96 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
96 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Im sorry but the sandbox does exist!

by TomBuck
85 replies
  • SEO
    • |
I am promoting a product review aggressively and I have gone down in the SERPS.? Why?
#exist #sandbox
  • Profile picture of the author dburk
    Hi TomBuck,

    I'm sorry, nothing in your post suggests the existence of a sandbox. Without having any specific details I could only guess why your rankings are dropping.

    My first guess would be your original rankings are from the temporary boost of QDF. Now that the QDF boost is wearing off, your page is sinking to it's currently earned ranking.

    My second guess would be that your "aggressive" promoting is low quality web spam and you are beginning to see it devalued.

    Of course, if it makes you feel better to think of you webpage in a sandbox, go ahead, just realize it is a figment of your imagination.
    Signature

    * Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
    *     Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3353522].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
      Originally Posted by dburk View Post

      Hi TomBuck,

      I'm sorry, nothing in your post suggests the existence of a sandbox. Without having any specific details I could only guess why your rankings are dropping.

      My first guess would be your original rankings are from the temporary boost of QDF. Now that the QDF boost is wearing off, your page is sinking to it's currently earned ranking.

      My second guess would be that your "aggressive" promoting is low quality web spam and you are beginning to see it devalued.

      Of course, if it makes you feel better to think of you webpage in a sandbox, go ahead, just realize it is figment of your imagination.
      You continue to say this, yet provide no evidence to support your stance.

      I replied to you several times in the other thread about the sandbox to which you didn't reply.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3353877].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dburk
        Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

        You continue to say this, yet provide no evidence to support your stance.

        I replied to you several times in the other thread about the sandbox to which you didn't reply.
        Hi mgtarheels,

        I may have missed your replies, please provide a link and I'll see if I can respond.

        Wouldn't you say that if no evidence of a sandbox is found that it suggests it doesn't exist?

        Matt Cutts of Google has stated there is no sandbox, only that some webmasters may experience swings in rankings, due to QDF, that they might perceive as a sandbox. The important thing to note is that it is a "perception" not based an actual real world sandbox.
        Signature

        * Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
        *         Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3353990].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
          Originally Posted by dburk View Post

          Hi mgtarheels,

          I may have missed your replies, please provide a link and I'll see if I can respond.

          Wouldn't you say that if no evidence of a sandbox is found that it suggests it doesn't exist?

          Matt Cutts of Google has stated there is no sandbox, only that some webmasters may experience swings in rankings, due to QDF, that they might perceive as a sandbox. The important thing to note is that it is a "perception" not based an actual real world sandbox.
          If you honestly take anything Cutts has to say about G as truth, then you're feeding into his entire gimmick. Do you honestly think the figure head that prevents spam on G is going to tell you ways and techniques that do work and those that don't? Come on, there's a vested interest.

          http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...box-there.html
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354013].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author paulgl
            QDF
            There is a short boost for newness.
            But shortly thereafter, with no visible means of support, a site is likely to fall,
            being taken over by the usual top SERP suspects. You have to make your site
            as good, if not better than the ones on top. Why people think that just
            because you
            promoting a product review aggressively
            Is no reason ever to think it's going to go to the top and stay there.

            Even mgtarheels has to agree on that one.

            And that's the main reason people think they are being sandoboxed.
            That somehow they have followed some formula and so google MUST
            put them on top. It does not work that way.

            And I've said it before. If you fall from #5 to #35, and claim you are being
            sandboxed, then what, pray tell, does that say about site #36? And #37?
            That somehow google is giving them the double-secret-sandbox?

            And when you got to #5, think about what the site that used to be #5 and
            how now has dropped. Is that person going to say they were now sandboxed?

            You took over #5 and now former #5 screams sandbox.

            Now how about 10 sites doing what you did at the same time. Now #5 is at
            #15. Screams sandbox. In reality, 10 sites just got a short boost. Those that
            have staying power will stay there.

            Your site is not in a vacuum being the only site that is doing something.
            At any given time, there's probably millions of people working on websites.

            Paul
            Signature

            If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354090].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
              Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

              QDF
              There is a short boost for newness.
              But shortly thereafter, with no visible means of support, a site is likely to fall,
              being taken over by the usual top SERP suspects. You have to make your site
              as good, if not better than the ones on top. Why people think that just
              because you

              Is no reason ever to think it's going to go to the top and stay there.

              Even mgtarheels has to agree on that one.

              And that's the main reason people think they are being sandoboxed.
              That somehow they have followed some formula and so google MUST
              put them on top. It does not work that way.

              And I've said it before. If you fall from #5 to #35, and claim you are being
              sandboxed, then what, pray tell, does that say about site #36? And #37?
              That somehow google is giving them the double-secret-sandbox?

              And when you got to #5, think about what the site that used to be #5 and
              how now has dropped. Is that person going to say they were now sandboxed?

              You took over #5 and now former #5 screams sandbox.

              Now how about 10 sites doing what you did at the same time. Now #5 is at
              #15. Screams sandbox. In reality, 10 sites just got a short boost. Those that
              have staying power will stay there.

              Your site is not in a vacuum being the only site that is doing something.
              At any given time, there's probably millions of people working on websites.

