Does google sandbox aged domains too?
-
Hello, i have a question. Recently i bought a domain from godaddy auction which is 23 years old and have DA 37 PA 34
Before bidding i check out the domain on google using this query to make sure if pages of this website are showing or not (site:mydomain.com) only home page was indexed on google. Further i check the domain on archive web the domain was last active in 2015. And then it parked for long about 4 years.
So now my question does google consider these type of domain as new or will sandboxed them if i try to rebuild them and rank for other niche keywords ? Because its been 4 weeks i have been building links to my domain send several profile and social signals to my domain. My post is indexed on google but not showing in any google serp result.
-
My keywords now start to show on google second and third page. I think I should wait to see some more improvement. Only few links are showing in search console. Moz and ahref shows 300+ referring domains. I should have to wait more until all referring domains start to show in search console.
-
I am not hoping to see immediate effect. I know seo is the game which takes time to show proper result. I think i should have wait more than a month or two. After this i'll decide to invest in another domain. What do you think about my this idea?
-
The authority has probably decayed, I think it's more a case of starting over and rebuilding the authority - rather than waiting and hoping for the best. I know, it sucks when you have shelled out on a domain. But in my experience domain purchasing is really hit and miss. If you don't see an immediate difference, often you don't see one at all. Maybe others have different POVs though
-
Thanks for clearing. That is why my keywords are not showing up in google search. Because domain was parked for about 5 years. May I know the duration actually how long i'll have to wait more to see some positive improvements?
-
I would say that if the domain had been parked for an extensive duration it probably would count as fresh, especially if (once the domain were resuscitated) the content was very different from Google's last 'active' cache. They don't really want to give people free SEO authority just for buying old domains (that would make it way too easy to game Google's rankings)
They do a similar thing with 301 redirects now where, they check if the 301-receiving URL is 'similar' (probably in Boolean string similarity terms) to the last active cache of the old URL, so nowadays - even the mighty 301 often doesn't transfer much (or any) SEO authority. I guess it's because, the old URL (in this hypothetical redirect scenario) gained links from webmasters based upon the old content. If the new content is quite different, those webmasters may not have chosen to link to it, ergo the content is then expected to re-prove itself (sounds perfectly fair to me)
Another thing, Google don't use Moz's PA and DA metrics to rank pages. They're shadow metrics, metrics which our industry invented to mimic "PageRank" which Google don't show publicly, and never did (unless you count the old Toolbar PageRank, but that was grossly oversimplified and has been deprecated). As such, sometimes sites have moderate PA and DA without ranking well or at all on Google (Moz's link index is far superior to their keyword index)
Finally, Moz's PA and DA don't take into account hidden signals. The disavows on a domain, any penalties it might have. When a site gains a Google penalty (or algorithmic devaluation) Moz's tool does not get an update from Google on that
Buying old domains is a pretty hazy business, IMO there are too many variables to make most purchases (purely for SEO purposes) viable or worthwhile (or scaleable)
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
What does Google's Spammy Structured Markup Penalty consist of?
Hey everybody,
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | klaver
I'm confused about the Spammy Structured Markup Penalty: "This site may not perform as well in Google results because it appears to be in violation of Google's Webmaster Guidelines." Does this mean the rich elements are simply removed from the snippets? Or will there be an actual drop in rankings? Can someone here tell from experience? Thanks for your help!1 -
How does Google handle product detail page links hiden in a <noscript>tag?</noscript>
Hello, During my research of our website I uncovered that our visible links to our product detail pages (PDP) from grid/list view category-nav/search pages are <nofollowed>and being sent through a click tracking redirect with the (PDP) appended as a URL query string. But included with each PDP link is a <noscript>tag containing the actual PDP link. When I confronted our 3rd party e-commerce category-nav/search provider about this approach here is the response I recieved:</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;">The purpose of these links is to firstly allow us to reliably log the click and then secondly redirect the visitor to the target PDP.<br /> In addition to the visible links there is also an "invisible link" inside the no script tag. The noscript tag prevents showing of the a tag by normal browsers but is found and executed by bots during crawling of the page.<br /> Here a link to a blog post where an SEO proved this year that the noscript tag is not ignored by bots: <a href="http://www.theseotailor.com.au/blog/hiding-keywords-noscript-seo-experiment/" target="_blank">http://www.theseotailor.com.au/blog/hiding-keywords-noscript-seo-experiment/<br /> </a> <br /> So the visible links are not obfuscating the PDP URL they have it encoded as it otherwise cannot be passed along as a URL query string. The plain PDP URL is part of the noscript tag ensuring discover-ability of PDPs by bots.</p> <p>Does anyone have anything in addition to this one blog post, to substantiate the claim that hiding our links in a <noscript> tag are in fact within the SEO Best Practice standards set by Google, Bing, etc...? </p> <p>Do you think that this method skirts the fine line of grey hat tactics? Will google/bing eventually penalize us for this?</p> <p>Does anyone have a better suggestion on how our 3rd party provider could track those clicks without using a URL redirect & hiding the actual PDP link?</p> <p>All insights are welcome...Thanks!</p> <p>Jordan K.</p></noscript></nofollowed>
