Discuss Wikipedia Article: Google Sandbox in the Google News forum on SEO Chat. Wikipedia Article: Google Sandbox Google News forum discussing the latest Google corporate actions. Find information and talk about new features, algorithm updates, company acquisitions, Google goof-ups, and legal battles the search engine is in.
BuySellLinks.com is a new Text Link Advertising Brokerage by the founder of LinkAdage that offers high-end text links and a premier membership base. We screen all advertisers and publishers and their web pages to make sure we are offering a service that works for everyone. Our plug-in is super easy to install but if you are hands off, w e offer free installation.
Tired of dealing with shady text link buyers and/or sellers? Try BuySellLinks.
Receive the tools necessary to be the rock star of your field. Our 12-month program teaches you the evolving world of multi-channel marketing as well as the complex issues and opportunities found in the industry.
Posts: 356
Time spent in forums: 1 Day 5 h 31 m 27 sec
Reputation Power: 8
Wikipedia Article: Google Sandbox
I've been thinking that it is time to try to expose Google's Sandbox idiocy to the general public. My hopes are that the news media will catch on and that negative buzz will surround Google.
I've edited the Wikipedia Google article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google to include basic information about the sandbox and included a link to an article about the sandbox. Every little bit counts.
I would like to know if anyone is willing to help start a trend against Google. Web trends start with webmasters, after all, WE are the web. Remember, Google is just like Altavista was. Google doesn't have to be the permanent holder of the best loved internet brand. Public sentiment can be swayed.
Does anyone have any ideas of how to start a grassroots movement away from Google?
Posts: 9,432
Time spent in forums: 3 Months 6 Days 14 h 42 m 42 sec
Reputation Power: 1569
I don't like the sandbox and have a really nice site that is getting lots of traffic from MSN and Yahoo but not much from google.
If you guys are so mad at google that you are going to ban them from indexing your sites that is 100% OK with me. I'll gladly take all of your traffic.
__________________
* "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." Mark Twain
* "Free advice generally isn't worth much, but cheap advice is worth even less." EGOL
Posts: 356
Time spent in forums: 1 Day 5 h 31 m 27 sec
Reputation Power: 8
Hey Nintendo,
I am aware that there is no article in the wiktionary link- I haven't made it yet. I am trying to find a suitable description/ article that I can post there.
This is actually part of the reason I posted this thread- to see if anyone has/knows of an article that they would be willing to use for this Wiktionary entry.
I know this is a very small way to publicise Googles' flaws, but it is a step in the right direction. Eventually, the press will get wind of this story, Google investors will get agitated and maybe the Sandbox experiment will be abandoned.
Posts: 89
Time spent in forums: 3 h 6 m 59 sec
Reputation Power: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vetteman18
Hey Nintendo,
I am aware that there is no article in the wiktionary link- I haven't made it yet. I am trying to find a suitable description/ article that I can post there.
This is actually part of the reason I posted this thread- to see if anyone has/knows of an article that they would be willing to use for this Wiktionary entry.
I know this is a very small way to publicise Googles' flaws, but it is a step in the right direction. Eventually, the press will get wind of this story, Google investors will get agitated and maybe the Sandbox experiment will be abandoned.
What makes you think that the Sandbox is an experiment? I think that Google believes it will be the way of the future.
Posts: 1,020
Time spent in forums: 5 Days 15 h 57 m 7 sec
Reputation Power: 11
Quote:
I've been thinking that it is time to try to expose Google's Sandbox idiocy to the general public. My hopes are that the news media will catch on and that negative buzz will surround Google.
Why is the sandbox "idiocy" and why would the general public or the media care either way?
Posts: 356
Time spent in forums: 1 Day 5 h 31 m 27 sec
Reputation Power: 8
The sandbox is idiocy for a multitude of reasons:
1) If its for stopping spam, why is it throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Why can't my DUAL DMOZ listed, Yahoo directory listed and Looksmart listed PR 6 site break the top 400?
This site was first indexed by Google on June 5th, as well. I have many pages of pure content and am as white hat as possible. I only have one way links pointing to me, no reciprocals.
If I was a spam site (or even affiliate), wouldn't ONE of these directories have caught me?
2) I often hear of websites while watching the news etc, and all I catch is the title of the site and I don't know the url. These are often important informational sites that are completely sandboxed. I go to msn beta and I find them.
3) As a researcher, I want ALL the results available for my perusal. I value MOST the websites that offer arcane and hard to find information. These sites tend to be small niche sites.
4) The sandbox is NOT a result of getting too many links at once. I only get about one weak PR link per week, if lucky. I am as conservative as they come. I'm not even an SEO, I am a content creator.
5) I highly value new sites concerning a new subject. Say some national phenomenon occurs of any type, new sites will spring up which are solely devoted to this subject.
With the sandbox, all you will see is new pages on OLD sites. I want to see both. Google shouldn't limit what I see, I am more than intelligent enough to decide for myself. I don't need sensorship of NEW sites.
I can go on and on. The sandbox is complete idiocy, I reiterate.
Del.icio.us
Digg
Google
Spurl
Blink
Furl
Simpy
Y! MyWeb
Linear Mode
