sandbox proof based on my definition

[Kyle]

-

[KLB]

Yes Chris, you are right on all counts. And yes I did misunderstand what Kyle's original claim was.

This isn't a perfect medium for discussions and debating. It is much easier for us to misunderstand each other than we sometimes realize. Thus I misunderstood Kyle's original claim and initially started to knock him around about the sandbox issue.

I think we should go back to posts #24 & #25 where we had begun to find that we do actually agree on the "fundamentals" of this discussion and realized that it was a simple mislabeling of those fundamentals that caused confusion in the first place.

Kyle once I understood what your fundamental claim in this thread was, I couldn't find any major points of disagreement with it, I just wish you wouldn't have called it a "sandbox" due to the baggage that term carries. Oh and Kyle, you are right about Sitepoint and Webmaster World.

[Kyle]

Fellas, Fellas, settle down.

Here is what I think, since you both seem to be referring to me so much.

1. Kyle's experiment is a nice try, but it isn't scientifically perfect, it isn't definitive.

2. It'd be really, really, really hard to do a valid controlled experiment on this, so I gotta forgive #1.

3. The idea that there is something sandbox-like shouldn't be up for discussion. It has been confirmed by Google. They said that there is something they have a combination of filters/algorithms, that can result in a sandbox-like effect, but that the original "sandbox" definition was wrong. What we don't know if it is a devaluation of the site, just it's links, both, neither, etc. But we do know that new sites often fail to rank well on their main keywords for months and then suddenly leap up.

4. On a personal note, I do think I talk about things beyond fundamentals, its just that I do not do so in comparison to others who include unverified conjecture in their discussions. There isn't a whole lot beyond fundamentals that actually is real.

So. I think Ken is getting bent out of shape because he misunderstood Kyle's original claim. Kyle is right, you just misunderstood what he was saying. I almost did too, I read the thread title, and was all prepared to write him up, but after reading and rereading his post I realized he wasn't really talking about the typical sandbox. I also think Kyle does need to apologize to Ken for the inexperienced comment. We all know Ken is a professional with lots of experience.

So, come on guys, hug it out.

Working on new post, my prev post was done before I saw Chris's reply.

[KLB]

Working on new post, my prev post was done before I saw Chris's reply.

Understood. As such I'm going to ignore said post.

[Kyle]

Fellas, Fellas, settle down.

Here is what I think, since you both seem to be referring to me so much.

1. Kyle's experiment is a nice try, but it isn't scientifically perfect, it isn't definitive.

2. It'd be really, really, really hard to do a valid controlled experiment on this, so I gotta forgive #1.

3. The idea that there is something sandbox-like shouldn't be up for discussion. It has been confirmed by Google. They said that there is something they have a combination of filters/algorithms, that can result in a sandbox-like effect, but that the original "sandbox" definition was wrong. What we don't know if it is a devaluation of the site, just it's links, both, neither, etc. But we do know that new sites often fail to rank well on their main keywords for months and then suddenly leap up.

4. On a personal note, I do think I talk about things beyond fundamentals, its just that I do not do so in comparison to others who include unverified conjecture in their discussions. There isn't a whole lot beyond fundamentals that actually is real.

So. I think Ken is getting bent out of shape because he misunderstood Kyle's original claim. Kyle is right, you just misunderstood what he was saying. I almost did too, I read the thread title, and was all prepared to write him up, but after reading and rereading his post I realized he wasn't really talking about the typical sandbox. I also think Kyle does need to apologize to Ken for the inexperienced comment. We all know Ken is a professional with lots of experience.

So, come on guys, hug it out.

Re: calling it the sandbox. Of course I admit that this could mislead people, but it could also shed a LOT OF LIGHT on things, due to the attention it receives, and traffic it receives from Google. So I admit that Ken could have been honestly mislead.

Re: my experiment. It isn't an experiment, but more of data from MFA sites I have been involved in. In my opinion, one of the best sites to study, cause they don't generate many random incoming links. Most links are controlled by the webmaster.

