Sandbox - IN or OUT?

[critter]

Hey All..

Curious, I just launched a new site for a client. As we all know too well it seems Google puts new websites in this sandbox..... I can notice this with the way in which Google has indexed and spidered the website.

My quesion is I have read that it is beleived, that placing ADSENSE ads on your newely launched website can help get out of the sandbox quicker...

Does anyone have some stats/test to prove this theory?

Egol do you have any views on this?

As well, does anyone believe your newely acquired BL's also get placed in this sandbox?

Cheers

CRITTER

[Nacho]

I hope you can find some answers here:

The original discussion blog of the Sandbox presented by Search Engine Roundtable referring back tho SEO Guy's post on the sandbox effect.

Google "SandBox Effect" Revealed First news break from Garret French of WebProNews on May 6, 2004.

The Sandbox Effect: Not a Nice Place to Play by Wayne Hulbert of SEOChat on June 9, 2004.

Time to achieve rankings with a new site (thread is 90% about the sandbox)

Why does the Sandbox exist? - Discussion about why might Google doing this.

Interview with Patrick Gavin from Text Link Ads Inc. - Great insight to how the theory might be working.

Explaining the Sandbox to Customers

Fighting back against the SandBox Theory - This explains what you can do to beat the sandbox by the time you go live with your new site.

Sites trying to climb out of the sandbox

Deep insight to the Sandbox Theory by John Scott

Nice testing of the sandbox theory by Search Engine Roundtable

HighRankings' own discussion about the Sand Box Theory And Pagerank Updates

The Sandbox, the March Filter & BLOOD vs. TLD

Sandboxing? - Excellent discussion, a good read.

SEO World Obsessed with Sandbox - Talks about how many pages have be indexed that talk about the sandbox to a degree that it's "Impressive & distrubing..."

Example Of A Sandboxed Site? - Member posts an example and get's feedback.

Compilation of Anti-Sandbox Tactics - One of our best discussion threads about the proven methods in attempt to get out discussed in the forums.

And Notredamekid started probably the best thread I've ever seen on the WebmasterWorld Supporters Forum . . . Guide to Beating the Sandbox (paid subscribers only). ***** FIVE STARS

Moderator Note: From time to time I will go back and update this post to new articles about this subject. You're welcome to subscribe and keep checking back once in a while.

[I, Brian]

Great list of resources, Nacho.

[Incubator]

Thank you Nacho, great post !!!


Cheers

WC

[bobmutch]

Nacho: Super post. I have read many of those but it is nice to have them all in one place. Well have to drop back and read the ones I havn't seen. Nice Post!

[critter]

Thanks Nacho....

Putting sites in a sandbox seems to go against what the internet is all about. The internet is great because it provides large volumes of great information to the world in a timely and dynamic manner. Putting sites in a sandbox seems to totally go against this.

Karl Hall

[bobmutch]

kazazz:

Putting sites in a sandbox seems to go against what the internet is all about.

Well the theory is that either the sites themselves or the new links they get, are put into a sandbox in Googles index. Of course this is Google's index not the internet they are doing this to.

If you look at it from Google view it would seem that Google is trying to keep their index relevant. There have been a number of reasons suggested why Google is sandboxing new sites or new links.

1. To keep companies that get banned from just opening up another site and moving there links to the new domain and continuing where they left off.
2. To discourage new sites from purchasing links to get high Rankings or higher.

I am thinking to that the Ranking weight from the PR (what ever weight is left) doesn't get counted for Ranking either when you are in the "sandbox."

Oh yes lets all chant "March Filter" for rankfish 3 times.

[andrewgoodman]

Originally Posted by kazazz

Putting sites in a sandbox seems to go against what the internet is all about. The internet is great because it provides large volumes of great information to the world in a timely and dynamic manner. Putting sites in a sandbox seems to totally go against this.

Karl Hall

I disagree. In the context of rampant spam with throwaway domains, it helps search engines present timely and reliable *information* to users. Presenting good information doesn't necessarily conflict with the idea that individual domains may have a waiting period to join the "global conversation" that is a search engine.

The sandbox, if it exists, does not stop Google or Google News or My Yahoo etc. etc. from keeping up with blog entries, often within hours of their being posted. The better ones will have gained their PageRank the hard way, through real recommendations from many other websites. That's always been the premise of PageRank. If you don't like that, then you don't like Google's ranking method, and that's fair enough. It has always had this shortcoming -- authority takes time, so Google always had a "de facto" sandbox built into its methodology (as I implied in .this review of Google that was written some five years ago!)

Seems to me that today's Google Index is far more timely and frequently-updated than ever. Many items in it are only a day or two old, especially on hot topics. And results are bundled with relevant news results.

