Show me to the "Sandbox" - I can't find it!

[greeneagle]

Show me your "Sandboxed" Site!

after you go here:
http://googlerankings.com/ultimate_seo_tool.php
utilize the default "stop word" list, they update it regularly!

1) Make sure that your single word keywords are in the respective order that you want them.

2) Make sure that your single keywords are reasonably competitive for your IBL level.

3) Make sure that your 2 word keyphrase couplings make sense and are a pairing that may be searched by potential visitors or customers.

4) Your 3 word key-phrases are probably the most important here! Hardly anyone searching for anything uses less than 3 words any more! Ask yourself, do they make sense strung together? Would the phrase be likely to be keyed in by potential visitors to your site? Is that how you want them to find you?

5) Take the most sensible strings and see where you are ranked in the SEs.

If you just take the time to follow these 5 steps most everyone here will realize they have ad-copy rewrite to do and they haven't fallen prey to the big bad "sandbox" beast, in the closet or under the bed!

I have yet to even glimpse the "sandbox" beast affecting my own Sites or any that I have inspected closely!

IMO - Everyone simply needs to get up, dust their panties off and get with it!

There is no sandbox unjustly orchestrated by GOOGLE! They demonstrate daily that they like new and relevant!

Quit crying "fowl" and get down! - That is all there is to it!

If you can't cut it, do something else! But please quit crying, whining and throwing blame on an imaginary beast!

Sure it's competitive! - Like most anything else!

Ken

[DMC_34]

Ken,

As usual I disagree with this, but heres a few examples:

http://www.google.com/search?q=holid...start=180&sa=N


#182
http://www.princessbands.com/links/0105.shtml

Actually most of the listings are link pages...very few IBL's etc.

OK now how is my site with better content, more RELEVANT IBL's, indexed thoroughly & daily not even breaking the top 1000?

There is sandbox or set of filters.

DMC

[KeithO]

I have a new site that I am SEO'ing and it just went live in June. I'll be monitoring myself to see about the sandbox effect. I have read numerous discussions about it and how some people just magically jump in rankings over night.

[DMC_34]

Originally Posted by KeithO

I have a new site that I am SEO'ing and it just went live in June. I'll be monitoring myself to see about the sandbox effect. I have read numerous discussions about it and how some people just magically jump in rankings over night.

Well mine was first index by Google on Jan 23, 2005.

I did manage to finally rank for my domain name at #3, right behind an expired domain and ProFlowers site. That in itself toke 6 months. I have had relevant high profile IBL's since February.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...o+gift+baskets

[DMC_34]

Actually,

try this search
corporate+gift+baskets+by+The+Gift+Basket+Pros+at+ Pro+Gift+Baskets

I am a whopping #30 out of 65,000. Just slightly more results than "Antarctica bbq equipment"

Yet I am #1 & #2 on both MSN and Yahoo

Hmmm. Sounds more like a LitterBox

DMC

<flood6 edit: fixed long urls>

[greeneagle]

Ok, Lets drudge thru it:

Hello David,

You just had to do it didn’t you! – Burn up my GOOGLE API-Key for the day! - LOL

Your top 2 and 3 word keyphrases:

Gift Basket
GOOGLE – Not in the top 500 out of 6,380,000
Yahoo - Not Listed in the top 500 out 19,600,000
MSN - #50 out of 27,807,879

Gift Baskets
GOOGLE – Not in the top 400 out of 6,220,000
Yahoo - #282 out 23,600,000
MSN - #13 out of 13,032,042

Gift baskets holiday:
GOOGLE – Not in the top 500 out of 1,230,000
Yahoo - #49 out 4,760,000
MSN - #2 out of 1,961,761

Gift baskets christmas:
GOOGLE – Not in the top 500 out of 1,140,000
Yahoo - Not in the top 500 out of 4,480,000
MSN - #5 out of 1,916,486

OK – I blew out most of my GOOGLE API Key for the day!

Here are my fleeting deductions:

1) Your Site is obviously optimized for MSN for whatever reasons. Many of us have Sites that do better in any of the top 3!
2) Your Site is secondarily optimized for Yahoo.
3) Google seems to be holding back on total SERP counts here, compared to the rest!, in a highly competitive market. Usually the GOOG sports the largest total search field numbers! This may require more investigation by other Site owners! Is there an alg preference that favors ad revenue thru Adword advertising here?????????? Something seems awry here!