Re: calling it the sandbox. I knew that Google said it did not exist based on original definitions, however referencing these symptoms will always bring that term up. I of course apologize for irritating Ken due to my choice of words. There's a lot of history here regarding this subject, even on this forum!

Re: Chris talking beyond the fundamentals. Well said, but the issue I'm trying to bring up is how much things have changed, due to these "delay symptoms" AND eratic google behavior. Our time is better used working on our content than figuring out new SEO "tricks' (for lack of a better word).

Re: apologizing to Ken. My inexperienced statement is leftover from your way of defending putting the co-op on your chemistry site. This really made me judge you...As I cannot apologize for that statement with regards to seo, I do apologize for making a generalized comment regarding your experience. You are definitely NOT an inexperienced web developer. Your chemistry site is the ultimate success, and you should be proud of how long you have kept it online, and the authority your site displays. I have never judged success by monetary gain, so when I look at your chemistry site, it is definietly a wonderful thing to analyze .

I will also say that whenever you reply to beginners posts here, your style of teaching them is excellent. I have always been impressed with your methods of phrasing things and educating the new web developers who come to this forum.

Thanks for getting involved Chris.

[Kyle]

I also wanted to add that Ken's decision to not use www in his URL has caused me to do the same on future projects!

I always chose to use www out of habbit, but when searching Google on "environmental chemistry", and seeing how nice his result looks with the domain in bold (without a WWW in the way!), I thought this could be a more effective way of trying to generate clicks from SERPs!

Thanks Ken.

[KLB]

Re: calling it the sandbox. Of course I admit that this could mislead people, but it could also shed a LOT OF LIGHT on things, due to the attention it receives, and traffic it receives from Google. So I admit that Ken could have been honestly mislead.

I understand your thoughts behind the labeling.

Re: my experiment. It isn't an experiment, but more of data from MFA sites I have been involved in. In my opinion, one of the best sites to study, cause they don't generate many random incoming links. Most links are controlled by the webmaster.

It may not have been a perfect experiment, but it was good for observations and sometimes one has to settle for systematic observations (e.g. studying the weather).

Re: calling it the sandbox. I knew that Google said it did not exist based on original definitions, however referencing these symptoms will always bring that term up. I of course apologize for irritating Ken due to my choice of words. There's a lot of history here regarding this subject, even on this forum!

Your observations deserve much better than that badly abused term. If we could get people past that term and what it historically means, I think your observations can provide for real discussions beyond "the fundamentals".

Our time is better used working on our content than figuring out new SEO "tricks' (for lack of a better word).

You'll never hear a disagreement from me on this comment.

Re: apologizing to Ken. My inexperienced statement is leftover from your way of defending putting the co-op on your chemistry site. This really made me judge you...

I never put co-op on my site for SEO purposes. I didn't even know what Digitalpoint was at the time. I was paid $500 per month to put five rotating text links on my site (plus another $100 per month to put it on another site). The links weren't going to be contextually targeted so they didn't violate the AdSense TOS and I was looking for creative ways to monitorize my site.

It was a pretty big sum that was hard to refuse and I simply didn't ask the questions I should have. It was a stupid moniterzation mistake, not an SEO mistake. Although when I look back at it, it might not have hurt that much financially since I did earn around $4,000+ from it.

Once I learned what the links were all about and realized it could have been a source of my problems I terminated the links. I'm no longer willing to allow an advertiser to blindly place ad links on my site.

When trying to find creative ways to make more money from a site, one can sometimes make bad choices even if they have been at this business for a long time.

As I cannot apologize for that statement with regards to seo

Just remember it wasn't an SEO stunt from my stance, it was simple advertising agreement.

I do apologize for making a generalized comment regarding your experience. You are definitely NOT an inexperienced web developer.

Thank you, apology accepted.

Your chemistry site is the ultimate success, and you should be proud of how long you have kept it online, and the authority your site displays. I have never judged success by monetary gain, so when I look at your chemistry site, it is definietly a wonderful thing to analyze .

