SandBox - A Good Thing!?

[mlevenhagen]

I just read this article by Stephen Brennan. I found it very interesting...

A Play in the Sandbox is Necessary!

From the article:

I can't help wonder why most of the comment I've been seeing is negative or at least ambivalent about the concept...

...I'm not sure of the current count, but in my opinion, there are far too many websites in virtually every category on every topic....

...I'm sure no one could possibly disagree that any kind of idea or system, which requires a website to first prove itself as a positive contribution, is surely welcome.

I thought it would also be interesting to see if anyone agreed with this persective... I do.

[crankydave]

...I'm sure no one could possibly disagree that any kind of idea or system, which requires a website to first prove itself as a positive contribution, is surely welcome.

Only problem I have with this notion is that it's not a matter or proving itself as a positive, it's simply a matter of hanging around long enough. I'd be all for a website being evaluated as to its contribution. As it is now, seems to be nothing more than a "time-out".

Dave

[GuyFromChicago]

If you ask me it seems like a roundabout way to force new sites to use Adwords if they want to get any traffic from Google.

[mlevenhagen]

If you ask me it seems like a roundabout way to force new sites to use Adwords if they want to get any traffic from Google.

OK, I'm putting my foot down! No one is allowed to talk about that theory in my thread. (half joking:)

Every single SandBox thread I've participated in gets at least one post in that direction...

LOL, I want the name of the guy that came up with that scenerio. The echo is driving me crazy! (no offense intended GuyFromChicago)...

.............Side Bar.............

I just met another guy from Chicago and he told me there are more Packer Fans than you would believe in Chicago... Do you feel the same way? Are you a Packer Fan??

.............Side Bar.............

OK, put yourself in the shoes of a website that's been in the top 5 in the SERPs in Google for 5 years. YOU have a great business. You've worked really hard to get where you are. You have a lot of experience and there isn't a site that could provide a better product or service. Beautiful site; a lot of good, relevant content. No black hat techniques; all white hat..........

Now Joe Blow comes a long with a website similar to YOURS. Mr. Blow only launched his site last week... Should Mr. Blow's website knock YOUR website that's been there for 5 years out of the top 5 for a certain keyword??? Identical site...

Shouldn't Mr. Blow earn a spot up there with you?

Experience has got to count for something...

[GuyFromChicago]

No offense taken:-)

I should clarify - I don't think Google created the sandbox for this reason alone or even with this theory in mind. I think it's a side product that they may or may not have thought of prior to the implementation of the sandbox filter.

Your anology about the 5 year old site is good one, let me draw a comparison from a "traditional" business point of view. For example, let's say I own a successful computer repair shop in a local strip mall. I've been there for 5 years and business has been great. I work hard day in and day out to provide the best service and remain cost competitive within my industry. A new computer shop wants to open a store in the same complex and is told by the complex manager that they are free to open a store but they can't put their name on the sign that includes all the business names for one year. As a matter of fact, they have to paint their windows black for the first year so no one can even see what's going on inside their store. The complex manager also mentions that they have an "express" plan and for an extra $200 a month they will not only be permitted to put up a sign, but they can actually put their sign above mine...

In a perfect world Google could return results that were the most relevant for the query - age of site would not be an issue or an indicator of relevence. In the real world though Google has to put some checks in place to stop the spammers from spamming their way to the top and reduicing the overall quality of the serps. I'm always just amazed that for a company as technically advanced as Goolge they can't come up with better relevence qualifier than age. Think about it, does age have anything at all to do with relevence? The argument could be made that the sandbox, in some cases, may actually degrade the quality and relevence of the serps.

Complicated issue to say the least.

Off topic -

There are quite a few Packers fans here in Chicago. When Wisonsin folk get ready for big city livin' they more here and bring their Packer fan status with them. I can poke a little fun at people from Wisconsin...I lived in Madison from 1995 - 2000. I'm actually a Bears fan first, Packers fan second. Chicago sports are horrible...sometimes we need to look outside our state to find a tema worth cheering for:-)

Q: What do you call the Packers without Favre?
A: The Bears:-)

[mgillis]

Well,

I'm the proud owner of an obviously sandboxed site. 6 weeks after its debut (on page one) it disappeared. Google obviously liked it at first, but we were newbies... I've had to resort to directory, index and download site listings to get noticed for my keywords.