IMO – Your Site doesn’t seem to favor MSN Indexing to the degree that it is occurring. This does seem to be a bit “fishy”, but seems more related to revenue generation in a highly competitive market than it does a “sandbox”.

But then again you show:
Links (IBLs):
GOOGLE - 269
YAHOO – 2,790
MSN – 6,667

These are great disparities and very well may explain some of the SERP issues. However it sure looks like the GOOG is holding out on Total SERPs for highly competitive terms here!
Is anyone else seeing this phenomenon?

IMO - This just isn’t a measly so called “sandbox” issue here. Something else is amiss when the GOOG registers much fewer total SERPs compared to the other top 2 for several highly competitive keyphrases withnin a topic family.

There is something going on here that demands more investigation!

I certainly hope this isn't a tail wagging a dog named "Adwords".

Ken

[dburdon]

Ken,

the Google Sandbox exists. And I will use reverse logic to prove it.

1. I know my key site was in it because now it is not in it. Nothing changed. For months on end nowhere to be seen. Next day, without any changes, ranked 19. Two weeks later ranked 4.
2. A secondary site is in it because previously it wasn't. Ranked number 3 to 5 for weeks on end. Then one day, gone. Nowhere to be seen.

I'm a great believer that a well optimised site, with good content, benefits from a honeymoon period then disappears.

[greeneagle]

dburdon,
Look at that mess above.
I have never seen GOOGLE return considerably less SERPs than Yahoo and MSN.
That is not what they advertise. That is not what they claim to be about.
Something is very wrong there and it is not a sandbox!
I hate to say it, but it looks like adword revenue preservation.
Ken

[coder]

I usually publish a new site every month or so, I have never had any problems with the big 3 not getting indexed. I published the results before dismissing the "sandbox"

However, someone told me the sandbox effects only highly competitive keywords. Since the results were for keywords with only a couple hundred thousand results or less, it was dismissed as not falling into the sandbox perimeters. Therefore, my high ranking sites were not allowed to play in the sand. I've never had a site in a sandbox, nor do I intend to place any of my sites in one.

And where are the perimeters of the "sandbox?"

[DMC_34]

Ken,

The dump in Yahoo is very recent though since they are going some updates. I used to have Top 10 rankings until the algo tweak.

Originally Posted by greeneagle

1) Your Site is obviously optimized for MSN for whatever reasons. Many of us have Sites that do better in any of the top 3!

Actually my other site, which you know of, ranks top 4 across all SE's and is optimized the same exact way.

Originally Posted by greeneagle

2) Your Site is secondarily optimized for Yahoo.

If my site was ever optimized for Yahoo, I would never know it. Out of all the SE's, Yahoo is the Dopey one.

Originally Posted by greeneagle

3) Google seems to be holding back on total SERP counts here, compared to the rest!, in a highly competitive market. Usually the GOOG sports the largest total search field numbers! This may require more investigation by other Site owners! Is there an alg preference that favors ad revenue thru Adword advertising here?????????? Something seems awry here!

This may be true but the eluding answer on my mind is:
How can Google deem a links page from a wedding ring site with 0 external IBL's more relevant to Holiday Gift Baskets than either my index page or my Holiday Gift Baskets page? Well maybe it is, maybe its not, but it seems obvious to me Google doesnt just prefer aged sites, they seem to require it.

For example:
The Gift Basket Pros Search on Google has my site at #17. All the sites above mine? 90% of them are my listings or links. LOL

I have the experience of operating a 5+ yr old site and 6 month old site. The older site dominates its market in all SE's. The new site is all over MSN and doing very well, fluctuates tremedously in Yahoo, and non existent in Google. Oh well maybe after the Press Release :P


DMC

[DMC_34]

Ken,

When Google was updating with Bourbon, my new site was #1 for the domain name, and #78 for Holiday Gift Baskets, and many more. I believe during the update the filters were turned off during testing on certain datacenters. Once the update was finished all of rankings disappeared beyond the >1000 marker. I am fairly confident the litterbox does exist but hits new sites and link mongering sites the most. LOL both are me.