Thank you. I look at this as a long term investment. I plan to be still working on the site and still earning a living from it thirty or forty years from now. I dream of it becoming a highly respected authority site where articles are peer reviewed and getting published on it is as sought after as is getting published in any serious medical journal.

I will also say that whenever you reply to beginners posts here, your style of teaching them is excellent. I have always been impressed with your methods of phrasing things and educating the new web developers who come to this forum.

Thank you. Lately I have felt that I have started to get a little short or irritable in my posting style. It is frustrating starting over at the beginning time after time. Sometimes posts by new users make me feel like I'm stuck in Groundhogs' Day.

Thanks for getting involved Chris.

Yes sometimes we need a good slap in the face to snap out of it.

[Kyle]

Thank you. Lately I have felt that I have started to get a little short or irritable in my posting style. It is frustrating starting over at the beginning time after time. Sometimes posts by new users make me feel like I'm stuck in Groundhogs' Day.

I hear ya man, that is in me as well. Thanks for saying that.

[Kyle]

I never put co-op on my site for SEO purposes. I didn't even know what Digitalpoint was at the time. I was paid $500 per month to put five rotating text links on my site (plus another $100 per month to put it on another site). The links weren't going to be contextually targeted so they didn't violate the AdSense TOS and I was looking for creative ways to monitorize my site.

Oh i know you didn't put it on for SEO purposes. Don't get mad at me, but part of SEO is knowing what not to put on your site. And un related text links have been a big no no for a while.

Go look at www.surviveoutdoors.com. See that link to the shoes site in the right navigation at the bottom? Why am I doing this? Because it makes a ton of money, and Survive Outdoors is a dead project. It isn't where my heart is, and the writer (my dad) does not have the time as well. Survive Outdoors was a huge success for the 5 years we gave it tons fo attention, and made 6 figures multiple years during the Christmas season using our authority to milk the affiliate business.

So I'm definitely in the same boat as you when it comes to looking at profit sometimes over common sense...but it really is part of SEO. I am conciously doing something negative to Survive Outdoors by putting the shoe link there.

I'm glad you're here Ken, I really mean that. There are not enough old school webmasters who are still around... most have vanished, become millionares and ignored the community, or are silent about their specific projects.

[KLB]

Oh i know you didn't put it on for SEO purposes. Don't get mad at me, but part of SEO is knowing what not to put on your site. And un related text links have been a big no no for a while.

Unrelated links don't seem to hurt me, I've sold them for a long time and still do. It was links to bad neighborhoods that hurt. And anyone who knows what co-op is knows that it often contains links to bad neighborhoods. I'm absolutely certain it was bad neighborhood links that hurt me. I say this because my other "unrelated" links stayed on my site and it recovered just fine once I got rid of co-op.

Also, sites have "unrelated" links on them all the time. Think of all the affiliate programs we link to and syndication links we put on our sites. We also routinely link our sites back to our "main" web developer site via a "site developed by link". It would be really hard to penalize a site for unrelated links without having undesired consequences. However, penalizing sites for linking to bad neighborhoods would be quite easy.

So I'm definitely in the same boat as you when it comes to looking at profit sometimes over common sense...but it really is part of SEO. I am conciously doing something negative to Survive Outdoors by putting the shoe link there.

It is really scary having to depend upon one primary advertiser and diversifying is very hard. I'm finally getting some good partnerships that have long term potential, but one has to step on the occasional rotten egg to make a living in this business.

I'm glad you're here Ken, I really mean that. There are not enough old school webmasters who are still around... most have vanished, become millionares and ignored the community, or are silent about their specific projects.

Man I'd like to be one of those millionaires.

Seriously though, I gain way too much knowledge from communities like this to turn my back on them. Even when we seriously butt heads we can still learn something once we finally swallow our pride. I may be quick to anger, but I'm also quick to forgive. Holding a grudge is counterproductive.