              Paul
              Absolutely agree on a QDF factor, but that doesn't mean from going from #14 to #570 and staying in that range for two months despite consistent backlinking.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354205].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author dburk
            Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

            If you honestly take anything Cutts has to say about G as truth, then you're feeding into his entire gimmick. Do you honestly think the figure head that prevents spam on G is going to tell you ways and techniques that do work and those that don't? Come on, there's a vested interest.

            http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...box-there.html
            Hi mgtarheels,

            Okay, I remember that thread. I thought I had responded, here's the link:

            http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...ml#post3328432

            Apparently you think anyone who says that the sandbox doesn't exist, even when it's a Google spokesperson they must be a liar. Well, where's you proof that it actually exists? Everything you can point to has a well known factor (not the sandox) to explain it.

            If there is no evidence of it's existence, what do you base your belief on. To me this just seems like the kind of argument we typically see from conspiracy theory collectors.

            Google isn't the Internet police, they aren't out to judge the quality of your writing, they aren't in the business of issuing penalties to websites. They are just trying give their users what they are looking for, useful and relevant search results.
            Signature

            * Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
            *             Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354381].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
              Originally Posted by dburk View Post

              Hi mgtarheels,

              Okay, I remember that thread. I thought I had responded, here's the link:

              http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...ml#post3328432

              Apparently you think anyone who says that the sandbox doesn't exist, even when it's a Google spokesperson they must be a liar. Well, where's you proof that it actually exists? Everything you can point to has a well known factor (not the sandox) to explain it.

              If there is no evidence of it's existence, what do you base your belief on. To me this just seems like the kind of argument we typically see from conspiracy theory collectors.

              Google isn't the Internet police, they aren't out to judge the quality of your writing, they aren't in the business of issuing penalties to websites. They are just trying give their users what they are looking for, useful and relevant search results.
              You're making some large assumptions and putting words in my mouth.

              No evidence of it's existence? Surely, the 2 largest figureheads of the largest SEO websites on the Internet that claim there IS a sandbox is supposedly "linkbait" to you.

              Show me evidence that a sandbox does not exist.

              Google isn't the Internet police? Really? You may want to ask JC Penney about that now, considering they've just been bitch slapped to #70 for some of their tactics. That seems like policing to me.

              Also care to explain the Hubpages bitch slap a bit ago? Surely you're aware of the reason for their new quality control guidelines. Again, more policing.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354395].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author dburk
                Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                You're making some large assumptions and putting words in my mouth.

                No evidence of it's existence? Surely, the 2 largest figureheads of the largest SEO websites on the Internet that claim there IS a sandbox is supposedly "linkbait" to you.

                Show me evidence that a sandbox does not exist.

                Google isn't the Internet police? Really? You may want to ask JC Penney about that now, considering they've just been bitch slapped to #70 for some of their tactics. That seems like policing to me.

                Also care to explain the Hubpages bitch slap a bit ago? Surely you're aware of the reason for their new quality control guidelines. Again, more policing.
                You say "figureheads", to me they are most famous for their link baiting tactics. They are famous for implying someone said the exact opposite of what they actually did say. It's important to note that what was inferred was not actually said by Matt Cutts. They based their inference on what Cutts didn't say. Still, to date, nobody has every provided credible evidence of a sandbox only innuendo.
                Signature

                * Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
                *                 Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354441].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                  Originally Posted by dburk View Post

                  You say "figureheads", to me they are most famous for their link baiting tactics. They are famous for implying someone said the exact opposite of what they actually did say. It's important to note that what was inferred was not actually said by Matt Cutts. They based their inference on what Cutts didn't say. Still, to date, nobody has every provided credible evidence of a sandbox on innuendo.
                  Are you familiar with Rand's background? What about Greg Shuey? They are not famous for their linkbait tactics.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354449].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author dburk
                    Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                    Are you familiar with Rand's background? What about Greg Shuey? They are not famous for their linkbait tactics.

                    I have admired Rand's link baiting tactics for years. To me he is one of the most skillful link baiters I've ever had the pleasure to read.

                    These guys are famous because they are masters of publicity, link baiting is just one of the tools in there bag of tricks.

                    Don't get me wrong, I think Rand is a bright fellow. He knows what he's talking about, but it doesn't work as link bait unless he can twist things into a controversy. Rand systematically studies what webmasters are focused on and then he finds a way to stir up a controversy. That's what made him famous and that is where his mojo is. And I am a long time admirer of his publicity skills.
                    Signature

                    * Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
                    *                     Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354493].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                      Originally Posted by dburk View Post

                      I have admired Rand's link baiting tactics for years. To me he is one of the most skillful link baiters I've ever had the please to read.

                      These guys are famous because they are masters of publicity, link baiting is just one of the tools in there bag of tricks.

                      Don't get me wrong, I think Rand is a bright fellow. He knows what he's talking about, but it doesn't work as link bait unless he can twist things into a controversy. Rand systematically studies what webmasters are focused on and then he finds a way to stir up a controversy. That's what made him famous and that is where his mojo is. And I am a long time admirer of his publicity skills.
                      No, he was made famous for having the #1 SEO company which led to books and speaking engagements. He was the head of the company.

                      Greg Shuey is the same. Director of SEO @ seo.com. Both claim to believe a sandbox exists.
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354514].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author dburk
                        Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                        No, he was made famous for having the #1 SEO company which led to books and speaking engagements. He was the head of the company.

                        Greg Shuey is the same. Director of SEO @ seo.com. Both claim to believe a sandbox exists.
                        See... masters of publicity! Thanks for making my point so well.
                        Signature

                        * Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
                        *                         Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354524].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                          Originally Posted by dburk View Post

                          See... masters of publicity! Thanks for making my point so well.
                          Ah, selective reasoning. How humorous to use logical fallacies during a debate.

