Can someone explain what this is? I have heard of it but never any explanation other then something along the lines of "it's bad"
Google "sandbox"
- Thread starter jacob
- Start date
- Status
It's a theory that depending on the competitiveness of your targeted keyphrase(s), Google will not rank your new website for your targeted terms until it has aged 3-12 months.
The whole "sandbox ageing theory" is all a bunch of hoopla if you ask me. If you launch a site, and get thousands of free directory, and spammy links overnight, then Google is going to know that something is up and wait to rank (trust) your website until it has acquired enough quality links to be viewed as a "trusted site".
In my opinion, it's more about trust than age, and there is no predefined time limit.
The whole "sandbox ageing theory" is all a bunch of hoopla if you ask me. If you launch a site, and get thousands of free directory, and spammy links overnight, then Google is going to know that something is up and wait to rank (trust) your website until it has acquired enough quality links to be viewed as a "trusted site".
In my opinion, it's more about trust than age, and there is no predefined time limit.
I usually seem to rank for noncompetetive keywords, never on or two word keywords (unless its site name), mainly like four or three word keyphrases.
Either way, you won't expect to rank for competetive keywords for a few months anyway.
Is it wrong to submit to 200-300 directories at the launch of your site?
Either way, you won't expect to rank for competetive keywords for a few months anyway.
Is it wrong to submit to 200-300 directories at the launch of your site?
I hope it doesn't take a year. I'm about to launch 6 content sites, all original, no spammy techniques or anything, in a mostly uncompetitive niche, so hopefully I will be ranking well within 4-5 months.
If you do your SEO, then no it shouldn't take that long. Concentrate on Unique, quality content, and linkbuilding, linkbuilding, linkbuilding.Possibility said:
Check out http://info.vilesilencer.com for a huge list of directories you can submit to. Try and find a PR6 or higher site willing to give you a little link love (this is harder than it sounds). If necessary, just buy a PR7 or PR8 inbound link from your favorite link broker. I can damn near guarantee that if you get an inbound link from a true PR7 or 8 site, then your site will get indexed in a few days or less. The longer the high ranking site links to you, the better. Also, the easier it is to get links from others.
Check out the SEO primer I put in the newbie section. It may help. If not, just PM me.
SEO_Mike said:
Hey Mike, like I asked before. If I submit to 3/4 of the directories at vilesilencer, like 300 of them and get accepted to 200 of them or so before I get any other links for my non-spammy sites, you think its safe?
After getting directory submissions done I plan to get a few links from my other sites in the same niche, and then forum sig and blog comment sigs (not spamming).
From there, link exchanging etc for small content sites.
But overall, doing these minor things and starting off with directory submissions. Is it fine? :music06:
Submitting to all those free directories, and only those directories could do wonders with MSN, but it's definitely not ideal for Google. I was ranked #1 for the term "videos" on MSN for almost 3 weeks recently but just submitting my site to those directories, but I'm not seeing much love from Google.
If you've got a site that's going be difficult to draw links to, then sure submitting to all the dirs isn't a horrible idea. But if you've got a site that's any type of buzzworthy, then look into other ways of building links. Writing "linkbait" is only good if you've got users with websites that will link to you. Writing syndicated articles still works pretty good. But hands down, the best links, are the hand-picked ones from relevant sites where you can somewhat control your anchor text, and get the link within the content of the site.
If you've got a site that's going be difficult to draw links to, then sure submitting to all the dirs isn't a horrible idea. But if you've got a site that's any type of buzzworthy, then look into other ways of building links. Writing "linkbait" is only good if you've got users with websites that will link to you. Writing syndicated articles still works pretty good. But hands down, the best links, are the hand-picked ones from relevant sites where you can somewhat control your anchor text, and get the link within the content of the site.
kyleirwin said:
Exactly. Something else that works well is reciprocal linking. If you are having a hard convincing people to give you a one way inbound link, offer a reciprocal link. Just set up a page called "Links" or "Resources" and put the recips there. Be careful to try and only link to relevant sites, but if you can't then don't sweat it too much.
Buzzworthy - I love that term - and link bait...Awesome if you can get people to bite. That's the difficult thing, determining whether or not your site is the next MySpace and if so, how to bring the people. MySpace went viral, PayPal went viral, eBay went viral, see a trend? Going viral is one of the hardest things to do in online marketing. PayPal had a simple tactic to get people to sign up, let their friends send them money to their email address and then PayPal sends them and email saying "Hey, your pal sent you cash, if you want it sign up with us". Who's going to say no to money?
Is it possible to replicate this with your site? Don't know. I don't even know what kind of site it is. Regardless, work on your content and link relationships and the rest will eventually follow (maybe not the viral effect, but rankings, etc.)
Saadh said:
Thanks for your advice guys, but when I say what I'm going to do, I'm not asking about ranking well in google, i'm just asking about not getting all "sandboxed". I'll be able to rank for noncompetitive terms right? I don't care about ranking for a one keyword term at first anyway.
- Status