For what it is worth, I have been to both sides of the issue (as
having visited junk sites from google searches, as well as having a
few mistakenly produced very low quality pages indexed).

With the internet having so much junk content, duplicate content, and
competing content, depth of coverage (percent of all worldwide pages
indexed) is no longer an indication of search engine quality. What
matters more is that generated and scraped crap is not included. To
that end, most new sites that contain hundreds of thousands of pages,
are overwhelmingly likely to not offer anything valuable. And if they
do, they will get some inlinks.

So I agree with google on this one.

i

-
"Murray R. Van Luyn" <vanluynm@NOSPAM.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:45ccd455$0$31877$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "1100000" <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:12spgv21aiu0402@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> Didn't you just recently post that you had duplicate sites?
>
> Yes, and you have a very good memory. The duplicate sites were the first
> thing that went, and that was quite some weeks ago. I'm still losing pages
> with Google, but gaining them with Yahoo.
>
> The Google experts tell me I need more quality inlinks for them to even
> bother with me. I'd ask what's the point? I spent 5 days signing up for
> directories a few weeks back, but Google hasn't seen one of them yet. Not
> a single one. After my 2 1/2 months worth of work, according to Google I
> only have a single inlink.


If you do a link: search, Google only shows a small subset of the links they
know about. And, they only update their backlink count every few months.
They probably do know about your links.

If you sign up for Google Webmaster Tools you can see all of the backlinks
they know about.

> Google have me jumping through hoops for naught. Yahoo on the other hand
> have for some time had a whole bunch of inlinks indexed for me (200+) and
> all contributing to my PageRank with them.

Yahoo doesn't have PageRank.

best,
Denise

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:50:23 -0800, Murray R. Van Luyn <vanluynm@NOSPAM.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> "Ignoramus8098" <ignoramus8098@NOSPAM.8098.invalid> wrote in message
> news:2sSdnTI0Q7s8QVHYnZ2dnUVZ_tGsnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
>> So I agree with google on this one.
>
> Don't you mean Stacey?
>

And Stacey, too.

i

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:08:25 -0800, "Murray R. Van Luyn"
<vanluynm@NOSPAM.iinet.net.au> wrote:

>"1100000" <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:12spgv21aiu0402@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> Didn't you just recently post that you had duplicate sites?
>
>Yes, and you have a very good memory. The duplicate sites were the first
>thing that went, and that was quite some weeks ago. I'm still losing pages
>with Google, but gaining them with Yahoo.
>
>The Google experts tell me I need more quality inlinks for them to even
>bother with me. I'd ask what's the point? I spent 5 days signing up for
>directories a few weeks back,

Which directories? Yahoo, Business.com? Or crapola freebies? If it's
the latter then I'll let our resident quality directory evangelist
take over...

> but Google hasn't seen one of them yet. Not a
>single one. After my 2 1/2 months worth of work, according to Google I only
>have a single inlink.

Google probably thinks the links you have are so crap it can't be
bothered list them. That's if they're from sites that are themselves
indexed. If not, well... did you check whether these directories are
in Google before you spent your time getting links from them?

>Google have me jumping through hoops for naught. Yahoo
>on the other hand have for some time had a whole bunch of inlinks indexed
>for me (200+) and all contributing to my PageRank with them.

Have you tried the new backlink tool in your Webmaster Tools account?

>My experience with Google has been frustrating, troublesome and poor. With
>MSN, slow but good. With Yahoo, again slowish, but improving daily and
>markedly better that Google. My opinion means squiddley-dee as I'm very new
>to all of this, and frankly don't know the first thing.

Not listening to those that do know the first thing isn't ing you.

> And yes my site is
>apparently un-search-engine-worthy "Trash". After seeing the other side of
>the fence however, I am highly convinced of one thing. That is that I
>personally have been using and therefore supporting not the best search
>engine, but merely the most popular. I would encourage others to question
>whether they have been doing the same.

That's fair enough.

