Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

anyone want to do a dridged version of this because its sounds like
gobbledeygook to me...

Mark
www.iosilver.co.uk

"Jez" wrote in message
news:3gdbboFb294bU1@individual.net...
> I took this from WMW - the thread URL is at the bottom.
>
> I lay awake last night thinking the very same as this guy wrote about
> the sandbox and how sandbox combined with new algos must be hurting the
> web design quarter and how we are all on a knife edge with no apparent
> way of coming back with a new domain if a domain is lost - possibly from
> no fault of our own - one day google loves what you do and the next day
> the new algo doesn't support your tactics.
>
> Look after your old domains, they may be the only chance that you will
get.
>
> I thought I would post it here before it gets censored by WMW.
>
> Jez.
>
> ---------
>
> Dear Webmasters and readers,
>
> ???Google is the biggest spammer the internet has ever known???
>
> Hopefully my post here will stay as it is unlike the shambolic vestiges
> of my previous posts that were either fragmented to Brett?s taste or
> splintered in a way to make google and GoogleGuy look good. If any
> editing is indicated below, please disregard any of the contents in this
> post.
>
> Just to give you an Idea obout what was going on, alexa was forced to
> change its redirection methods to 301 after I exposed their 302 tricks.
> I have been banned by alexa ever since. A notable friend here confirmed
> that google may have forced alexa to do the change.
>
> Clint,
>
> Your plight in this bourbon update indicates an archetypical example of
> being collateral damage in the tyrannical and indomitable wake of
> google?s compulsive campaign to bolster its pay per click revenue for
> itself and stockholders.
>
> The wrong thing to do is to start thinking about doing a 301 to resolve
> the non www which should be google?s job and this sort of thing never
> ends because we could forever tweak mod-rewrites to resolve even missing
> trailing slashes, dots in url etc etc etc etc etc. Your html code is
> fine and well within google to understand your site. There are HTML GURU
> sites that are also in oblivion. Wild guesses is no way to adjust or to
> create a website. And at the moment no webmaster in the world can
> suggest a method of creating a site that google approves of. Note how
> GoogleGuy avoids telling you what to do? Read googles patents and you
> will be excused to thinking that it is the end of the internet unless
> google is displaced.
>
> Indications are 100% correct that google now also see 301 redirects as a
> sites instability and gets points deducted. Advocators in thousands of
> websites relating to 301 redirects being endorsed by google are
> misleading to say the least and could wind up your website in google?s
> cordon sanitair. Previously known and trusted methods of site creation
> are now the most dangerous methods to create a site.
>
> GoogleGuy will provide a anthology of ignominious minutiae such as
> derisory 3.5 update procedures that insults the IQ of even the most
> junior of webmasters, heuristics, diminishing pagerank reputation,
> improved search provisions etc etc, thus being implemented in ongoing
> data-centres to improve results for end users.
>
> No webmaster can lay claim to knowing how to create a website for
> google. The customer he makes a new site for is destined for an
> indefinite period in the cooler for up to 2 years. Many previously award
> winning web designs are in the sandbox or oblivion due to an earlier
> spectacularly named update. It is a total hit or miss affair.
>
> There are no winners or losers. There are the unaffected and the damned.
> It is as simple as that.
>
> Google has cost webmasters more than it is worth in the stock exchange.
> By increasing its already gargantuan database to an 8 billion colossus
> it now holds and infinite resource of expendable websites from its
> index. Expended sites invariably will resort to pay per click if removed
> from the index. As with any database a denominator is selected within
> their algo and ??BANG?? down goes the condemned sites into Hades?s
> domain locked up by Cerberus, a pitiless serpent tailed 50 headed
> google?s algo guard-dog.
>
> As in bourbon this is most likely the case and there is nothing you can
> do to recover your site. It is now all about google having mercy on your
> hard work. All monopolies become the thing they first promise to avoid.
> In goggles case it has metamorphosed from the Masiah of the internet to
> become the most unfortunate event of the evolution of the web. A despot
> willing and able to thump its iron fist into the face of any webmaster
> it chooses.
>
> Google provides 10 results by default within its first page search?..
> YOU THINK,,,,,, WRONG?..Very wrong. Google first comes up with sandboxed
> sites and non sandboxed sites.
>
> Within a split second google filters out sandboxed sites and presents
> you with it own result. Your sandboxed site is in the filtered out sites
> irrespective that it may rank number 1.
>
> Your demoted site after an update such as bourbon will be anywhere to
> oblivion. Most sandboxed sites are clustered within 100 to 200.
>
> So here you have it, google?s algo is tweaked up with yet another
> denominator that works to pick out what google decides. You cannot
> possibly overcome it. It is pointless tweaking up your apache server or
> your webpages. 8 billion pages is an infinite resource. The slightest
> tweak brings in millions of dollars. A unsophisticated but highly
> effected method of printing money. Google is the biggest spammer the
> internet has ever known.
>
> GoogleGuy?s desiderative here is to micturate an insensate catharsis on
> behalf of google. The more reasonable question you ask the more
> irascible and condescending reply you get. Good websites are being
> destroyed by google. Employees are being laid off, webmasters are
> getting a bad name all for maintaining GoogGuy?s and algo tweakers
> salary. Nothing is for nothing in this life and google is feasting on
> the blood sweat and tears of webmasters and websites
>
> Any editing below this indicates Brett's intention on what he wants you
> to read. Please leave it alone Brett. There are webmasters here that
> need to know the algo procedure. It is a simple tweak to bring in
> millions. You know this and I want the readers to know.
>
> japanese
>
> http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/29621-69-10.htm
>
>
>