                          Figured you'd do as much without providing anything of value to further your point besides pictures and videos from youtube attempting to belittle one's intellect.
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354528].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author dburk
                            Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                            Ah, selective reasoning. How humorous to use logical fallacies during a debate.
                            Seemed appropriate for an apparent straw man argument.

                            Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                            Figured you'd do as much without providing anything of value to further your point besides pictures and videos from youtube attempting to belittle one's intellect.
                            There is no credible evidence of a sandbox. What more need I say.

                            Famous people aren't right simply because they are famous. None of the folks you are pointing out have ever offered a shred of evidence of the existence of a sandbox. A belief based on other people's believe is not evidence, nor is it credible. One's fame does not improve ones accuracy or judgement.

                            If you so desperately want to believe in the existence of a sandbox go ahead. But if you want to be taken seriously bring some evidence. For the absence of evidence suggest that it doesn't exist.
                            Signature

                            * Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
                            *                             Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354776].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author petesankey
      Originally Posted by dburk View Post

      Hi TomBuck,

      I'm sorry, nothing in your post suggests the existence of a sandbox. Without having any specific details I could only guess why your rankings are dropping.

      My first guess would be your original rankings are from the temporary boost of QDF. Now that the QDF boost is wearing off, your page is sinking to it's currently earned ranking.

      My second guess would be that your "aggressive" promoting is low quality web spam and you are beginning to see it devalued.

      Of course, if it makes you feel better to think of you webpage in a sandbox, go ahead, just realize it is figment of your imagination.
      Well said. Couldn't agree more.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357228].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
    You're still indexed right? Then you aren't sandboxed.

    You're dancing right now, thats all.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3353596].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TomBuck
    Aww yeah this is one of my sites but one of my sites has been sandboxed, was page 3 but now not in top 10.....
    Signature
    The Seo Oasis

    SEO Company? - 8 Great ways to get new SEO Clients

    High DA Links for sale
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3353601].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Big__Lebowski
    it can be temporarily Serp Filter Penalty - keep linking your site and all will be fine
    Signature
    Mass Effect 3 cd key
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3353704].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author terryd
    I don't know why people post threads as fact and then don't back up with their statement with proof!
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3353951].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TomBuck
    Okay so I think I was not clear:

    1.) I am promoting a product launch, my site has been moving madly in serps probably because I am doing loads of link building. It has now calmed down a bit but no movement up .

    2.) 1 of my sites that was on page 3 is now nowhere to be seen...

    The info helped thanks.
    Signature
    The Seo Oasis

    SEO Company? - 8 Great ways to get new SEO Clients

    High DA Links for sale
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354225].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
    You also didn't address anything I posted in the previous thread.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354420].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dburk
      Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

      You also didn't address anything I posted in the previous thread.
      I just reread it, I don't see what I'm missing. Can you be specific?
      Signature

      * Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
      *       Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354450].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      I'm going with the gremlins. Has to be gremlins.

      It is completely normal for a site to bounce up and down the rankings, even drastically, when there is a lot of backlinking going on, especially a new site.

      If you are doing something silly like pinging all your backlinks constantly. That will get the site dancing even more. On top of that, if you are building all your backlinks to your main site, with no buffer, you are even more likely to dance around for awhile.

      This is nothing new, and it does not mean that a sandbox does or does not exist.

      I've had numerous sites go from the first page to the 30th or even not showing in the top 100 pages. I just kept doing what I was doing and they came back, typically ranked even higher than they were originally.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354464].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
        Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

        I'm going with the gremlins. Has to be gremlins.

        It is completely normal for a site to bounce up and down the rankings, even drastically, when there is a lot of backlinking going on, especially a new site.

        If you are doing something silly like pinging all your backlinks constantly. That will get the site dancing even more. On top of that, if you are building all your backlinks to your main site, with no buffer, you are even more likely to dance around for awhile.

        This is nothing new, and it does not mean that a sandbox does or does not exist.

        I've had numerous sites go from the first page to the 30th or even not showing in the top 100 pages. I just kept doing what I was doing and they came back, typically ranked even higher than they were originally.
        People aren't confusing dancing with a sandbox in this discussion.

        Care to elaborate how a 4 month old site was #14 before a campaign, then two days after the campaign the site dropped into the high #500s and stayed there for over 2 months despite constant backlinking from high authority sites?
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354491].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
          Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

          People aren't confusing dancing with a sandbox in this discussion.

          Care to elaborate how a 4 month old site was #14 before a campaign, then two days after the campaign the site dropped into the high #500s and stayed there for over 2 months despite constant backlinking from high authority sites?
          There are so many variables in something like this. It would be nearly impossible to narrow it down to one thing. Some of the causes could have been things like...
          • Links from known link farms.
          • Loss of high PR backlinks that were the main thing keeping the site ranked as high as it was. Links disappear all the time. Websites, for that matter, disappear all the time.
          • Changes to the content and/or title tags of the site. I did this recently. I was playing around with a site that was ranked #1 for its keyword. Wanted to change the layout a little bit. Three days later it was #37. Then disappeared for two days. Now it is back to #8 and climbing.
          • If the site is on shared hosting, someone on that IP may have been doing something that Google didn't like and causing the ranking of all the sites on that hosting package to be pushed down.

