the pattern
of link building and the theme of the content.

"Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
> "Borek" <m.borkowski@delete.chembuddy.whats.com.invalid> wrote in message
> Sandbox, I am stating doesn't exist anymore. Low rankings has always
> existed even before someone stated sandbox. Your site is never sandboxed
> even when people called it sandbox. There was a while ago something that
> links were not being used and those I suppose were sandboxed. But read
> what I posted to Bill. Most new sites people think it takes so long to
> make it is because the whole time they are slowly gaining links. It can
> take 6 months to actually get all of there links crawled. So to them it
> seems they were sandboxed. I am stating you can have a site, a new one and
> gain PR, ranking, and everything. It all depends on how it is done.

It doesn't take 6 months to get all the links crawled, expecially on IBLs
with decent PR.

>They need to gain as many links as most of the older ones there to gain
>there position in the ranks. But not rush and get 50 links in a day or
>something like that.

Do a link popularity analysis of the top 10 sites for queries and it's not
the number of links.

Spreadsheet -- use Yahoo SiteExplorer:

URL | Links to Homepage | Links to All Pages (i.e., to see
percentage of deep links)

Also try it on some queries that are more competitive than "rag rugs".

"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:12:30 -0500, 1100000
> <see_reply-to_address@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>By "sandbox" I mean the 6 to 8 month delay that new domains often face
>>when
>>trying to rank in Google. It does not exist for every site (I think
>>depending on the subject and the pattern of link building). I also had
>>the
>>opportunity to see the inner workings of a large domaining operation, and
>>they said it was like clockwork -- 8 months after registering a domain it
>>would began to rank.
>>
>>You can pick up some long-tail traffic in the beginning -- even get #1 in
>>Yahoo and MSN... but Google generally shows resuts on a new domain after 6
>>to 8 months.
>
> What kind of links were gained in the meantime? From what sources?

Which site were you referring to?

"Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote
> "1100000" <see_reply-to_address@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> By "sandbox" I mean the 6 to 8 month delay that new domains often face
>> when
>> trying to rank in Google. It does not exist for every site (I think
>> depending on the subject and the pattern of link building). I also had
>> the
>> opportunity to see the inner workings of a large domaining operation, and
>> they said it was like clockwork -- 8 months after registering a domain it
>> would began to rank.
>
> I know what you mean by sandbox. It just isn't happening ATM. Read my
> reply to Borek. Also it never was the site that was sandboxed, but the
> links.

I've heard about that, but I don't think that an "aging delay on IBLs" is
what causes the "sandbox" effect.


>> You can pick up some long-tail traffic in the beginning -- even get #1 in
>> Yahoo and MSN... but Google generally shows resuts on a new domain after
>> 6
>> to 8 months.
>
> Not really no more. It depends on the links you gain. I have many sites, I
> work with old, new, and in between.

Likewise... It depends on what keywords you are going for. If your main
keyword is non-competitive you can do fairly well in the beginning, i.e.,
first page for some long-tail keywords in Google fairly quickly. It is even
possible to "beat the sandbox", but I think it depends on subject of the
site and pattern of link building from the beginning.

"Jezsta Web Productions" <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote :
> "Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:38:44 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
>> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote

> Plus even before there was any mention of a sandbox type thing, it has
> been mentioned by some people here that newer sites need to be seasoned(by
> me for one, this is long ago) and this is because they need to gain links.
> That is why it appears to suddenly jump up sometimes. All the links
> probably haven't been crawled. Especially those gaining links from people
> who get links that are stuck on links pages. It may take 6 to 8 months for
> all their links to start showing up.

It doesn't take 6 months for links to get crawled, u