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

"mark | r" wrote in message
news:42a1908d$0$320$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
>
> anyone want to do a dridged version of this because its sounds like
> gobbledeygook to me...

haha, this is mild compared to Japanese' original post which looked more
like the pretentious rants of someone whose Thesaurus just exploded from
overuse.

....barely anyone understood that first one.

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

but I'm not saying that I entirely DISagree with the fella. 😉

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 14:26:08 +0200, WhoTurnedOffTheLights
wrote:
[color=green]
>> anyone want to do a dridged version of this because its sounds like
>> gobbledeygook to me...
>
> haha, this is mild compared to Japanese' original post which looked more
> like the pretentious rants of someone whose Thesaurus just exploded from
> overuse.
>
> ...barely anyone understood that first one.[/color]

Ufff.... and I thought that's just my English 😉

What is the story behind 301/302? I did some URL shuffling on my site once
I read some of the SEO advices, however, as some of old links have been
published I am using 301 to redirect visitors. Problem is Google still
tries to visit these old URLs.

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com - chemical calculators for labs and education
BATE - Base Acid Titration and Equilibria
program for pH calculations
CASC - Concentration and Solution Calculator
program for solution preparation and concentration conversions

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

WhoTurnedOffTheLights wrote:

> "mark | r" wrote in message
> news:42a1908d$0$320$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
>[color=green]
>>
>>anyone want to do a dridged version of this because its sounds like
>>gobbledeygook to me...
>
>
> haha, this is mild compared to Japanese' original post which looked more
> like the pretentious rants of someone whose Thesaurus just exploded from
> overuse.
>
> ...barely anyone understood that first one.
>
>[/color]

lol, he certainly has a way with words.

But, if you thought his post hard to decipher, here's a post, in the
same thread from GoogleGuy:

" I did the rounds to check on the state of various data updates. I'd
estimate that the "0.5" (not algorithmic changes, but rather responses
to various spam/porn complaints + processing reinclusion requests)
should go out this weekend sometime or possibly Monday. There should be
a binary push this week to improve a corner-case of CJK-related search,
and that new binary should have the hooks to turn on the third set of
data. Regarding finishing up the second piece of data, there's still two
data centers with older data. Those data centers will probably be
switched over by Monday. By Monday, 2.5 of the 3.5 things will probably
be on. "

Pick the bones out of THAT!

Jez.

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 10:43:14 +0100, Jez wrote:

>I lay awake last night thinking the very same as this guy wrote about
>the sandbox and how sandbox combined with new algos must be hurting the
>web design quarter and how we are all on a knife edge with no apparent
>way of coming back with a new domain if a domain is lost - possibly from
>no fault of our own - one day google loves what you do and the next day
>the new algo doesn't support your tactics.

To date I've not had a single domain that fits the so called sandbox
effect and in the last two years I've registered about 40 domains and
created various extra sub domains (that to Google are separate sites)
so this is based on a fair sample of new site.