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | eImprovement-SEO0 -
Google Analytics shows wrong position
1 For a particular targeted keyword Google Analytic shows Avg position as 20 for 10 Impresions . On the other hand other Tools like Rank Tracker/Authority Labs shows no Ranking at all . When I Manually check Google results, that particular page is not listed at all in Google Search for that particular keyword in Top 400 search Results. Its almost 30-40 days back done Optimization for that keyword, no Keyword stuffing (2%) or nothing blackhat. Keyword has just 300+ search per month . MOZ and other Tools like MyWebsite Auditor shows no major issues with On Page SEO , overall good score for onpage SEO . Any one has any ideas as why this happens or happened to someone before . Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Aus0070 -
Strange strategy from a competitor. Is this "Google Friendly"?
Hi all,We have a client from a very competitive industry (car insurance) that ranks first for almost every important and relevant keyword related to car insurance.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | sixam
But they could always be doing a good job. A few days ago i found this: http://logo.force.com/ The competitor website is: http://www.logo.pt/ The competitor name is: Logo What I found strange is the fact that both websites are the same, except the fact that the first is in a sub-domain and have important links pointing to the original website (www.logo.pt) So my question is, is this a "google friendly" (and fair) technique? why this competitor has such good results? Thanks in advance!! I look forward to hearing from you guys0 -
Is Google not Penalizing aggressively anymore for on page manipulation?
I wanted to throw this out where we have been seeing so much emphasis on Google cracking down on bad linking, have they let up enforcement on manipulative on-page tactics that have faded in current years? I've been seeing hidden text popping up again and ranking. Here is an example. Google "landscaping Portsmouth NH" and find the #1 result. Now find "Portsmouth" on the page. So what I find interesting, the site has a clean backilnk profile, but that's a pretty blatant manipulation hiding those keywords. What I find interesting is I filled out a report on it a year ago. (I'm not a big "fill out spam report" guy, I was curious if Google would take action). A year later it is still #1 for the competitive keyword. So I'm curious if others have seemed similar trends like font-size:0px, or text color as the background popping back up and ranking. I would love other's thoughts on it.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BCutrer0 -
Should I report this to Google and will anything happen ?
Hi, I am working with a client and have discovered that a direct competitor has hidden the clients business name in meta information and also hidden the name on the page but off to the side. My intention is to ask the company to remove the content, but the client would like me to report it to Google. Is this a waste of time and what request in webmaster tools should I use. The name is not a trademark but the business name is not generic and it is an obvious attempt to target my clients business. Any help would be appreciated, Thanks in advance
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Mozzi0 -
Someone COPIED my entire site on Google- what should I do?
I purchased a very high ranked and old site a year or so ago. Now it appears that the people I purchased from completely copied the site all graphics and content. They have now built that site up high in rankings and I dont want it to compromise my site. These sites look like mirror images of each other What can I do?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TBKO0 -
Geotargeting a new domain without impacting traffic to existing domain
I had previously asked this as a 'private question' and couldn't make it a 'public question' automatically-- hence reposting it as a new question: We have an existing site, let's say www.xyz.com --- which attracts traffic from all over the world (including the US), though it's primary audience is the UK/ Europe. Most of this traffic is via organic search results on Google. Now, there is a business case to launch a US-centric website -- www.xyz.us, which will have most of its content from the original site (probably with some localization). Our goal is that on day 1 when the new site xyz.us is launched, we want all traffic originating from the US (and may be some other North American countries) to be directed to the .us domain instead of the .com domain. We don't want to lose any search engine traffic; equally importantly, we want this to be done in a manner that is seen by the search engines as a legitimate technique. What are the best options to do this such that the new .US site automatically inherits all of the traffic from the .com site on day 1, without either of these sites getting penalized in any form. Thanks.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ontarget-media0