          These are just a few things off the top of my head. I could keep going, but I think you get the point.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354532].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
            Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

            There are so many variables in something like this. It would be nearly impossible to narrow it down to one thing. Some of the causes could have been things like...
            • Links from known link farms.
            • Loss of high PR backlinks that were the main thing keeping the site ranked as high as it was. Links disappear all the time. Websites, for that matter, disappear all the time.
            • Changes to the content and/or title tags of the site. I did this recently. I was playing around with a site that was ranked #1 for its keyword. Wanted to change the layout a little bit. Three days later it was #37. Then disappeared for two days. Now it is back to #8 and climbing.
            • If the site is on shared hosting, someone on that IP may have been doing something that Google didn't like and causing the ranking of all the sites on that hosting package to be pushed down.

            These are just a few things off the top of my head. I could keep going, but I think you get the point.
            Honestly, I stopped reading when you claimed link farms can penalize your site.

            edit: OK, read the rest. I didn't lose blogroll links. I have a program that monitors such a thing when a link is removed. No content was changed, and no metas were altered. Site was on a VPS by itself.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354538].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
    Pro Tip:

    Found the #1 SEO company or become the Director of SEO for a top SEO company and you're automatically a master at publicity!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354537].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
    Danny Sullivan believes in the sandbox.
    Jim Boykin believes in the sandbox.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354585].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354595].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      I suppose bigfoot doesn't exist?

      Tell that to Ronald!



      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354603].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      I suppose bigfoot doesn't exist?

      Tell that to Ronald!

      Poor Ronald! He was just kidnapped and held for ransom in Finland!


      Paul
      Signature

      If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354704].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
        Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

        Nope, you're definitely the one confused.

        Sandbox does not mean deindexed.
        Show me PROOF that the sandbox exists, PROOF!

        Originally Posted by TomBuck View Post

        Okay so I think I was not clear:

        1.) I am promoting a product launch, my site has been moving madly in serps probably because I am doing loads of link building. It has now calmed down a bit but no movement up .

        2.) 1 of my sites that was on page 3 is now nowhere to be seen...

        The info helped thanks.
        Did you stop building links at any time? Do you have more back links than you have visitors? How many bookmarks do you have? It isn't natural to have thousands of back links without a decent ratio for bookmarks, and without proper traffic.

        Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

        You're making some large assumptions and putting words in my mouth.

        No evidence of it's existence? Surely, the 2 largest figureheads of the largest SEO websites on the Internet that claim there IS a sandbox is supposedly "linkbait" to you.

        Show me evidence that a sandbox does not exist.

        Google isn't the Internet police? Really? You may want to ask JC Penney about that now, considering they've just been bitch slapped to #70 for some of their tactics. That seems like policing to me.
        There is no sandbox and you have no proof of it and neither do they. The largest figureheads have been wrong before and switch techniques all the time, it is what needs to be done. What do you consider the sandbox? Since you think that deindexing is not a sandbox, so you think that anytime there is a noticeable change in the SERPs it is due to sandbox?

        Evidence that a sandbox doesn't exist, well, since you can't show proof it DOES exist that is good enough for me. But really, it is a matter of what you think the google sandbox really is, you have yet to make that clear.


        Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

        Honestly, I stopped reading when you claimed link farms can penalize your site.

        edit: OK, read the rest. I didn't lose blogroll links. I have a program that monitors such a thing when a link is removed. No content was changed, and no metas were altered. Site was on a VPS by itself.
        So... you believe the sandbox exists... but you don't believe link farms can penalize your site. That is strange.

        Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

        I think it's the sandbox effect because it's a new website. Can't find a reason for it.
        Yeah, many SEOs use that line for new websites, myself included. Doesn't mean we actually believe it. It is a stalling method. lol.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354782].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
          Originally Posted by iAmNameLess View Post

          Show me PROOF that the sandbox exists, PROOF!



          Did you stop building links at any time? Do you have more back links than you have visitors? How many bookmarks do you have? It isn't natural to have thousands of back links without a decent ratio for bookmarks, and without proper traffic.



          There is no sandbox and you have no proof of it and neither do they. The largest figureheads have been wrong before and switch techniques all the time, it is what needs to be done. What do you consider the sandbox? Since you think that deindexing is not a sandbox, so you think that anytime there is a noticeable change in the SERPs it is due to sandbox?

          Evidence that a sandbox doesn't exist, well, since you can't show proof it DOES exist that is good enough for me. But really, it is a matter of what you think the google sandbox really is, you have yet to make that clear.




          So... you believe the sandbox exists... but you don't believe link farms can penalize your site. That is strange.



          Yeah, many SEOs use that line for new websites, myself included. Doesn't mean we actually believe it. It is a stalling method. lol.
          Holy ****, you're clueless about everything when it comes to SEO.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354826].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
            Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

            Holy ****, you're clueless about everything when it comes to SEO.
            And since you disagree with me you're clueless as well. We're going with that logic right?
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354832].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
              Originally Posted by iAmNameLess View Post

              And since you disagree with me you're clueless as well. We're going with that logic right?
              Depends, it's apparent you didn't follow links in this thread.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354833].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
              Well I never thought the SANDBOX did exist .. but perhaps after you get to page 5 - the end of the article here you may re think your position ...

              I dunno ....

              NYT Outs another website ... a big one ... you or Id be DEAD but a multi million dollar adwords client - sent to the woodshed for a lesson. After they made a few extra $million$ of course ....

              http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/bu...arch.html?_r=1


              "He noted, too, that before The Times presented evidence of the paid links to JCPenney.com, Google had just begun to roll out an algorithm change that had a negative effect on Penney’s search results. (The tweak affected “how we trust links,” Mr. Cutts said, declining to elaborate.)