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 Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:55:15 GMT, "Denise" <dionyza@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>-
>"Murray R. Van Luyn" <vanluynm@NOSPAM.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>news:45ccd455$0$31877$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "1100000" <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:12spgv21aiu0402@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> Didn't you just recently post that you had duplicate sites?
>>
>> Yes, and you have a very good memory. The duplicate sites were the first
>> thing that went, and that was quite some weeks ago. I'm still losing pages
>> with Google, but gaining them with Yahoo.
>>
>> The Google experts tell me I need more quality inlinks for them to even
>> bother with me. I'd ask what's the point? I spent 5 days signing up for
>> directories a few weeks back, but Google hasn't seen one of them yet. Not
>> a single one. After my 2 1/2 months worth of work, according to Google I
>> only have a single inlink.
>
>
>If you do a link: search, Google only shows a small subset of the links they
>know about. And, they only update their backlink count every few months.
>They probably do know about your links.
>
>If you sign up for Google Webmaster Tools you can see all of the backlinks
>they know about.

Many folk are saying you still don't see all of them, just a bigger
percentage.

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

"Murray R. Van Luyn" <vanluynm@NOSPAM.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Has anyone noticed that Google might not actually be doing that good a job
> of indexing the Internet, or has that one just quietly slipped the noose?
>
> In my short experience with the big 3, I would put MSN in first place as
> they actually indexed 99% of my site. Next comes Yahoo who missed 1/3 of
> my pages but who are slowly adding them over time. Way in last place is
> good old Google, who have de-listed one of my sites completely and for no
> reason whatever, and who are busy de-indexing 10 pages ever 2 days from my
> one remaining site that only ever got half listed to begin with.

Didn't you just recently post that you had duplicate sites?

"Murray R. Van Luyn" <vanluynm@NOSPAM.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> "1100000" <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:12spgv21aiu0402@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> Didn't you just recently post that you had duplicate sites?
>
> Yes, and you have a very good memory. The duplicate sites were the first
> thing that went, and that was quite some weeks ago. I'm still losing pages
> with Google, but gaining them with Yahoo.
>
> The Google experts tell me I need more quality inlinks for them to even
> bother with me. I'd ask what's the point? I spent 5 days signing up for
> directories a few weeks back, but Google hasn't seen one of them yet. Not
> a single one. After my 2 1/2 months worth of work, according to Google I
> only have a single inlink.Google have me jumping through hoops for naught.
> Yahoo on the other hand have for some time had a whole bunch of inlinks
> indexed for me (200+) and all contributing to my PageRank with them.

If you are referring to review-a-gadget.com, the domain is only 30 days old.
Google SEO is highly competitive and there is something called the "Google
Sandbox", which means you probably won't see results in Google for 6 to 8
months.

If you are seeing a loss in pages in Google it may be because you were
running duplicate content on several domains "to see what happens" (if I
remember correctly).

Also, Google will not show your backlinks -- the displayed backlinks lists
are exported infrequently.

Unless you have some compelling unique content that encourages people to
link to you on a mass scale, expect a year before you get any significant
traffic.

For compelling unique content, try a WordPress blog and place it in a
subdirectory of your domain like this:

http://www.example.com/blog/

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:11:07 -0500, "1100000"
<see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>"Murray R. Van Luyn" <vanluynm@NOSPAM.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> "1100000" <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:12spgv21aiu0402@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> Didn't you just recently post that you had duplicate sites?
>>
>> Yes, and you have a very good memory. The duplicate sites were the first
>> thing that went, and that was quite some weeks ago. I'm still losing pages
>> with Google, but gaining them with Yahoo.
>>
>> The Google experts tell me I need more quality inlinks for them to even
>> bother with me. I'd ask what's the point? I spent 5 days signing up for
>> directories a few weeks back, but Google hasn't seen one of them yet. Not
>> a single one. After my 2 1/2 months worth of work, according to Google I
>> only have a single inlink.Google have me jumping through hoops for naught.
>> Yahoo on the other hand have for some time had a whole bunch of inlinks
>> indexed for me (200+) and all contributing to my PageRank with them.
>
>If you are referring to review-a-gadget.com, the domain is only 30 days old.
>Google SEO is highly competitive and there is something called the "Google
>Sandbox", which means you probably won't see results in Google for 6 to 8
>months.

www.kruse.co.uk/sandbox.htm

>If you are seeing a loss in pages in Google it may be because you were
>running duplicate content on several domains "to see what happens" (if I
>remember correctly).
>
>Also, Google will not show your backlinks -- the displayed backlinks lists
>are exported infrequently.

