View Full Version : Google Not SandBoxing Anymore
Voasi
02-24-2005, 01:58 PM
Is Google sandboxing sites? A poster at WebProWorld launched a site in January and has 1st page ranking for keyword phrase: Poker Store
Here's the thread:
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=40143
Has Google thrown their Sandbox out to sea with the new update? Is there something we can learn from this site?
Just some of the questions I'm looking for and I'm sure others will have.
Sandbox can be broken on non-competitive querys.
Its not a competitive phrase by any means. Searched in quotes returns about 50K matches and and OV reports only about 1500 searches a month.
Break on the KW "poker" and I will be impressed.
Voasi
02-24-2005, 05:41 PM
Very, very non-competitive search terms were easy to get top rankings. More often then not though, webmasters weren't even trying to rank for the specific query in Google.
That's the whole point with the sandbox. Even non-competitve terms were limiting an optimized site from getting above "the fold" in Google. This site owner is actually trying to rank for POKER STORE and has got great SERP listing.
Michael Martinez
02-24-2005, 05:50 PM
The last domain I set up went into the sandbox for almost a year after I started putting content on it. It finally came out a few months ago when I added some new content. The targeted search phrase was very non-competitive.
The sandbox effect has been a real phenomenon, and no one outside of Google really seems to know what it's all about.
My hypothesis is that Google implemented some sort of aging factor, perhaps to see what would hang around and acquire content (and links).
>>>>trying to rank for POKER STORE and has got great SERP listing
True enough, but I could try and rank for "blue shower curtain rings" and get the same result. Bottome line is that its not worth even trying to optimize for imho.
Michael Martinez
02-24-2005, 06:59 PM
There seems to be a fair amount of search traffic for the term "poker store". If that is the market the guy wants to go after, at least it's a viable one. Ranking for "poker" would be a secondary benefit for him (in fact, I would probably consider just buying ads for that term).
I see no reason to scoff at someone's picking a niche and going for it.
bhartzer
02-24-2005, 07:05 PM
It's my belief that there never really was a "sandbox" per se. I believe that it was actually two databases--one LSI database and one that didn't include LSI. When they merged the two together (or ditched the old non-LSI database) at the beginning of this month and went more towards LSI we saw a bunch of sites appear to "come out of the sandbox".
I think the "sandbox" is now gone.
randfish
02-24-2005, 07:27 PM
bhartzer - Several IR researchers on this board have suggested that LSI was not ever used by Google for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is computational expensiveness and the myriad of other, better options to conduct the same types of analysis.
What evidence do you have that LSI was/is in place at Google?
>>>no reason to scoff at someone's
Hey, I am not scoffing at him, thats not my intent at all. I just want to put it into the context of new sites breaking the sandbox for KW's that get traffic. As an example, if he would have tried to optimize for the KW phrase "poker chips" I think that it would be highy unlikely that we would be talking about a brand new site scoring for a "real money term." (although I have seen it done, it's not the norm)
bhartzer
02-24-2005, 07:40 PM
randfish-I don't actually have any direct evidence that LSI is being used, just the sites I watch and the types of terms that those sites are now ranking for. But that's not entirely my point here.
I'm more concerned about the fact that there were to databases that are now one--which is why "Google isn't sandboxing anymore" (the title of this thread).
Voasi
02-24-2005, 08:43 PM
True enough, but I could try and rank for "blue shower curtain rings" and get the same result. Bottome line is that its not worth even trying to optimize for imho.
Regardless of the optimized term, he has optimized a new domain, freshly hosted site that is ranking for a 2 word query in Google. I think that is something of note.
The search term does get traffic, does "blue shower curtain rings" get 1500 searches a month via Overture?
No, but that's not the point either. The fact that if you tried to optimize a brand spankin' new site for 'whatever' search term phrase, your site would fall in the utter abyss of Google's beach.
>>>I think that is something of note.
I guess thats where we disagree. The OP asked if Google had abandoned the Sandboxing of new sites based upon the evidence of the site referenced in the thread.
My answer is no. This particular example, (because of lack of results returned and search volume of the phrase) does not prove that Google has stopped the deep freeze of new sites.
I, Brian
02-25-2005, 04:33 AM
I'm still seeing sandboxing. Oddly enough, I have a site that came out last year, but now seems sandboxed again. Odd.
Voasi
02-25-2005, 03:24 PM
I'm still seeing sandboxing. Oddly enough, I have a site that came out last year, but now seems sandboxed again. Odd.
I had the same thing happen to me earlier in the week. One of my sites had a top ranking for a few days, and then dropped back to the 4 page, where it has been sitting.
Marcia
02-25-2005, 04:35 PM
>>I'm still seeing sandboxing. Oddly enough, I have a site that came out last year, but now seems sandboxed again. Odd.
>>I had the same thing happen to me earlier in the week.
I've got an OLD site that's exhibited the same symptoms as sandboxed sites since last year. It doesn't have to be LSI implemented exactly as it's written up in what we've been reading, but elements from it could well be coming into play which is not unlikely at all.
IMHO the "sandbox" is more than just that, it's got a reality to it, but there's something algorithmic involved as well as far as I can figure it from what I've seen and read.
>>I see no reason to scoff at someone's picking a niche and going for it.
Neither do I, Michael. There's far too_much of that going on nowadays, it's almost like there's an epidemic around that's spreading. And it's not taking into account that different people have different models and travel on different paths; there's far more than one approach that's valid.
Besides, niche or not, it's STILL noteworthy because there are some sites that can't rank for "blue polka dotted toenail polish" which wouldn't get near as many searches as even "poker face" would.
There are people whose whole model is based on pursuing niches, and it certainly is valid to use pyramid approach with a broad base in the early stages of the life of a site when it's in it for the long haul.