To present relevant or timely information, it's not clear to me that you'd have a huge need to be constantly setting up new websites. True, if you're a first-time publisher, you might have to wait a little while to be indexed. Nothing is stopping you from buying sponsored links in the meantime to drive traffic to your site.

So it seems more like a minor pragmatic question as opposed to the deep metaphysical issue it's made out to be.

The delay, if it exists, is the price we collectively pay for public search engines being susceptible to rampant spam. But also, Google *by definition* is a company that measures the authority of pages. Authority wasn't built in a day, and furthermore, the preponderance of commercial sites have little or no claim to authority in the context of a search technology that was designed to highlight "informational" resources. It is what it is.

[DaveAtIFG]

does anyone believe your newely acquired BL's also get placed in this sandbox?

I'm absolutely certain that credit for newly acquired incoming links to old sites are delayed up to 8 weeks. I have no recent experience with newer sites, less then a year old. I believe this is somehow related to the "sandbox" many are reporting.

[Nacho]

One more very interesting topic to learn about the sandbox links. Do Links From Sandboxed Sites Not Count? Phoenix at SERoundtable talks about a concern with the value of links that come from sites supposedly in the sandboxed at an SEOChat thread.

[Marcia]

DaveAtIFG:

I'm absolutely certain that credit for newly acquired incoming links to old sites are delayed up to 8 weeks. I have no recent experience with newer sites, less then a year old. I believe this is somehow related to the "sandbox" many are reporting.

Dave, I can follow with the first two parts but you lost me with the last statement. I can affirm seeing links to an OLD site being delayed. Very wierd - the backlinks are showing but the PR isn't reflecting the value of the PR vote - for certain.

Those links were put in place around the same time that two new sites were launched - showing up as backlinks, showing PR, but *not* ranking at all. Those two, however, don't have the right kind of links pointing to them yet, so sandbox or not is, IMHO irrelevant. I don't believe they will ever rank until they have the links that meet the requirements.

Nevertheless, I'm not entirely sure I completely agree with the concept that anything is actually put *into* anything. If all were put in it would be one thing, but there are those who know how to avoid it. So how is that explained?

[I, Brian]

Just to add - a particular phenomenon that seems related to the Google Sandbox, is that people have sometimes being seeing pages that use their keyword anchors, ranking higher than their targeted site pages. I've seen that come up a few times on a couple of SEO forums, where people's forum posts with their site signature link far outrank their own site pages.

[bobmutch]

I, Brian:

I've seen that come up a few times on a couple of SEO forums, where people's forum posts with their site signature link far outrank their own site pages.

For what keyword. The keyword in there signature?

[Nacho]

Originally Posted by Marcia

Nevertheless, I'm not entirely sure I completely agree with the concept that anything is actually put *into* anything. If all were put in it would be one thing, but there are those who know how to avoid it. So how is that explained?

I completely agree with you Marcia. There is no need for an explanation, either you know how to rank well for a new site or you don’t. This reminds me back to the days, when most website owners/marketers thought that adding their URL to the search engine's submit box would get them in the top 10 immediately, until finally realizing that a little website tweaking was needed to rank high . . . today we call this “search engine optimization” and it continues to exist.

If anyone wants to rank high and stay ranking high for a new or old site, then keep studying “search engine optimization” and one day you will figure it out. So, I’m actually glad Google is doing this. That way, professionals like us can continue helping clueless clients get it done.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by bobmutch

I, Brian: For what keyword. The keyword in there signature?

Yes, their actual signature links were ranking threads higher than their own sites. After a period of time, the actual target site, of course, ranks above the forum threads.

[bobmutch]

I, Brain: I don't see anything strange about a SEO forum thread ranking higher than the keywords in the signature of one of the posters. Now if those keywords are not anywhere else in the thread that is rather interesting. I just shows how much weight the thread has compared to the page and site the signature is pointing to.

[I, Brian]

I just knew you were going to say that.

[Marcia]

This thread was ranking for one of the keyword phrases mentioned in it

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...ead.php?t=1210

It's strictly an algorithmic thing, AFAIC. We can call it that so we know what phenomenon we're referring to, but IMHO there is no "sandbox."

[bobmutch]

I, Brian: Have you seen it where the key phrase in the signature, is the only occurance of that key phrase in the thread. That I have not seen before.

Marcia: He is talking more than just getting a key phrase to rank, we know that happens. What is is talking about is that some one is using there signature for links and a thread that that key phrase in the signature was placed was ranking higher than the page the signature link was pointing to.

That tells me the form has high weight and the persons page that the link in the signature has low weight.

For example take Page Rank Update List. I rank 24th in Google for that. I orgainlly posted a short article in a number of forums pointing people to the page. All those articles rank higher than my article.

But that is because the keywords are in the title. So that is pretty normal and common. But a thread page ranking higher for the anchor text in a link than the page that link is pointing to with out the key phrase being all though the thread content, I would like to see that.