              True, JCPenney.com’s showing in Google searches had declined slightly by Feb. 8, as the algorithm change began to take effect. In “comforter sets,” Penney went from No. 1 to No. 7. In “sweater dresses,” from No. 1 to No. 10.

              But the real damage to Penney’s results began when Google started that “manual action.” The decline can be charted: On Feb. 1, the average Penney position for 59 search terms was 1.3.

              On Feb. 8, when the algorithm was changing, it was 4.

              By Feb. 10, it was 52."

              And oddly enough ... a lot of my sites were hit either a little bit 4-5 spots or whacked 5o or so spots on a few and 100+ on some others [ new and franky they likely deserve that ]

              Not bitching about that - but its just interesting ...
              Signature
              Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354861].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
                Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

                Well I never thought the SANDBOX did exist .. but perhaps after you get to page 5 - the end of the article here you may re think your position ...

                I dunno ....

                NYT Outs another website ... a big one ... you or Id be DEAD but a multi million dollar adwords client - sent to the woodshed for a lesson. After they made a few extra $ of course ....

                http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/bu...arch.html?_r=1


                "He noted, too, that before The Times presented evidence of the paid links to JCPenney.com, Google had just begun to roll out an algorithm change that had a negative effect on Penney's search results. (The tweak affected "how we trust links," Mr. Cutts said, declining to elaborate.)

                True, JCPenney.com's showing in Google searches had declined slightly by Feb. 8, as the algorithm change began to take effect. In "comforter sets," Penney went from No. 1 to No. 7. In "sweater dresses," from No. 1 to No. 10.

                But the real damage to Penney's results began when Google started that "manual action." The decline can be charted: On Feb. 1, the average Penney position for 59 search terms was 1.3.

                On Feb. 8, when the algorithm was changing, it was 4.

                By Feb. 10, it was 52."

                And oddly enough ... a lot of my sites were hit either a little bit 4-5 spots or whacked 5o or so spots on a few and 100+ on some others [ new and franky they likely deserve that ]

                Not bitching about that - but its just interesting ...
                See, and I agree with that one hundred percent, and maybe we're arguing over definition here and what means what. I believe you can be punished, or inadvertently effected by updates to the algorithm. I don't believe that change in SERPs is related to sites being put in the sand box.

                What I understand the sandbox to mean is being deindexed and thrown out of the SERPs entirely.
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354875].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                  Originally Posted by iAmNameLess View Post

                  See, and I agree with that one hundred percent, and maybe we're arguing over definition here and what means what. I believe you can be punished, or inadvertently effected by updates to the algorithm. I don't believe that change in SERPs is related to sites being put in the sand box.

                  What I understand the sandbox to mean is being deindexed and thrown out of the SERPs entirely.
                  See, this is why you don't know **** about SEO.

                  Sandbox does NOT and has NEVER meant being deindexed.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354883].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                    Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                    See, this is why you don't know **** about SEO.

                    Sandbox does NOT and has NEVER meant being deindexed.
                    Sandbox effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                    http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Google...st?&id=3704864
                    Google Sandbox: Frequently Asked Questions
                    Google Sandbox Defined
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354891].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
                      Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                      Santa Claus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                      http://ezinearticles.com/?Santa-Clau...ion&id=5386351
                      Proof that Santa Exists — Susiej
                      Scientist offers mathematical proof Santa exists - thestar.com

                      Do you think I really care about the links you just posted? What evidence does that show? lol... I can create articles, press releases, wikipedia page on why the sandbox doesn't exist.
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354910].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                        Originally Posted by iAmNameLess View Post

                        Santa Claus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                        http://ezinearticles.com/?Santa-Clau...ion&id=5386351
                        Proof that Santa Exists -- Susiej
                        Scientist offers mathematical proof Santa exists - thestar.com

                        Do you think I really care about the links you just posted? What evidence does that show? lol... I can create articles, press releases, wikipedia page on why the sandbox doesn't exist.
                        ****, you're simplistic. Those links were to help you define what the "google sandbox" is, Turbo.
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354914].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
                          Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                          ****, you're simplistic. Those links were to help you define what the "google sandbox" is, Turbo.
                          And those links were so you can see santa exists. Using those four letter words doesn't sound like you're gunna be on the nice list.

                          Those sites would have been helpful if they were actually from google itself. OR, if they even stayed consistent with the definition.

                          How about this Mr. SEO authority.... YOU tell me what YOU think the sandbox is.

                          The funniest thing about this, is that you try cutting me down saying I know nothing about SEO. Cool, okay, well why don't you try to explain something YOURSELF! Tell me what YOUR belief is on what the definition of sandbox is. Tell me YOUR proof that the sandbox even exists. We aren't talking about difference in SERPs one day from another, that is NORMAL. If you have over 100 different sites, you would know that. Quick linking and quit saying what all your SEO idols say about a subject, and you explain it to me in your own words instead of being fed by whatever sites you've bookmarked.
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354938].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                            Originally Posted by iAmNameLess View Post

                            And those links were so you can see santa exists. Using those four letter words doesn't sound like you're gunna be on the nice list.

                            Those sites would have been helpful if they were actually from google itself. OR, if they even stayed consistent with the definition.

                            How about this Mr. SEO authority.... YOU tell me what YOU think the sandbox is.