Old, now. Outdated info. Webmaster Tools is the place to check this
stuff.

>Unless you have some compelling unique content that encourages people to
>link to you on a mass scale, expect a year before you get any significant
>traffic.

True enough.

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:uibrs2tmh5sqat9ipol5e4q52t9r09nptu@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:11:07 -0500, "1100000"
> <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>>If you are referring to review-a-gadget.com, the domain is only 30 days
>>old.
>>Google SEO is highly competitive and there is something called the "Google
>>Sandbox", which means you probably won't see results in Google for 6 to 8
>>months.
>
> www.kruse.co.uk/sandbox.htm

You two are behind the times a little.

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 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:53:31 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:uibrs2tmh5sqat9ipol5e4q52t9r09nptu@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:11:07 -0500, "1100000"
>> <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote:
><snip>
>>>If you are referring to review-a-gadget.com, the domain is only 30 days
>>>old.
>>>Google SEO is highly competitive and there is something called the "Google
>>>Sandbox", which means you probably won't see results in Google for 6 to 8
>>>months.
>>
>> www.kruse.co.uk/sandbox.htm
>
>You two are behind the times a little.

Me two?

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:ilfrs2hp31ep9fn9m1i2f8c7ptvh198ka9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:53:31 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:uibrs2tmh5sqat9ipol5e4q52t9r09nptu@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:11:07 -0500, "1100000"
>>> <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>><snip>
>>>>If you are referring to review-a-gadget.com, the domain is only 30 days
>>>>old.
>>>>Google SEO is highly competitive and there is something called the
>>>>"Google
>>>>Sandbox", which means you probably won't see results in Google for 6 to
>>>>8
>>>>months.
>>>
>>> www.kruse.co.uk/sandbox.htm
>>
>>You two are behind the times a little.
>
> Me two?

You and 1100000, I quoted 2 responses. Yes, you are behind the times Bill.

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

"1100000" <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:12spgv21aiu0402@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Didn't you just recently post that you had duplicate sites?

Yes, and you have a very good memory. The duplicate sites were the first
thing that went, and that was quite some weeks ago. I'm still losing pages
with Google, but gaining them with Yahoo.

The Google experts tell me I need more quality inlinks for them to even
bother with me. I'd ask what's the point? I spent 5 days signing up for
directories a few weeks back, but Google hasn't seen one of them yet. Not a
single one. After my 2 1/2 months worth of work, according to Google I only
have a single inlink.Google have me jumping through hoops for naught. Yahoo
on the other hand have for some time had a whole bunch of inlinks indexed
for me (200+) and all contributing to my PageRank with them.

My experience with Google has been frustrating, troublesome and poor. With
MSN, slow but good. With Yahoo, again slowish, but improving daily and
markedly better that Google. My opinion means squiddley-dee as I'm very new
to all of this, and frankly don't know the first thing. And yes my site is
apparently un-search-engine-worthy "Trash". After seeing the other side of
the fence however, I am highly convinced of one thing. That is that I
personally have been using and therefore supporting not the best search
engine, but merely the most popular. I would encourage others to question
whether they have been doing the same.

Regards,
Murray R. Van Luyn.
--
http://www.review-a-gadget.com/
http://members.iinet.net.au/~vanluynm/

"Ignoramus8098" <ignoramus8098@NOSPAM.8098.invalid> wrote in message
news:2sSdnTI0Q7s8QVHYnZ2dnUVZ_tGsnZ2d@giganews.com ...

> So I agree with google on this one.

Don't you mean Stacey?

Regards,
Murray R. Van Luyn.

Jezsta Web Productions wrote:

> "Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:uibrs2tmh5sqat9ipol5e4q52t9r09nptu@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:11:07 -0500, "1100000"
>> <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> <snip>
>>>If you are referring to review-a-gadget.com, the domain is only 30 days
>>>old.
>>>Google SEO is highly competitive and there is something called the
>>>"Google Sandbox", which means you probably won't see results in Google
>>>for 6 to 8 months.
>>
>> www.kruse.co.uk/sandbox.htm
>
> 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).