Kyle, I do really like your thinking overall and I think we all can learn a lot from you. So don't take the occasional head butting personally. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs and we can't have a spirited discussion without a few misunderstandings.

Oh and you're right there are not enough old school webmasters left around. Sometimes I long for the days before WYSIWYGs when webmasters had to actually know the difference between a tag and an attribute.

[Kyle]

Unrelated links don't seem to hurt me, I've sold them for a long time and still do. It was links to bad neighborhoods that hurt. And anyone who knows what co-op is knows that it often contains links to bad neighborhoods. I'm absolutely certain it was bad neighborhood links that hurt me. I say this because my other "unrelated" links stayed on my site and it recovered just fine once I got rid of co-op.

Also, sites have "unrelated" links on them all the time. Think of all the affiliate programs we link to and syndication links we put on our sites. We also routinely link our sites back to our "main" web developer site via a "site developed by link". It would be really hard to penalize a site for unrelated links without having undesired consequences. However, penalizing sites for linking to bad neighborhoods would be quite easy.

True true... but we'll save examples of sites getting their pagerank spreading abilities blocked for another debate! I guess it is all about your level of paranoia. No good data here either way.

Seriously though, I gain way too much knowledge from communities like this to turn my back on them. Even when we seriously butt heads we can still learn something once we finally swallow our pride. I may be quick to anger, but I'm also quick to forgive. Holding a grudge is counterproductive.

I am very quick to anger as well, we definitely have that in common!

Kyle, I do really like your thinking overall and I think we all can learn a lot from you. So don't take the occasional head butting personally. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs and we can't have a spirited discussion without a few misunderstandings.

Oh and you're right there are not enough old school webmasters left around. Sometimes I long for the days before WYSIWYGs when webmasters had to actually know the difference between a tag and an attribute.

Thanks Ken, misunderstandings happen. The subject matter of this made it more heated than a normal misunderstanding.

Ya I miss my old site on Geocities, I even remember the old URL www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/2100. They didnt have a wysiwyg then, just some generic template choices or coding it by hand.

[KLB]

True true... but we'll save examples of sites getting their pagerank spreading abilities blocked for another debate! I guess it is all about your level of paranoia. No good data here either way.

Yep another debate, although blocking of the spread of PR to other sites is different from penalizing a site for linking to unrelated sites the way Google penalizes sites that link to bad neighborhoods.

I am very quick to anger as well, we definitely have that in common!

I think it is a common trait among those of us in this business. Lots of high IQ's, big egos and lack of patience due to answering the same damn questions too many times. For me the button that pushes me over the edge is the whole sandbox issue, I'm sick of people coming up with bizarre conspiracy theories to justify their lack of instant success when in reality it is because they created an MFA site with virtually no content.

I had put tens of thousands of hours of hard effort, sweat and tears into my site before it started turning into a commercial success. Noobies coming into this game and expecting to "instantly" get rich by putting up a crap site just sets me off.

Thanks Ken, misunderstandings happen. The subject matter of this made it more heated than a normal misunderstanding.

I've been more irritable than normal this past couple of weeks so I'm a little quicker to crank up the heat than normal. Just lots of little frustrations combined with the extraction of my wisdom teeth has made me really irritable.

Ya I miss my old site on Geocities, I even remember the old URL www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/2100. They didnt have a wysiwyg then, just some generic template choices or coding it by hand.

I had a Geocities site, just to play around with. It really sucked. I first started coding in 1995. My site was on a college NeXT server and I would telnet in and use pico to edit my html. Talk about a brutal way to code. It was a bit like walking to a mile to school each day in blinding blizzards and having to walk up hill in both directions. For me migrating to notepad was a major leap forward.

[organ]

I think i have a sandbox problem in my 1 year website. No traffic from google, but get tons of traffic from yahoo and msn.

[KLB]

Probably not related to the sandbox as defined originally in this thread or as is commonly defined. Instead, you should look at on page factors that Google may be penalizing you for (e.g. links to bad neighborhoods, over doing SEO, etc.).