                            The funniest thing about this, is that you try cutting me down saying I know nothing about SEO. Cool, okay, well why don't you try to explain something YOURSELF! Tell me what YOUR belief is on what the definition of sandbox is. Tell me YOUR proof that the sandbox even exists. We aren't talking about difference in SERPs one day from another, that is NORMAL. If you have over 100 different sites, you would know that. Quick linking and quit saying what all your SEO idols say about a subject, and you explain it to me in your own words instead of being fed by whatever sites you've bookmarked.
                            Over 100 sites? I have over 3000 sites.

                            The sandbox definition isn't up for interpretation, the one's who coined the term gave the definition themselves on the link I showed you. My views, and everyone else that has the slightest clue with SEO, are in line with the definition of "google sandbox" as defined above.
                            Signature
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354946].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
                              Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                              Over 100 sites? I have over 3000 sites.

                              The sandbox definition isn't up for interpretation, the one's who coined the term gave the definition themselves on the link I showed you. My views, and everyone else that has the slightest clue with SEO, are in line with the definition of "google sandbox" as defined above.
                              LOL!!! Yes, you have 3,000 sites. I believe you.

                              MAN, you REALLY are living in a fantasy world. You keep on believing in your sandbox. Maybe you can play with your barbies and the tooth fairy in there.

                              I guess there is really no point on debating with a child.

                              P.S. I clicked on your signature links, don't get excited for having a unique visitor for both your sites when you check your analytics, it was just me.
                              Signature
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354974].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                                Originally Posted by iAmNameLess View Post

                                LOL!!! Yes, you have 3,000 sites. I believe you.

                                MAN, you REALLY are living in a fantasy world. You keep on believing in your sandbox. Maybe you can play with your barbies and the tooth fairy in there.

                                I guess there is really no point on debating with a child.

                                P.S. I clicked on your signature links, don't get excited for having a unique visitor for both your sites when you check your analytics, it was just me.
                                Sure, you just keep checking those Alexa ranks! :rolleyes:

                                And, yes, over 3000 sites to cover about 15 niches. I've been doing this **** for 7 years. Having such an amount of sites is hardly uncommon in SEO, especially for someone who has been doing it for 7 years.
                                Signature
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354988].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
                                  Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                                  Sure, you just keep checking those Alexa ranks! :rolleyes:

                                  And, yes, over 3000 sites to cover about 15 niches. I've been doing this **** for 7 years. Having such an amount of sites is hardly uncommon in SEO, especially for someone who has been doing it for 7 years.
                                  1 site a day, for 7 years.

                                  365 X 7 = 2555

                                  Do you by chance do SEO for a psychiatrist? You should consider doing it for trade of services.
                                  Signature
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355007].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                                    Originally Posted by iAmNameLess View Post

                                    1 site a day, for 7 years.

                                    365 X 7 = 2555

                                    Do you by chance do SEO for a psychiatrist? You should consider doing it for trade of services.
                                    I typically buy about 50 domains per month.
                                    Signature
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355010].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                                      Not so far fetched as you seem to believe.
                                      Signature
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355027].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
                                        Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                                        Yep and I believe that, I believe him, he is CREDIBLE, unlike yourself. I 100% believe matt has over 500 sites... I personally know people that have over 500 sites. You are not one of them lol.

                                        I have a client that has about 600 sites... only about 300 are developed, and out of those 300 he only will keep about 30-50 of them.

                                        I really doubt you have 3,000 websites, or even 3,000 domains for that matter. I truly don't believe you're paying 30,000+ a year for domains, and what about hosting? You're looking at about 60k-70k total. I simply don't believe you, I think you're just trying to pretend you're some bigshot posting on a forum, but you're not.
                                        Signature
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355048].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                                          Originally Posted by iAmNameLess View Post

                                          Yep and I believe that, I believe him, he is CREDIBLE, unlike yourself. I 100% believe matt has over 500 sites... I personally know people that have over 500 sites. You are not one of them lol.

                                          I have a client that has about 600 sites... only about 300 are developed, and out of those 300 he only will keep about 30-50 of them.

                                          I really doubt you have 3,000 websites, or even 3,000 domains for that matter. I truly don't believe you're paying 30,000+ a year for domains, and what about hosting? You're looking at about 60k-70k total. I simply don't believe you, I think you're just trying to pretend you're some bigshot posting on a forum, but you're not.
                                          You didn't read the thread. He has over 2000 sites.

                                          Overall, I paid about $26k in domains over 7 years.

                                          I host about 20 sites on each hosting account, something like 165 accounts or around that. My hosting bill each month is about $3800.

                                          You're looking at the numbers wrong, though. Would you pay $26k in domains over 7 years and $3800/mo in hosting if it meant you were more than tripling your expenditures? As said before, my 15 Adsense sites make over 9k/mo alone. That doesn't include my CPA sites, that doesn't include my consulting, and it also doesn't include a new startup I'm doing now in the design field. You can talk to John Durham about that last point.
                                          Signature
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355081].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
                                            Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                                            Most of my sites are strictly HTML/PHP. Why would I want to use a platform that has constant updates on both the platform itself and the plugins? That'd be a damn nightmare.

                                            I've about 150 or so WP sites. I don't mind showing a screencap of those. No biggy to me.
                                            That would be a nightmare. But 3,000.. I still don't see that.

                                            Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                                            You didn't read the thread. He has over 2000 sites.

                                            Overall, I paid about $26k in domains over 7 years.

