If you believe it is fact, opinions please on what effect it would have if 3 year old domain ranking well for competitive keywords is 301 redirected to newly registered domain..
> If you believe it is fact, opinions please on what effect it would > have if 3 year old domain ranking well for competitive keywords is 301 > redirected to newly registered domain..
Glad to see on all those external links a rel="nofollow'...
Wikipedia looks more and more like those metal rings -spun over glass- that had archived the world's collective wisdom in the movie "The Time Machine" with Rod Taylor. And yep, there is a page for this movie too in there.
The only thing I remember about the "sandbox effect" was something said by Matt Cutts when he made a reference regarding how webmasters go about promoting/marketing their sites. It was implied that the more you try to get traffic in other ways, the more Google will notice it and this alone could override the effect. It was also implied that the true goal of whatever had been put in place wasn't to reproduce such 'sandbox' but that this came about as a side effect, which make them very pleased...
hehe - a typically savvy response from MRG - I must say, I'm not personally sure about the whole sandbox issue - of course it is going to be hard to rank for competitive words in the first six months when you are building your presence.. having said that, I do see a definite trend with SUBDOMAINS - in that it is nigh impossible to get a subdomain of a relatively new site indexed.
> Glad to see on all those external links a rel="nofollow'...
> Wikipedia looks more and more like those metal rings -spun over glass- > that had archived the world's collective wisdom in the movie "The Time > Machine" with Rod Taylor. And yep, there is a page for this movie too > in there.
> The only thing I remember about the "sandbox effect" was something > said by Matt Cutts when he made a reference regarding how webmasters > go about promoting/marketing their sites. It was implied that the more > you try to get traffic in other ways, the more Google will notice it > and this alone could override the effect. It was also implied that the > true goal of whatever had been put in place wasn't to reproduce such > 'sandbox' but that this came about as a side effect, which make them > very pleased...
Things might look like a sandbox when certain factors are in place, but it certainly is not something that applies to all sites automatically (it's still possible to get a brand new domain name indexed and ranking within a week). However, there are niches out there that will not allow anyone to rank without really strong backing -- and I assume those kinds of niches will also require some kind of "steady aging" factor as well.
However, if you look at an average website for a fairly non- competitive niche, you can get in and up within a really short time. There is no default waiting time or anything like that. However, many average sites - even in non-competitive niches - are not promoted at all, leading to a massive lack of traffic and links (and often have bad content and design): in that situation, it will take longer to get the links required to get indexed and to rank, maybe a few months, maybe the sandbox-6 months.
What do people think about 301 redirecting a well established domain to a newly registered, virgin domain - anyone had experience with that? Does the PR transfer relatively quickly, or is there a lag? Also, assuming link-for-link 301 redirect to a new domain, does PR seem to transfer completely?
> Things might look like a sandbox when certain factors are in place, > but it certainly is not something that applies to all sites > automatically (it's still possible to get a brand new domain name > indexed and ranking within a week). However, there are niches out > there that will not allow anyone to rank without really strong backing > -- and I assume those kinds of niches will also require some kind of > "steady aging" factor as well.
> However, if you look at an average website for a fairly non- > competitive niche, you can get in and up within a really short time. > There is no default waiting time or anything like that. However, many > average sites - even in non-competitive niches - are not promoted at > all, leading to a massive lack of traffic and links (and often have > bad content and design): in that situation, it will take longer to get > the links required to get indexed and to rank, maybe a few months, > maybe the sandbox-6 months.
If you ask me, I do not know how they can assess this but it was implied by some Googlers (ehem... Adam Lasnik) that if the domains are of similar nature a 301 should work as it should (?). From here on, you must read between the lines... or use extrasensory communication to get the rest of the story. A note: in a not so distant past webmasters used to buy expired domains to profit from or transfer established pr -maybe some still do-, so 301ng became under scrutiny.
I can't offer personal advice as I have never needed to do this but if I were to make such move I would try testing it with a domain of lesser importance and give myself enough time - as in months- to gauge the results.