DMC

[greeneagle]

valentine gifts
Total SERPs
Google: 1,900,000
MSN: 3,055,571
YAHOO: 6,120,000

christmas gifts
Total SERPs
Google: 1,430,000
MSN: 36,920,531
YAHOO: 21,700,000

birthday gifts
Google: 6,610,000
MSN: 40,457,961
YAHOO: 19,900,000

send flowers
Google: 11,900,000
MSN: 35,910,332
YAHOO: 33,500,000

gifts for men
Google: 17,200,000
MSN: 29,783,206
YAHOO: 30,700,000

holiday gifts
Google: 7,620,000
MSN: 37,786,658
YAHOO: 20,900,000

What does this trend mean?

Why is GOOGLE decisively on “hind teat” in most highly competitive “gift” searches?
Is it some new fangled better search alg or just plain old revenue protection?
There is not much denying the SERPs are somewhat skewed here.
They do have the largest database of Sites don’t they?
What is happening here?
Why this trend?
Play with the highly competitive monetized site keyphrases for yourself!
There is an undeniable trend of "protected" SERPs!

Ken

[greeneagle]

I rarely if ever quote an entire post, but maybe we all need to listen to Phantom here:

"I usually publish a new site every month or so, I have never had any problems with the big 3 not getting indexed. I published the results before dismissing the "sandbox"

However, someone told me the sandbox effects only highly competitive keywords. Since the results were for keywords with only a couple hundred thousand results or less, it was dismissed as not falling into the sandbox perimeters. Therefore, my high ranking sites were not allowed to play in the sand. I've never had a site in a sandbox, nor do I intend to place any of my sites in one.

And where are the perimeters of the "sandbox?""

I have never had one "sandboxed" either. This thread is all about finding the illusionary "sandbox".

As illustrated there are some real strange Total SERP games going on at the GOOG. Maybe it is indicitive of some protectionist ad revenue policy, I don't know. Anyone else want to speculate?

Ken

[DMC_34]

I find it very odd given the fact that Googles index is the largest of the three. Maybe it is competitive keyword driven.

Less results with a larger index = some sites are not being listed = some are being filtered = sandbox

DMC

[greeneagle]

Protectionist SERP Practices do not = sandbox
Protectionist SERP Practices = protected adword revenue IMO

Don't Protectionist SERP Practices stand before us as ugly enough, on their own? - without reason or excuses?

Ken

[DMC_34]

Protected adword revenue = moneybox = sandbox?

Just what is the exact definition of the "sandbox"?

DMC

[DMC_34]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Don't Protectionist SERP Practices stand before us as ugly enough, on their own? - without reason or excuses?
Ken

Yes but I have made no excuses for my new site not being listed in Google. IMO if Google doesnt want to list me, oh well. I guess I will get by without them. It is lost gravvy money in my pocket but more importantly its a loss of a good resource for them.

Just how do you tell a customer who had to go to MSN when they couldnt find my site in Google? They searched for "the gift basket pros", its only plastered all over my site. I toke this call last week and it makes Google look bad to searcher not me. This is why MSN will overtake Google eventually. Just remember Alta Vista used to be a king once too.

DMC

[greeneagle]

The "moneybox" hasn't been traditionally associated with the "sandbox"... but maybe you have something here!

Maybe it is like Phantom and I have experienced. We don't play in the same arena. We are way down on a lower "moneybox" income shelf.

Are we defining the sandbox here?

Is it as ugly as it looks? Does it primarily affect upper-class "adword" neighborhoods? Are SERPs skewed there in your "Soccer Mom" world in that neighborhood where that big machine hovered over "dropping" out look alike houses too large for their small lots, one after the other, where you can watch a neighbor take a leak in their restroom 6 ft away?

Is that where we have arrived?

Please don't tell me so!

Ken

[DMC_34]

I am not sure. When a visitor was referred to us by another customer, as with the case in my previous post. They purchased a wedding gift after talking with on of our customers who had ordered the same basket. She found us on MSN by searching for "the gift basket pros". I wouldnt think this is considered a big money term though. If you check on Yahoo and MSN we show up #1 and #2. Google has us at #16 or so. IMO Google is better at finding established and popular sites but not necessarily for digging for a specific new site, such as the ProFlowers.com as #1 for Pro Gift Baskets.

I tend to always find what I need on MSN or Yahoo with specific searches whereas Google has become a popularity contest. Google can serve irrelevant results which are skewed by aged link powers. That doesnt necessarily make the results relevant.
DMC

[greeneagle]

This trend obviously is not an "age link" issue.

