Sandbox, and the Patently Bloody Obvious....

35 comments
Source Title:
Recipe to Avoid the Sandbox
Story Text:

I guess it depends on who your audience is, but stating that a cure for sandbox is all about naturall links, garnered with natural content seems like an absolute no brainer to me....

Personally, i subscribe to the "there is no sandbox" theory. It's all about being a twat, or being clever (and/or natural)...

ps. much to the consternation of the "let's have a fight crew" i don't dislike rand, i just dislike a lot of what he has to say. There's a difference :)

Comments

Personally, i subscribe to

Personally, i subscribe to the "there is no sandbox" theory. It's all about being a twat, or being clever (and/or natural)...

Well put, Nick :)

define sandbox in terms of what most people suggest?

?

i have a suspition you are talking about something different than what the masses woudl say?

I have been wondering

does anyone know who first started this crap about the sandbox?

I know several folks that have made a lot of money because of this (IMO) non-existent state of virtual being, but I have no idea who first thought this junk up.

"does anyone know who first

"does anyone know who first started this crap about the sandbox?"

Here's a short historical overview:
http://www.platinax.co.uk/news/archives/2004/09/the_google_sand.html

As Gurtie and I hopefully agreed at Stansted, a lot of "sandbox" talk is effectively metaphor for "my site is crap and will not rank".

However, as the above link helps illustrate, sandboxing is a phenomenon especially reported by heavy link builders.

The short of it is - you used to be able to dump thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of keyword links for a site and see ranking effects on Google within weeks.

Now it can inexplicably takes months and months for those same keyword links to impact Google. Process began last year to delay the impact of links in volume, and the process appears extended this year.

Overall, if you don't see a sandbox - great - if you do, keep your head to the grindstone and keep working.

The argument as to whether it exists or not is just pointless, though - some very experienced SEOs have clearly suffered the effects of sandboxing and I shouldn't be in a hurry to denigrate their testimony.

Additionally, at SES London in "Meet the crawlers", a small business raised the problem to Google of new sites being held back from ranking. There was a huge murmur in the room. The Google engineer responded that Google will act as it sees fit to control the SERPs, and effectively acknowledged that they are involved in some process to this effect.

lots0

I challenge you to get a new site and new URL for a traditionally difficult sector to rank for major terms in a short space of time.

Like you used to be able to do. That is what people are refering to as the sandbox and that is what is foxing people.

cheers

right, i am off the pub for a second time, when i get back i want to see you #2 for mobile phone. OK? :-)

Of course it exists It works

Of course it exists

It works like clockwork. 9 months every time.

I challenge you to get a new

I challenge you to get a new site and new URL for a traditionally difficult sector to rank for major terms in a short space of time.

?Not reasonable.

But, I can get a site ranked for a non-competitive KW in a few days on google, because I am not competing against established sites with lots of backlinks.

So, I guess you are saying that ONLY competitive KW’s are sandboxed?

Whenever you are going after KW’s that a lot of people want you are going to have to displace the sites ahead of yours, not an easy thing to do. Most sites in very competitive areas work hard everyday (some even have a staff of people) to keep and gain on their position. So if you want to displace them you are going to have to work harder and smarter than they do, again not an easy thing to do when you are playing catch-up.

If you consider the sandbox to be the time it takes to displace your competition then I agree, but if you think it is some google filter, I don't.

A while back I threw up a one page parody site about a major utility company here in the states, before I pulled it (I got scared these guys have a whole giant building full of lawyers), the site went to page two for the company name, in a matter of days with no SEO at all.

I don't hear anyone

talking about a Yahoo sandbox, even though it can take months for Yahoo(inktomi) to include new sites of any kind.

So what is the difference?

yep

I'm sitting on a site which went to page 1 when it launched and has sat there since, got a load of links straight off, broken every single sandbox rule that's ever been stated, not hugely competitive but 700,000 results.

So sure there's probably some age related stuff in the algo and sure it's probably dependent on how competitive the sector, but most of the people in most of the forums saying they've been sandboxed I'm convinced haven't.

>>Not reasonable.

but is used to be.

Now I dont follow or agree with the usual shit, it is just part of the algo. Fact, It is just up to people to find the formula. Google is a program and as such (it and a "sandbox") can be reverse engineered (or skanked :-))

>>So, I guess you are saying that ONLY competitive KW’s are sandboxed?