> If you ask me, I do not know how they can assess this but it was > implied by some Googlers (ehem... Adam Lasnik) that if the domains are > of similar nature a 301 should work as it should (?). From here on, > you must read between the lines... or use extrasensory communication > to get the rest of the story. A note: in a not so distant past > webmasters used to buy expired domains to profit from or transfer > established pr -maybe some still do-, so 301ng became under scrutiny.
> I can't offer personal advice as I have never needed to do this but if > I were to make such move I would try testing it with a domain of > lesser importance and give myself enough time - as in months- to gauge > the results.
My only experience with 301ing to a new domain was when I moved a blog from a folder /blog to a subdomain blog.. It took several months for the new domain to be fully indexed. On the other hand, changing a sites navigation structure with 301 redirects on the same domain took hold in less than a week. I'd think they'd have a filter in place to watch for cross-domain 301 redirects as it would be too easy to "seed" new sites with 301 redirects from high ranking pages. It would spawn a whole new SEO industry instead of selling links one could sell a cross domain 301.
As far as the sandbox goes, I think it's just a symptom of other factors and not an actual cause to what is observed. There's been a lot of specualtion as to the speed at which links are generated (too fast gets you banned, too slow get you banned, etc) and for each speculation you could offer a counter to why it wouldn't be a good practice to have such a rule. For example some say that too many links to fast will get a site thrown into the sandbox, but all of the charity sites that spring up after a natural disaster (Hurricane Katrina for example) don't sit around for some six month sandbox period.
I'm sure how it works as I have no insider knowledge, but I think the sandbox effect has something to do with the way google looks for new sites. It is the freshest index in many ways, updating constantly and quick to pick up new sites. So I think a new site sees an initial indexing quickly because of this tendency, they give a site the benefit of being indexed quickly in the spirit that they want the index to be as close to real time as possible, however soon after the initial indexing the site is then evaluated to a higher standard to see if its worthy of being indexed. Our Katrina site would quickly get links from varied sources and avoid the sandbox, however a newly registered dating site may quickly get indexed from known link exchanges and subsequently be either deindexed or home-page only indexed, until more natural links were found.
Another factor that may induce the sandbox effect is the part of the algorithim that includes the age of the domain as a quality score. More trust is probably given to a site that's been around a while and not been known as a bad site, they build trust in the site. A new site may build a few low quality links that are not enough to get it indexed, but if after a prescribed period of time it has not broken any rules, is still growing, has unique content etc, it may be get a bonus for age and that may push the sites total score above the threshold to indexing.
So with all that said. No, I don't think they have a hard coded sandbox filter like IF SITE_AGE < 180 THEN STATUS = "NOINDEX" as it wouldn't make sense from a viral or newsworthy standpoint, but I do think a combination of natural ranking and indexing factors may give the appearance that there is one.
> What do people think about 301 redirecting a well established domain > to a newly registered, virgin domain - anyone had experience with > that? Does the PR transfer relatively quickly, or is there a lag? > Also, assuming link-for-link 301 redirect to a new domain, does PR > seem to transfer completely?
> Doc
> On Feb 5, 5:32 am, softplus wrote:
> > What MRG said :-)
> > Things might look like a sandbox when certain factors are in place, > > but it certainly is not something that applies to all sites > > automatically (it's still possible to get a brand new domain name > > indexed and ranking within a week). However, there are niches out > > there that will not allow anyone to rank without really strong backing > > -- and I assume those kinds of niches will also require some kind of > > "steady aging" factor as well.
> > However, if you look at an average website for a fairly non- > > competitive niche, you can get in and up within a really short time. > > There is no default waiting time or anything like that. However, many > > average sites - even in non-competitive niches - are not promoted at > > all, leading to a massive lack of traffic and links (and often have > > bad content and design): in that situation, it will take longer to get > > the links required to get indexed and to rank, maybe a few months, > > maybe the sandbox-6 months.
Yeah JLH - the point you make Gel pretty well with my (more limited experience) too - particularly with regards to subdomains seemingly taking forever compared to new directories..