I can't stand on my own two feet here and say that it is not a "moneybox" issue though.

Maybe we have arrived at the same place, but I just don't see a sandbox!

Are we attempting to re-frame the "sandbox" as a "moneybox" with protectionist SERP and revenue policies as opposed to anything a webmaster can do outside of an "adword" PPC program?

Are you guys locked down that hard in these jaded SERPs?

Ken

[greeneagle]

Anyone else with "sandbox" theories?

Ken

[jaldridge]

The sandbox is definitely directly related to keyword competition. I have sites that we released 6 months ago that rank very well for non-comptetitive terms yet are nowhere for the competitive ones. Age of site is very important here. I can understand this to an extent. If you had a physical business, doing business for years with a good customer base, and someone opened a brand new competing business nearby, it would take time for the new business to take sales from the established business. You have to use a bit of innovation to win sales, it's the same with the goog. There ARE ways to ease a site out of the sandbox...

[dburdon]

Ken,

the sandbox is incredibly fast moving. You must have a lot in your head on this one.

I agree that the sandbox may be to do with preserving adwords revenue. However, given that Google has a 60% market share that would imply anti-competitive behaviour. Don't be surprised to see some sort of EU investigation when the commission gets it head out of the Microsoft sand.

[DMC_34]

Is a search supposed to be a popularity contest? Google shows serious issues on searches for specific keywords with few results? IMO Google has forsaken the new sites in this area. Since when is the organic search arena supposed to be about old or established results?


DMC

[DMC_34]

Originally Posted by jaldridge

There ARE ways to ease a site out of the sandbox...

Do tell.

[coder]

Originally Posted by DMC_34

She found us on MSN by searching for "the gift basket pros". I wouldnt think this is considered a big money term though. If you check on Yahoo and MSN we show up #1 and #2. Google has us at #16 or so. IMO Google is better at finding established and popular sites but not necessarily for digging for a specific new site, such as the ProFlowers.com as #1 for Pro Gift Baskets.

If you want to be ranked in G for "the gift basket pros"
instead of your current title tag:
Gift Baskets - Holiday Gift Baskets - Christmas Gifts

You could optimize a page for the term. Add gift basket pros to your title tag, or add more IBL's with "gift basket pros" as the anchor.

Also G is better at ranking for individual keyword(s), where you have a set of three different phrases. Try optimizing different pages for those phrases, don't try to optimize your home page as a grab all.

I don't see your site as being in a "sandbox", just not optimized for Google. Look at the top competitors for the term "the gift basket pros" and look at their title and description.

Sure your site might rank high in Yahoo and MSN and if you don't care about ranking high in google then don't worry about it, however if you want to rank high in google you have to play by their rules and can't just shout "sandbox" and expect to eventually rank higher.

[KeithO]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Protectionist SERP Practices do not = sandbox

This seems contradictory to me. Granted my entrance into SEO was after the Florida update but my understanding was that the sandbox was developed to protect established rankers from lower rankings by holding back new sites that were potentially spam filled.

[DMC_34]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I don't see your site as being in a "sandbox", just not optimized for Google. Look at the top competitors for the term "the gift basket pros" and look at their title and description.

With all due respect Phantom. My site isnt optimized for Google? I disagree, although it would help in that ranking let me clarify. This site is 6 months old. My older site optimized the same exact way is #1 on all 3 SE's and truly dominates Google. Whats the main difference between the older site and the new one? 5+ years of age and more links.

What listings are showing up above mine?
Sites which link to me.

Are the pages which rank their index page or a deep page?
The pages which rank are inner directory pages, but definately not their index page.

Get more IBL's with the link text "The Gift basket Pros"?
Just how many IBL's does Gimpsy have which say "The Gift Basket Pros"?

In short yes of course your suggestions will help my page beat my directory listing. But the real question is why? The sites which rank higher are not sandboxed.

Originally Posted by Phantom

...however if you want to rank high in google you have to play by their rules and can't just shout "sandbox" and expect to eventually rank higher.