The classic description of the sandbox effect is you create a new site
on a new domain/sub domain, within a short period of time you see some
good SERPs. I assume this means you get some relatively easy SERPs (so
nothing spectacular) since you can't get to the top for difficult
SERPs without months of effort.

Then for no apparent reason you loose all your SERPs but the most
specific searches (the ones no one uses).

So to be sandboxed you need to see-

a) new domain (how new, not sure).
b) an early climb in SERPs (traffic).
c) a dramatic loss of SERPs (traffic) for no apparent reason.

This has never happened to one of my sites because I've only once seen
what I'd consider an early climb in SERPs (traffic) and that's with a
recent site.

This site was registered and went live on the 12th May this year
(almost 1 month old).

After-

8 days the site received over 200 visitors a day
12 days the site received over 300 visitors a day
20 days (now) the site received over 350 visitors a day

This month (2 days and 4 hours anyway) has seen these two search
engines as the 2nd and 3rd most popular Referrers after direct
request.

2 579 4.96% http://www.google.com/search
3 52 0.45% http://www.google.ca/search
there's also these-
7 13 0.11% http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search
8 13 0.11% http://www.google.co.uk/search
10 7 0.06% http://search.earthlink.net/search
11 7 0.06% http://www.google.com/custom
12 7 0.06% http://www.google.de/search
13 4 0.03% http://www.comcast.net/qry/websearch
14 4 0.03% http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/curetek
15 4 0.03% http://www.google.com.au/search
16 4 0.03% http://www.google.com.tr/search
17 3 0.03%
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/clifford+security
18 3 0.03% http://www.google.com.mx/search
19 3 0.03% http://www.google.fr/search
20 3 0.03% http://www.google.ie/search
21 3 0.03% http://www.google.it/search
22 3 0.03% http://www.google.nl/search
23 3 0.03% http://www.google.pl/search
24 2 0.02% http://aolsearch.aol.co.uk/web.adp
25 2 0.02% http://ms101.mysearch.com/jsp/GGweb.jsp
26 2 0.02% http://mysearch.myway.com/jsp/GGmain.jsp
27 2 0.02% http://search.netscape.com/ns/search
28 2 0.02% http://searcht.netscape.com/ns/redir

So almost all the traffic is from search engines using Google's
database.

In my experience this is very good growth for a new site (first time
I've seen this, this early), generally I see nothing much in the first
few months (well under 100 visitors a day) and then a very steady
climb to decent traffic. Usually get to over 1,000 visitors (if the
content is capable of generating that number of visitors, if you know
what I mean) after 6 months. After 6 months (especially 9 months) the
growth can be considerable.

Anyway, this domain would be the first to fit a) and b) for the
sandbox effect to occur. If c) occurs I'll post about it.

If you read between the lines of those reporting as effected by the
sandbox they rarely indicate the "early climb in SERPs (traffic)" that
you need for their to be "a dramatic loss of SERPs (traffic) for no
apparent reason".

They might mention a SERP they consider important (which is normal for
Google with old sites as well), but not a site wide type gain and loss
of SERPs/traffic.

For example one of my SEO domains a few here thought it was sandboxed,
but the reality was I added too many links to it (thousands in the
first month 🙂 and it shot to PR7 first update. This site never did
well in SERPs/traffic terms as Google immediately penalized it (lesson
learnt, don't add too many links, too quickly :-).

For this reason I believe the vast majority of those who think they
are in the sandbox are seeing what I've seen for all but one of my
domains. Very little growth in the first few months and then (if they
get links and have optimized sites) a steady climb over time.

I've got enough sites now to start generalizing and this is what I'd
expect from a new site that is reasonably well optimized and you are
putting effort into gaining links.

First 6 months very little growth, if you can get to 500 visitors a
day you've done very well.
6 months plus (especially after 9 months) traffic starts to increase
dramatically and this increases further over time.
New pages on existing sites do far better than new pages on new sites.

In general the first year is slow and if you aren't patient highly
frustrating as traffic climbs by single figures for months on end!

Also the smaller the site the worse it seems to be. With large sites
you might 'grab' a load of very easy SERPs in the first 6 months that
push the traffic into the low hundreds in the first 6 months. With a
small site this just doesn't seem to happen presumably because there's
not enough content to gain enough of these very easy (even obscure)
SERPs that take little effort/resources to gain.