                                            I host about 20 sites on each hosting account, something like 165 accounts or around that. My hosting bill each month is about $3800.

                                            You're looking at the numbers wrong, though. Would you pay $26k in domains over 7 years and $3800/mo in hosting if it meant you were more than tripling your expenditures? As said before, my 15 Adsense sites make over 9k/mo alone. That doesn't include my CPA sites, that doesn't include my consulting, and it also doesn't include a new startup I'm doing now in the design field. You can talk to John Durham about that last point.
                                            No, I understand that completely, more sites will mean more money, I just don't believe you have that much time available to build a site a day.

                                            See, I just don't believe you and it isn't personal. Don't take it that way, I just think you're lying because in other threads you stated you make 600 a month from adsense.
                                            Signature
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355115].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                                              Originally Posted by iAmNameLess View Post

                                              That would be a nightmare. But 3,000.. I still don't see that.



                                              No, I understand that completely, more sites will mean more money, I just don't believe you have that much time available to build a site a day.

                                              See, I just don't believe you and it isn't personal. Don't take it that way, I just think you're lying because in other threads you stated you make 600 a month from adsense.
                                              Reread those threads. I specifically claimed it was $600/mo per site. 15 sites. That's over $9k/mo. Just like I said earlier.

                                              I typically don't build the sites myself. I've about 3 full-time VAs from the Philippines that do the grunt work. I pay them $400/mo each.
                                              Signature
                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355122].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
                                                Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                                                Reread those threads. I specifically claimed it was $600/mo per site. 15 sites. That's over $9k/mo. Just like I said earlier.

                                                I typically don't build the sites myself. I've about 3 full-time VAs from the Philippines that do the grunt work. I pay them $400/mo each.
                                                Why are you trying to defend yourself to me? Unless I see your godaddy account or if I cared to do a whois and trace by your adsense ID I won't believe you. I hired a VA from the philippines and can say that there is no way they would be able to develop that many sites either.
                                                Signature
                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355218].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                                                  Originally Posted by iAmNameLess View Post

                                                  Why are you trying to defend yourself to me? Unless I see your godaddy account or if I cared to do a whois and trace by your adsense ID I won't believe you. I hired a VA from the philippines and can say that there is no way they would be able to develop that many sites either.
                                                  Because the race wasn't too fun to watch and you're comic relief between building sites myself. Yes I build sites on the weekend.

                                                  Then you need to hire a new worker. If you're worker cannot build 1.5 sites per day, then he isn't worth crap. I can pump out a niche site in about 15 minutes.

                                                  Good luck tracing Adsense accounts that are mine. Multiple Adsense IDs, various hosts = different IP and data center, and none attached to either server in my sig.
                                                  Signature
                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355225].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
                                      Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                                      I typically buy about 50 domains per month.
                                      Yeah, great... but you don't have over 3,000 websites, stop lying.

                                      I have about 4-5 websites I want to build for myself this year, but haven't been able to do yet. You can't tell me you run a business and can build a website a day. No way.

                                      If you would have kept with your story about having 100 sites.. then yeah maybe... I think its cute posting threads about how to work wordpress too about a year ago and still claim to have 3,000 + sites.

                                      You're full of it, and opinion means absolutely nothing to me now. Well, it didn't mean much before anyway.
                                      Signature
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355032].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
                                        Originally Posted by iAmNameLess View Post

                                        Yeah, great... but you don't have over 3,000 websites, stop lying.

                                        I have about 4-5 websites I want to build for myself this year, but haven't been able to do yet. You can't tell me you run a business and can build a website a day. No way.

                                        If you would have kept with your story about having 100 sites.. then yeah maybe... I think its cute posting threads about how to work wordpress too about a year ago and still claim to have 3,000 + sites.

                                        You're full of it, and opinion means absolutely nothing to me now. Well, it didn't mean much before anyway.
                                        Most of my sites are strictly HTML/PHP. Why would I want to use a platform that has constant updates on both the platform itself and the plugins? That'd be a damn nightmare.

                                        I've about 150 or so WP sites. I don't mind showing a screencap of those. No biggy to me.
                                        Signature
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355061].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                              Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                              Over 100 sites? I have over 3000 sites.

                              The sandbox definition isn't up for interpretation, the one's who coined the term gave the definition themselves on the link I showed you. My views, and everyone else that has the slightest clue with SEO, are in line with the definition of "google sandbox" as defined above.
                              Well that and as with any word or phrase it changes as people use it. So this "there is no sandbox" is just semantics. The Op is talking about a kind of penalty as HE sees it (penalty is another semantic word people whine about but if your site goes from a money position to nowhere it isn't a reward now is it?)

                              Bad news about all this high profile press with JC Penney etc is that it really does force Google to make changes. Been seeing some changes its just hard to say that its an algo change because things happen without that anyway.

                              As for the OPs situation it isn't really unique. this is about the forth or fifth thread I can remember this argument breaking out and in many of the cases the sites didn't come back and some times they did.


                              Time will tell but the "build lots more backlinks" doesn't always work.
                              Signature

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3357706].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author paulgl
                                But remember, put JCP in perspective. The links worked. For 2-3 months.
                                Google got wind of it, and devalued the links, dropping the site to
                                where it would naturally be. To me, that's not a penalty, it's putting the
                                site where it belongs in the first place, some backlinks ignored.

                                Having your site sit where it should be in relation to the other sites
                                is not a sandbox.

                                Having an artificial bump taken away is not a penalty. It's leveling the
                                field, let the chips fall where they may. JCP only got this treatment
                                due to publicity.