What ticks me right off is that in my categories, Google displays tons of duplicate content! In the first 3-4 pages, the same eight companies are listed repeatedly on pages from their own sites!

If Google would start displaying only 1 listing per site, perhaps mine (and other smaller companies)might get some organic results again.

In my categories, they cannot claim to be giving people the most relevant results.

My small rant, but Google has been irritating me lately with feelins of futility and insignificance.

[blankout]

Mgillis,

I'm not sure that the sandbox works that way.

It seems to me that, if your site were truly "sandboxed", it would never have been listed in Google in the first place.

What you're describing (having your site listed and then de-listed) sounds more like being penalized than sandboxed.

[GuyFromChicago]

Originally Posted by blankout

Mgillis,

I'm not sure that the sandbox works that way.

It seems to me that, if your site were truly "sandboxed", it would never have been listed in Google in the first place.

What you're describing (having your site listed and then de-listed) sounds more like being penalized than sandboxed.

I've actually seen that to be very common with Google - quick surge to the top when a site launches then a dropoff into nowhere for a seemingly random amount of time.

I'd put it in the "sandbox" catagory, not penalization.

[GuyFromChicago]

Originally Posted by blankout

Mgillis,

I'm not sure that the sandbox works that way.

It seems to me that, if your site were truly "sandboxed", it would never have been listed in Google in the first place.

What you're describing (having your site listed and then de-listed) sounds more like being penalized than sandboxed.

Actually, what mgillis describes is very common. I've had a lot of sites make a quick surge to the top of the serps shortly after launching...then they drop off into nowhere for varying amounts of time. I'd clasify this scenerio as "sandbox", not any sort of penalization.

[gmiller]

The way it tends to work is that new sites show up briefly, and then get driven way, way down in the SERPs for a long time. It could be six months, or it could be two years. The site's there and it has PR, but it doesn't get ranked very well. I've got one that seems to be coming out right now after eight months.

Some time back, anonymous sources at Google were supposedly telling people that they sandbox links, not sites. Some people believe this was deliberate disinformation, and others feel its true. You might try moving a page that has some high-PR, low-traffic links on one site to a new URL, then redirect the old URL to a new site. That way, you have old links pointing at the new site. It might work or it might not.

[Luckasoft]

---It could be six months, or it could be two years

It CAN NOT be six months. Nobody got out of the damn sandbox so far.

Google is stale.

[blankout]

That's very interesting.

I suppose it makes sense, too. If Google were to briefly display a site before sandboxing it, then sites with "current event" information would still show in search results --making Gogle topical searches more relevant.

[mgillis]

Hi,

Just to clarify for my earlier comment. I was definitely accepted and listed, and my site has not been penalized - strictly white hat SEO and a page rank of 6.

Fact is, the old boy network owns my categories. I'd love to work out of this, but I'm just plugging away with linking strategies and index/directory listings.

M

[I am Nick]

I was doing very well with my site for about 2 years, until the Florida update. I have not been able to get it into top 500 since. However, something happened this weekend, and the site was back in top. I read some threads about this to be temporarily so I did not take it to seriously, but it was good to see that seo work was still good.

I am now back in the sandbox! Good my boss saw it before it went away again :)

I read that doing adwords camapigns would bring you out, is that a joke or is it some subtance in it?

[cbp]

I am now back in the sandbox!

You are not sandboxed, because

very well with my site for about 2 years

The sandbox is something very specific. There is a big difference between a site that just ranks poorly and a site that is sandboxed.

See this thread:
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=37772

CBP

[I am Nick]

Thanks for the very detailed link explaining that sandbox deals with mainly time on-line.

What if my site was there before my keywords reached the limit in amount of pages listed, and then based on time on-line got sent to the sandbox?

I alsways got good SERP until I dissapeared. When I could view my listing over the past days I was still top 1-3 for my most competitive keywords. I am now out of SERP again....

Nick

[cbp]

I alsways got good SERP until I dissapeared

That is not a characteritsic of the sandbox - look for other reasons for the drop in rankings.

CBP

[I am Nick]

Ok, so what you are saying is that some other filter was removed these few days, giving flashbacks from early 2004. But, that filter is now back...

Trust me for have looked for other reasons than the sandbox.

Nick