Not enough evidence, I am a scientist, 30 women saying that some shit makes their skin smoother is not statistically confident imho.

>>but if you think it is some google filter, I don't.

Not a filter, but part of the algo....not a penalty either

>>A while back I threw up a one page parody ...

I whacked up a one page site and ranked for a 2+ million term and drew the traffic. Shit traffic, but traffic. That was on and old domain. Try and reproduce that on a new domain. Tough!

Yahoo Sandbox.....fuck knows, Does one exist?....I know people who struggle with MSN, but that is not a sandbox, just their algo foibles.

So i go full circle, pick a new domain and rank for for against my old site..go on between you and me. If you smack my ass I will say to the world that you did...I can admit when i am wrong :-). We can even do this in private?

Cheers

R

I like you too, Nick {blushes}

Nick, my point wasn't how to dodge the sandbox with natural links, it was how to make it look like your website was DESERVING of natural links. There's a big difference. I would think this type of post would be right up your alley (and that of your readers).

What I'm getting at is that if you want to link build the easy way, at least content build the right way, so if/when a manual review comes along, it's credible and believable that your site really got all those links.

The more I read, experiment and see, the more I'm convinced that there is a lot more manual manipulation of SERPs than we think there are. My recommendation therefore is to have a site that wouldn't "look" spammy.

Now - are you gonna rag on that? And when is the next time you're coming to the US - I may be in London next year in March... maybe I can buy you a drink.

Now - are you gonna rag on

Quote:
Now - are you gonna rag on that?

Absolutely not. LIke i said, i think it's down to audience. We have different targets - you have one, i don't :)

Dont see a US trip anytime soon but if you let me know when and where i might well make a UK one rand...

Now there is a statement I can agree on

Quote:
The more I read, experiment and see, the more I'm convinced that there is a lot more manual manipulation of SERPs than we think there are.

Although for the most part I agree with ukgimp you saved your bacon with that last one.

As far as sandbox goes an older site is more 'sandbox' proof than a new one.

How about Google just lagged their true backlink updates to match the backlink updates shown by the PR update - or am I being much too heretical here.

all about algo

> 9 months every time.

True, 9 months, when one ignores it. Like birthin' a baby. But as a long time voice in the 'there is no sandbox' camp, I have to differ with the '9 months every time' thing SOD, with respect. ;-)

I got some in the 'never' camp, some in the '3-12 months' camp and some in the 'never got out' camp. I've also managed to put a few *older* sites into the 'currently sandboxed' camp. Hecka good fun.

Why revert

I don't believe after all the time and money invested into Googles algo's that they would revert back to good ol' human eyes. It's like saying ahhh f*ck it the seo's and spammers win we'll never beat them with out manual adjustments. Sorry I'm not buying into it. I know that randomization in Googles algo is a fact. It throws you off to make you think there is a hand in the machine. But I don't believe that is what we are seeing here.

When you type in search engine optimization it's a question the prefix and suffix to that question is a complete guess.
What is...
...companies
how do i do... myself
where can i find ... articles

Though they may not get typed into the search bar some of the above are implied in the users head. The engine that can guess the best wins. Not the engine that counts the most links as votes. I see G peppering this term with sites that could possibly be an answer to all of the above and then some.

It may not be like this on more specific terms since the more you type in the search box the less G has to think for you.

Why revert?

The algo has always leveraged human judgement. Bringing it (human judgement) in-house makes all the sense in the world.

Once the site has been flagged?

I really have to disagree with the assertion of hand tweaked Google serps. I'm not going to argue the case here, though.

Rand, I appreciate your effort at talking about what is on your mind in order to create original content. But I have to agree with Nick.

11,050 unique visitors = $400/month for advertising? Wow. I should open up some adspace on my blog, too.
Woo-hoo!

>11,050 unique visitors =

>11,050 unique visitors = $400/month for advertising?

for some business models it makes sense. if a link broker gets 1 or 2 good customers a month it pays for itself.

> I should open up some adspace on my blog, too.

if you enable AdSense image ads let me know :)

if you enable AdSense image ads let me know :)

Hehe... Woo-hoo... Ouch.