So with a small site you might feel like you are in oblivion for over
a year. I'd say the reality is your content is targeting SERPs you
don't have enough resources to gain.

To expand on this the site of mine we've been discussing the stats of
that has 10,000 visitors a day does not have it's main SERPs. It is no
where for Free Recipes, Recipes and lots of similar higher traffic
SERPs.

If this was a small site it would probably have a small number of
visitors a day, it's a year old so I'd guess if it was say a few
hundred pages it would see under 1,000 visitors a day. If it was a 20
page site it might only have a trickle of visitors and you might think
it was in oblivion.

>Look after your old domains, they may be the only chance that you will get.

I'd agree with this. If you add new pages to an existing site (just a
year old site) it does far, far better than had you added that content
to a new domain.

About 7 weeks ago added a lot of new pages (over 30,000) to the site
getting 10,000 visitors a day. At the time it was receiving just under
3,000 visitors a day from under 15,000 pages. After the new pages
became indexed traffic quickly rose to the 10,000 I'm seeing now
(these new pages tend to target higher traffic SERPs than the original
pages, hence the significant jump). If I'd have created a new site for
that content I doubt I'd see 200 new visitors by now.

I would be very interested to hear from those who think they have been
sandboxed. I'd like to see the rough traffic figures for the first 6
months so we can see if there was an initial gain in traffic or if the
sites just doing badly because it's new.

If you want to call a new site doing badly as sandboxed that's fine,
but it's not really what people mean by sandboxed (quick climb for a
new site then drop). Google has clearly changed the way it ranks new
sites, before this came into play I had a site that at 2 months old
shot up to almost 3,000 visitors a day. If I created the same site
today I know it wouldn't do that now, I'd be waiting 6+ months.

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 10:43:14 +0100, Jez wrote:

>I took this from WMW - the thread URL is at the bottom.
>
>I lay awake last night thinking the very same as this guy wrote about
>the sandbox and how sandbox combined with new algos must be hurting the
>web design quarter and how we are all on a knife edge with no apparent
>way of coming back with a new domain if a domain is lost - possibly from
>no fault of our own - one day google loves what you do and the next day
>the new algo doesn't support your tactics.
>
>Look after your old domains, they may be the only chance that you will get.
>
>I thought I would post it here before it gets censored by WMW.
>
>Jez.
>
>---------
>
> Dear Webmasters and readers,
>
>???Google is the biggest spammer the internet has ever known???
Google's crooked I'll give you that. But this guy's off his nut. Can
he show us a site of his we could make our own judgement upon?

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ [email]seo@kruse.demon.co.uk[/email]
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 12:12:53 +0100, "mark | r"
wrote:

>
>
>anyone want to do a dridged version of this because its sounds like
>gobbledeygook to me...

Briefly, it sounds like here's at least one webmaster who's woken up
to the fact that it's no good selling web sites that are by design
invisible to the engines to the market any more. That particular gravy
train seems to be being shunted off into a siding. Well dearie me.
Both boo and hoo.

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ [email]seo@kruse.demon.co.uk[/email]
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 12:26:08 GMT, "WhoTurnedOffTheLights"
wrote:

>"mark | r" wrote in message
>news:42a1908d$0$320$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...[color=green]
>>
>>
>> anyone want to do a dridged version of this because its sounds like
>> gobbledeygook to me...
>
>haha, this is mild compared to Japanese' original post which looked more
>like the pretentious rants of someone whose Thesaurus just exploded from
>overuse.
>
>...barely anyone understood that first one.
>[/color]

Was that the one about the 302 redirects etc...?

I thought that was a really good post (assuming it's the same person
I'm thinking about).

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

Big Bill wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 12:12:53 +0100, "mark | r"
> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>
>>anyone want to do a dridged version of this because its sounds like
>>gobbledeygook to me...
>
>
> Briefly, it sounds like here's at least one webmaster who's woken up
> to the fact that it's no good selling web sites that are by design
> invisible to the engines to the market any more. That particular gravy
> train seems to be being shunted off into a siding. Well dearie me.
> Both boo and hoo.
>
> BB[/color]

It also affects your particular gravy train as well BB 😉

Lets see how much booing and a hooing you do when someone gives you a
new domain to SEO. Or, google forbid, you have to get YOURself a new
domain and get back into the top 10 for SEO Surrey! 🙂

Jez.