                                Paul
                                Signature

                                If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3359368].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
                    Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

                    See, this is why you don't know **** about SEO.

                    Sandbox does NOT and has NEVER meant being deindexed.
                    Then you have a lot of people on this forum that disagree with you.

                    I don't believe you really know what you're talking about... for someone who is so wonderful with SEO you have lousy traffic rating on your sites.
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354894].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author dburk
                Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

                Well I never thought the SANDBOX did exist .. but perhaps after you get to page 5 - the end of the article here you may re think your position ...

                I dunno ....

                NYT Outs another website ... a big one ... you or Id be DEAD but a multi million dollar adwords client - sent to the woodshed for a lesson. After they made a few extra $ of course ....

                http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/bu...arch.html?_r=1


                "He noted, too, that before The Times presented evidence of the paid links to JCPenney.com, Google had just begun to roll out an algorithm change that had a negative effect on Penney's search results. (The tweak affected "how we trust links," Mr. Cutts said, declining to elaborate.)

                True, JCPenney.com's showing in Google searches had declined slightly by Feb. 8, as the algorithm change began to take effect. In "comforter sets," Penney went from No. 1 to No. 7. In "sweater dresses," from No. 1 to No. 10.

                But the real damage to Penney's results began when Google started that "manual action." The decline can be charted: On Feb. 1, the average Penney position for 59 search terms was 1.3.

                On Feb. 8, when the algorithm was changing, it was 4.

                By Feb. 10, it was 52."

                And oddly enough ... a lot of my sites were hit either a little bit 4-5 spots or whacked 5o or so spots on a few and 100+ on some others [ new and franky they likely deserve that ]

                Not bitching about that - but its just interesting ...
                This doesn't seem like much of anything new going on here. Google found web spam and devalued it. The only difference is that a major newspaper reported it in their paper rather than through Google's Web Spam reporting tool. J C Penny's website is NOT penalized, it still ranks #1 for many, many terms.
                Signature

                * Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
                *                 Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354900].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rosalina
    i think it is just a slap of google in judjing a site. One of my site has same situation disappearing in google for a week and now come back to it's positioin and gain two more position.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3354751].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
    Alright, I'm off.

    On an honest note, it seems you're quite new to SEO. Shoot me a PM if you have questions and I'll try to help you.

    Have a good night.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355242].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SmarteRE
    If you have a brand new domain you should add just a few things at a time at first. Once you get it seeded than you can move much faster. Always think naturally. I mean really how could something like 6,000 profiles in 2 days be natural?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355442].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
      Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

      Because the race wasn't too fun to watch and you're comic relief between building sites myself. Yes I build sites on the weekend.

      Then you need to hire a new worker. If you're worker cannot build 1.5 sites per day, then he isn't worth crap. I can pump out a niche site in about 15 minutes.

      Good luck tracing Adsense accounts that are mine. Multiple Adsense IDs, various hosts = different IP and data center, and none attached to either server in my sig.
      Oh, so 15 minutes you can install wordpress. Congrats. I build REAL sites not sites MFA. This is what I get paid most for, and it isn't possible to give high quality sites in just a day. In fact, communication with the client and just answering general questions will take a week. Applying changes they'd like, it isn't simple script installment.

      Just another thing that shows you're a liar. lol.

      Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

      Alright, I'm off.

      On an honest note, it seems you're quite new to SEO. Shoot me a PM if you have questions and I'll try to help you.

      Have a good night.
      Thanks, but you never have proved anything in this entire thread. I'm not sure why you think you are an authority figure of any kind?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355481].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Grant
        Originally Posted by iAmNameLess View Post

        Oh, so 15 minutes you can install wordpress. Congrats. I build REAL sites not sites MFA. This is what I get paid most for, and it isn't possible to give high quality sites in just a day. In fact, communication with the client and just answering general questions will take a week. Applying changes they'd like, it isn't simple script installment.

        Just another thing that shows you're a liar. lol.



        Thanks, but you never have proved anything in this entire thread. I'm not sure why you think you are an authority figure of any kind?
        Didn't I already tell you I really only use HTML/PHP sites? Didn't I tell you I only had 15 Adsense sites? Obviously they're not MFA if they don't have Adsense on it. The content is already written for me, so yes, I can do it in 15 minutes. I never said I build my client's sites in 15 minutes.

        You're looking for every little thing you can, and you're failing miserably.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355575].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
          Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post

          Didn't I already tell you I really only use HTML/PHP sites? Didn't I tell you I only had 15 Adsense sites? Obviously they're not MFA if they don't have Adsense on it. The content is already written for me, so yes, I can do it in 15 minutes. I never said I build my client's sites in 15 minutes.

          You're looking for every little thing you can, and you're failing miserably.
          Dude, you're the one desperately trying to prove your case, I honestly don't care because I believe you're a liar.

          You said you had 15 adsense sites making 600 a month each site, but in another thread its different.

          No, you can not get sites up in 15 minutes if it is custom html and php. It would take 15 minutes alone to modify a template with TEXT. I seriously doubt it. You don't have 3,000 websites, you aren't making $600 a month with adsense PER site. In fact... I doubt you even know any PHP the way this is turning out. Just another lie to feed your online ego.

          I really don't care what you have to say, because you STILL have yet to prove ANYTHING!
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3355699].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ahigalpoe
    2yd net/1jg]pregnancymiracle
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5423033].message }}

Trending Topics