My partner built a website

My partner built a website for an actor. All original content. The domain name is his name. It went up in May '04 and was consistently on page 4 or below. Not until Bourbon did it show up at #1, where it belonged. It had backlinks from the very beginning. There was nothing weird or fancy about the site, just your average, about the guy, what he's doing, a gallery, etc. Not much competition either, as mostly he plays monsters with lots of makeup on, so teenagers aren't generally hot & heavy about him.

Sandbox?

Brand names

I read that Google now tries to promote real and official sites for a "brand" type search term. Makes sense, but I couldn't verify that with my own sites...

I think they are

even for quite generic 'brand names' (ie; ones which people might search as phrases as well as the name of a company).

Acually in the last week things seem to have improved a lot, for a bit there a lot of dynamic brand name sites seemed to have gone right off the radar when I was searching.....

I read that Google now tries

I read that Google now tries to promote real and official sites for a "brand" type search term.

the search quality raters are supposed to mark the official sites for a query as vital.

Thanks for that link

Thanks for that link Brian_Turner it answered my question. Hmm I would have thought that John Scott was more level headed than that.

*******

ukgimp, check your PMs.

The parody site I was talking about did have a brand new never used domain name.

*******

seomike:

It's like saying ahhh f*ck it the seo's and spammers win we'll never beat them with out manual adjustments.

I do believe that "fuk it" (and some other colorful stuff) is exactly what they are saying at the "plex"...

I know that randomization in Googles algo is a fact.

Thats a BOLD statement and one that is in my opinion wrong, as it goes against all logic.

Why would the largest organizer of information on the planet (google) want to throw random results or factors into the mix? This defeats the entire purpose of a search engine...

And why have Yahoo, M$N and ASK not yet jumped on the randomization band wagon???

My guess is that they want to provide results to their hard won users that at the very least is somewhat retaliative to their query and not just a random or even a partialy random list.

lots0 - are you a google rep, perchance? ;)

Why put anything that APPEARS to be illogical past Google?
Isn't it their aim to be illogical, at least in the SEOers' views?

Never

Quote:
ots0 - are you a google rep, perchance? ;)

LOL! lots0 is the last person I would ever think could be a Google rep. Hehe.

Why put anything that

Why put anything that APPEARS to be illogical past Google?

Cuz, you can always depend on programers and Mathematicians to be more or less logical.

>>>...are you a google rep...
Hey, Whats up with that? I didn't flame you... hehe ;-)

actually....

lots0 = GoogleGuy

lots0 is the last person I

lots0 is the last person I would ever think could be a Google rep.

all the more reason to be suspicious ;)

It's all the secretivity -

It's all the secretivity - he's never siad his real nameæ... [cue dramatic music...

Neither should he though, im only making fun mate :)

and isn't this kind of

and isn't this kind of speculation copyrighted by davn?

Why would the largest

Quote:
Why would the largest organizer of information on the planet (google) want to throw random results or factors into the mix? This defeats the entire purpose of a search engine...

To keep the hounds at bay. There are numerous sites out that that tell you how to game google, methods which I would imagine that google hate being public information. So why not throw a few curved balls. Try and send us in one direction when really they are going in another.

Makes perfect sense to me. In fact if i had a key to the plex and the ability to mess around, I would have a great time winding you all up, and piss myself laughing at the same time :-D

absolutely. And when you

absolutely.

And when you really think about it, it simply doesn't matter to google. All they need is a few authority sites in the first 10 results -. remember, they want you to click the adwords, not find brilliantly relevant search results...

does anyone know who first

Good timeline Brian. For the record, I believe Toolman first coined the term in the Supporters Forum over at WmW a month prior to RustyBrick first report. I'll hunt around for the thread and let you know.

Hmmmm, sounds about right, Woz

... although I'd like to bet that he doesn't STILL think that there's a "sandbox". I have been through my ideas before, so I won't repeat them here. Given what I know of how Toolman does / did business, I can well believe that he would have been one of the first people to see the effect in full force

>> Why would the largest organizer of information on the planet (google) want to throw random results or factors into the mix?

To make gaming them harder. I have seen concrete evidence of the effect, and it seems only to apply where the gap between pages total scores is very small. They aren't going to pluck a site from page 5 obscurity, and drop it into the top slot, but if there are 3 sites very close in terms of absolute scores duking it out for #8, #9 and #10, why not randomise the display? It'll give the SEO's on those sites the screaming heebie jeebies, trying to work out why their sites are changing posn, when NO-ONE has changed anything in the last month...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.