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

"SEO Dave" wrote in
message news:du93a1hdfjfbdpsqhaudqqp9qdha7o47qe@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 12:26:08 GMT, "WhoTurnedOffTheLights"
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>haha, this is mild compared to Japanese' original post which looked more
>>like the pretentious rants of someone whose Thesaurus just exploded from
>>overuse.
>>
>>...barely anyone understood that first one.
>>
>
> Was that the one about the 302 redirects etc...?
>
> I thought that was a really good post (assuming it's the same person
> I'm thinking about).[/color]

Nah, my bad, this one (which Jez Posted) was the one I was thinking of. I
noticed the word I had to look up amongst others: "desiderative"

Don't get me wrong though. Methinks this person borders on insane
brilliance.

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 14:40:40 +0200, Borek
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 14:26:08 +0200, WhoTurnedOffTheLights
> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> anyone want to do a dridged version of this because its sounds like
>>> gobbledeygook to me...
>>
>> haha, this is mild compared to Japanese' original post which looked more
>> like the pretentious rants of someone whose Thesaurus just exploded from
>> overuse.
>>
>> ...barely anyone understood that first one.[/color]
>
>Ufff.... and I thought that's just my English ;)[/color]

:-):-):-):-) just his English....:-):-):-)

>What is the story behind 301/302? I did some URL shuffling on my site once
>I read some of the SEO advices, however, as some of old links have been
>published I am using 301 to redirect visitors. Problem is Google still
>tries to visit these old URLs.

My guess would be here that the links to these old urls are rarely
travelled and so Google hasn't got the redirect process into its
muddled head yet. In time it will. Or it should.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ [email]seo@kruse.demon.co.uk[/email]
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 14:36:28 +0100, Jez wrote:

>
>
>Big Bill wrote:[color=green]
>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 12:12:53 +0100, "mark | r"
>> wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>anyone want to do a dridged version of this because its sounds like
>>>gobbledeygook to me...
>>
>>
>> Briefly, it sounds like here's at least one webmaster who's woken up
>> to the fact that it's no good selling web sites that are by design
>> invisible to the engines to the market any more. That particular gravy
>> train seems to be being shunted off into a siding. Well dearie me.
>> Both boo and hoo.
>>
>> BB[/color]
>
>
>It also affects your particular gravy train as well BB 😉
>
>Lets see how much booing and a hooing you do when someone gives you a
>new domain to SEO. Or, google forbid, you have to get YOURself a new
>domain and get back into the top 10 for SEO Surrey! 🙂
>
>Jez.[/color]

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ [email]seo@kruse.demon.co.uk[/email]
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Re: Bourbon, Sandbox and Google.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 13:54:27 +0100, Jez wrote:

>
>
>WhoTurnedOffTheLights wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "mark | r" wrote in message
>> news:42a1908d$0$320$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>anyone want to do a dridged version of this because its sounds like
>>>gobbledeygook to me...
>>
>>
>> haha, this is mild compared to Japanese' original post which looked more
>> like the pretentious rants of someone whose Thesaurus just exploded from
>> overuse.
>>
>> ...barely anyone understood that first one.
>>
>>[/color]
>
>lol, he certainly has a way with words.
>
>But, if you thought his post hard to decipher, here's a post, in the
>same thread from GoogleGuy:
>
>" I did the rounds to check on the state of various data updates. I'd
>estimate that the "0.5" (not algorithmic changes, but rather responses
>to various spam/porn complaints + processing reinclusion requests)
>should go out this weekend sometime or possibly Monday. There should be
>a binary push this week to improve a corner-case of CJK-related search,
>and that new binary should have the hooks to turn on the third set of
>data. Regarding finishing up the second piece of data, there's still two
>data centers with older data. Those data centers will probably be
>switched over by Monday. By Monday, 2.5 of the 3.5 things will probably
>be on. "
>
>Pick the bones out of THAT!
>
>Jez.[/color]

It means wait till the middle of next week before you start drawing
any conclusions.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ [email]seo@kruse.demon.co.uk[/email]
seo that watches the river flow...
--