Google Aging Delay

[DanT07]

Hi

I just read an article referring to google's so called 'Aging Delay' where all new sites are held back from scoring highly in google's search results for a period of upto 12 months. My site is scoring top positions in yahoo and msn for certain keywords but doesnt even appear in google.


Have you any of you had any experience of this and can anyone confirm/deny its existence?

Thanks,
Dan

 

[ChrisHirst]

It definitely exists

I have 2 sites currently languishing in there.



Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Woo Hoo! the cobblers kids get new shoes.
People Counting Systems

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

 

[xtendscott]

(most of this is my opinion based on some facts and other peoples opinions whom I respect)

The 'Aging Delay' is not necessarily on the site but to new links to your site and Google not giving them credit right away. This is also called "The Google Sandbox".

But I do know some sites get out of this sandbox more quickly than others, and I believe if you can aquire links from "industry related sites" that Google trusts, this can shorten the sandbox timeline. Also triggers like developing links to fast can keep you in the sandbox longer if you are outside the norm for your industry.

I had a site come out in 3-4 months for main terms. Not super competive area though.

xtendscott
Web Site Design | Cryosurgery | Walla Walla Portal

 

[spewn]

is that the time or hold on a domain name, starting from the time you registered the name, regardless of whether or not a web page exists

or

is does the time start once you have a website up???

i don't understand the aging delay...

- g

 

[ChrisHirst]

It starts from the first time that Google discovers the site seemingly.

Aye, The whole thing is a little complex and there seems to be several filters in place.
One is the aging delay which is in place from day one and the period can vary depending on perceived competitiveness. The other is the so called "sandbox" which is applied to links, and can be retriggered at any time if you trip the filter parameters.
There also appears to be a delay on all new links before any credit is passed on to the site. Probably this is in place to null out link farms, forum & blog spamming and dynamic link schemes, so the link has to be crawled in the same location x No of days | weeks | times.

[My opinion and observations only. NOT fact of course]


Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Woo Hoo! the cobblers kids get new shoes.
People Counting Systems

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

 

[spewn]

oh, ok...my site can be found on google if you look for specific keywording, but i can't find any of my site links (the rest of my pages), just my main index page...that might be the "sandboxing" you're talking about?

- g

 

[xtendscott]

no,

The sandbox, all of the sites pages can be indexed in Google but they show for only very obscure search terms(if any) in G serps.

Google crawling and indexing your site is not related to the "sandbox". If you have a dynamic site and ID strings in the URL that could hamper the crawl. If it is a new site or very few links to it, it can take a bit for the site to get crawled and indexed depending on the # of pages.

In the Google search box "site:

http://www.domainname.com"

will show you how many pages they have indexed.

xtendscott
Web Site Design | Cryosurgery | Walla Walla Portal

 

[spewn]

If you have a dynamic site and ID strings in the URL that

what does that mean...my site string looks like this:

site.com/index.pl?a=glazed-donuts

i have also read that the above doesn't register well with SE's...that you should have it like this:

site.com/glazed-donuts.html

or

site.com/glazed/donuts

i don't understand, since you can spoof either of the above, why you can't use name/value pairs, too...

- g

 

[xtendscott]

Those urls should be OK, SE's have gotten much better about Dynamic URL's. Just keep the variables to less than 3.

Session ID's like SSID=29842094809348023 or similar with ID in it is suggest to stay away from.

But I still like to rewrite URL's.

Did you run the "site:" command?



xtendscott
Web Site Design | Cryosurgery | Walla Walla Portal

 

[DanT07]

Thanks for the info guys.

One other thing, whats the best way to test if your site is in this 'sandbox'? I have tried searching in google for keywords that in yahoo and msn i rank #1 for. In google i do not appear in the first 500 results. Is this proof that I am stuck in the sandbox?

 

[xtendscott]

DanT07,

That is a good indication that your site is 'sandboxed'. If your site is less or around a year old and ranks in other SE's, one would assume that your site deserves to be in the top 500 for the same phrases in Google.

If the site is indexed properly, content is unique, sufficient amount of backlinks and no tricks(hidden text, cloaking, etc.) on your site your site is probably in the sandbox.

Unique Content: I have seen a site that had both

http://www.domain.com

and domain.com indexed and given PR. They 301'd the non www. version to the

http://www.domain.com

and shortly came back into rankings. They were a site that was old enough that should not have been in the sandbox.

I am just saying you should check all aspects of the site before accepting your being sandboxed.

Hope this helps.

xtendscott
Web Site Design | Cryosurgery | Walla Walla Portal