"1100000" <see_reply-to_address@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:12ss43e3ei8j76e@corp.supernews.com...
> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>
>> "Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:uibrs2tmh5sqat9ipol5e4q52t9r09nptu@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:11:07 -0500, "1100000"
>>> <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>If you are referring to review-a-gadget.com, the domain is only 30 days
>>>>old.
>>>>Google SEO is highly competitive and there is something called the
>>>>"Google Sandbox", which means you probably won't see results in Google
>>>>for 6 to 8 months.
>>>
>>> www.kruse.co.uk/sandbox.htm
>>
>> 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.

Previously owned sites or sites that have been around and Google knows about
then are now the ones that are having problem. But that was last year, and I
had a site that got indexed OK in December. So, even those sites might not
have problems.

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
--
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 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:57:14 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>
>"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ilfrs2hp31ep9fn9m1i2f8c7ptvh198ka9@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:53:31 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
>> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:uibrs2tmh5sqat9ipol5e4q52t9r09nptu@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:11:07 -0500, "1100000"
>>>> <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>>>If you are referring to review-a-gadget.com, the domain is only 30 days
>>>>>old.
>>>>>Google SEO is highly competitive and there is something called the
>>>>>"Google
>>>>>Sandbox", which means you probably won't see results in Google for 6 to
>>>>>8
>>>>>months.
>>>>
>>>> www.kruse.co.uk/sandbox.htm
>>>
>>>You two are behind the times a little.
>>
>> Me two?
>
>You and 1100000, I quoted 2 responses. Yes, you are behind the times Bill.
>
>Stacey

What makes you say that?

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 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:53:22 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>"1100000" <see_reply-to_address@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:12ss43e3ei8j76e@corp.supernews.com...
>> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>>
>>> "Big Bill" <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:uibrs2tmh5sqat9ipol5e4q52t9r09nptu@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:11:07 -0500, "1100000"
>>>> <see_reply-to_address@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>If you are referring to review-a-gadget.com, the domain is only 30 days
>>>>>old.
>>>>>Google SEO is highly competitive and there is something called the
>>>>>"Google Sandbox", which means you probably won't see results in Google
>>>>>for 6 to 8 months.
>>>>
>>>> www.kruse.co.uk/sandbox.htm
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>Previously owned sites or sites that have been around and Google knows about
>then are now the ones that are having problem. But that was last year, and I
>had a site that got indexed OK in December. So, even those sites might not
>have problems.
>
>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?

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 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:53:22 +0100, Jezsta Web Productions
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>>>> www.kruse.co.uk/sandbox.htm
>>>
>>> You two are behind the times a little.

> 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.

www.ph-meter.info has just recently jumped for its main keyword from 70-80
to 2 after about 12 months since site went on line. That can be
coincidence, but I don't think so - it is the same pattern I was observing
with chembuddy.

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.

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

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.

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.

"Borek" <m.borkowski@delete.chembuddy.whats.com.invalid> wrote in message
newsp.tnj5ftqwu0t02r@borek...
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:53:22 +0100, Jezsta Web Productions
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>>>> www.kruse.co.uk/sandbox.htm
>>>
>>> You two are behind the times a little.

>> 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.

www.ph-meter.info has just recently jumped for its main keyword from 70-80
>to 2 after about 12 months since site went on line. That can be
>coincidence, but I don't think so - it is the same pattern I was observing
>with chembuddy.

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.

>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.

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 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:12:30 -0500, 1100000
<see_reply-to_address@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>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.
>
>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?

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: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.

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

"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. I have many sites, I
work with old, new, and in between.

So, this is why, I don't give out what I have found out about my SEO to this
group most of the time, I try and tell you what is happening but no one can
believe it. I will go back to making my sites and money.:-)

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:n0lts2l06flprg3asfpm945bodvcjedeqt@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:12:30 -0500, 1100000
> <see_reply-to_address@nospam.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

>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?

There you go Bill. That is right on the money. It depends on your links. I
have gained PR on one of my newest sites and I just gave it links a couple
of weeks ago. Very strange!

Yes, he is right Yahoo and Msn can be easy to gain top positions. They
always have been. I am #1 fo