I also agree with your comments re: sandbox prob being symptom rather than cause..
> My only experience with 301ing to a new domain was when I moved a blog > from a folder /blog to a subdomain blog.. It took several months for > the new domain to be fully indexed. On the other hand, changing a > sites navigation structure with 301 redirects on the same domain took > hold in less than a week. I'd think they'd have a filter in place to > watch for cross-domain 301 redirects as it would be too easy to "seed" > new sites with 301 redirects from high ranking pages. It would spawn > a whole new SEO industry instead of selling links one could sell a > cross domain 301.
> As far as the sandbox goes, I think it's just a symptom of other > factors and not an actual cause to what is observed. There's been a > lot of specualtion as to the speed at which links are generated (too > fast gets you banned, too slow get you banned, etc) and for each > speculation you could offer a counter to why it wouldn't be a good > practice to have such a rule. For example some say that too many > links to fast will get a site thrown into the sandbox, but all of the > charity sites that spring up after a natural disaster (Hurricane > Katrina for example) don't sit around for some six month sandbox > period.
> I'm sure how it works as I have no insider knowledge, but I think the > sandbox effect has something to do with the way google looks for new > sites. It is the freshest index in many ways, updating constantly and > quick to pick up new sites. So I think a new site sees an initial > indexing quickly because of this tendency, they give a site the > benefit of being indexed quickly in the spirit that they want the > index to be as close to real time as possible, however soon after the > initial indexing the site is then evaluated to a higher standard to > see if its worthy of being indexed. Our Katrina site would quickly > get links from varied sources and avoid the sandbox, however a newly > registered dating site may quickly get indexed from known link > exchanges and subsequently be either deindexed or home-page only > indexed, until more natural links were found.
> Another factor that may induce the sandbox effect is the part of the > algorithim that includes the age of the domain as a quality score. > More trust is probably given to a site that's been around a while and > not been known as a bad site, they build trust in the site. A new > site may build a few low quality links that are not enough to get it > indexed, but if after a prescribed period of time it has not broken > any rules, is still growing, has unique content etc, it may be get a > bonus for age and that may push the sites total score above the > threshold to indexing.
> So with all that said. No, I don't think they have a hard coded > sandbox filter like IF SITE_AGE < 180 THEN STATUS = "NOINDEX" as it > wouldn't make sense from a viral or newsworthy standpoint, but I do > think a combination of natural ranking and indexing factors may give > the appearance that there is one.
> On Feb 4, 8:51 pm, dockarl wrote:
> > What do people think about 301 redirecting a well established domain > > to a newly registered, virgin domain - anyone had experience with > > that? Does the PR transfer relatively quickly, or is there a lag? > > Also, assuming link-for-link 301 redirect to a new domain, does PR > > seem to transfer completely?
> > Doc
> > On Feb 5, 5:32 am, softplus wrote:
> > > What MRG said :-)
> > > Things might look like a sandbox when certain factors are in place, > > > but it certainly is not something that applies to all sites > > > automatically (it's still possible to get a brand new domain name > > > indexed and ranking within a week). However, there are niches out > > > there that will not allow anyone to rank without really strong backing > > > -- and I assume those kinds of niches will also require some kind of > > > "steady aging" factor as well.
> > > However, if you look at an average website for a fairly non- > > > competitive niche, you can get in and up within a really short time. > > > There is no default waiting time or anything like that. However, many > > > average sites - even in non-competitive niches - are not promoted at > > > all, leading to a massive lack of traffic and links (and often have > > > bad content and design): in that situation, it will take longer to get > > > the links required to get indexed and to rank, maybe a few months, > > > maybe the sandbox-6 months.
1) There's no universal/intentional sandbox. But, as Matt has noted and MRG has quoted (hey, that kinda rhymes), there are algorithms which have a sandbox-like effect on some sites. 2) 301s pass PR and related signals appropriately. Usually takes a couple of weeks for things to smooth out, though.