Well hmmm. As I have said I know what it takes to get a site ranked high in Google and I have done it but since you want to play this "anti-sandbox" game, lets play. Show me a new site better optimized than mine, more content, more relevant IBL's, less than 6 months old such as mine that ranks so well in Google? There isnt... To say there is no sandbox seemingly is more denial for some and excuses for others. The mere fact of your examples does not follow any logic as to why a links page on bridal site ranks higher than my site for "Holiday Gift Baskets". What in the world would be your explanation for this? There is sandbox but denial works just as well.

DMC

[DMC_34]

Originally Posted by KeithO

...holding back new sites that were potentially spam filled.

IMO that is correct...

Possible definitions for the Sandox:

1. Protectionist practices of the SERP's for the money keywords and/or Adwords.
2. Excuse made by webmasters who are incompetent in regards to Google SEO.
3. Filters which incorporates a trust level before it is allowed to compete within Google.

IMO, the sandbox not only exists, but is in place to protect the SERP's from being raided by SPAM sites overnight link buying. All of which Google claims to be doing in regards to keeping the SERP's relevant by dismissing SPAM sites lies within these boundaries. My vote is #3, possibly #1, and sometimes #2. Evidence of sites jumping from >1000 to #5 is indictative of a site bypassing a filter which was previously in place. To disregard these events and categorize every "SANDBOX" claimer as #2 is incorrect.


DMC

[DMC_34]

Dispute this ranking?

Keyword: Holiday Gift Baskets
Google: #200
Document: http://www.bodyofmine.com/Index/Holi...iday_gifts.htm
Content: Umm very little.
IBL's:

• MSN: 2
  Y!: 23
  Google: 6

WHOIS:
Created: 1997-10-25
Expires: 2005-10-24



My site for same keyword:
Google: >1000 - Unknown
Document:
http://www.pro-gift-baskets.com/holidaygiftbaskets.aspx
Content: Good.
IBL's:

• MSN: 38
  Y!: 506
  Google: 89

WHOIS:
Created: 30-dec-2004
Expires: 30-dec-2014



Welcome all sandbox Nay sayers...

DMC

[coder]

You're comparing your site to a site ranked at #200. Try comparing your site to a site in the top 10. I'm not saying there is not a "sandbaox" i'm saying your site is not properly optimized.

Our main site is fireworks.com
Our main keyword is fireworks which from SE's takes customers to our homepage.

a search for sparklers or for firecrackers does not show our homepage, but rather internal pages. That's what i'm telling you, you need to optimize all of your pages for individual search phrases. Like said before I release a new site every month or so, the competition is uaually around a couple hundred thousand results or less and have never had a problem getting ranked high.

If you want to you can blame google or do something about it. Once again i'm not saying there is no sandbox, there probably is at least high highly competive terms. From the looks of it you spent a lot of time and money on your site, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that your site can use some work.

If you need help optimizing your site, just ask.

[DMC_34]

Originally Posted by Phantom

You're comparing your site to a site ranked at #200. Try comparing your site to a site in the top 10.

Of course I did because as soon as I do then the obvious explanation is they have more links etc. I picked a very modest ranking to prove without a doubt that page is better optimized with more links more content and yet ranks 800+ pages below it. That my friend is pure sandbox.

Originally Posted by Phantom

Our main site is fireworks.com
Our main keyword is fireworks which from SE's takes customers to our homepage.
a search for sparklers or for firecrackers does not show our homepage, but rather internal pages. That's what i'm telling you, you need to optimize all of your pages for individual search phrases. Like said before I release a new site every month or so, the competition is uaually around a couple hundred thousand results or less and have never had a problem getting ranked high.

That is not my index page either. Its an inner page. All of my pages are targeting specific types of gift baskets. Some pages may target the same keyword but this is not an undesirable SEO nor customer unfriendly tactic. Besides my other older site does this and has indented on all almost all of their very competitive kewyords.

Originally Posted by Phantom

...but that still doesn't take away from the fact that your site can use some work.

Sorry but have you even look at the source of my page? That page couldnt be optimized any better. But since you are offering your help, do tell me exactly what I need to do better at. Let take the page in question:
http://www.pro-gift-baskets.com/holidaygiftbaskets.aspx

DMC

[mike]

Now, I realize it's grainy and not the greatest quality.

However, I believe in this amateur photograph you can clearly make out bigfoot, his flying saucer and what is most certainly the Google sandbox.








Case closed.

[DMC_34]

Let's set it straight once and for all.

Just take the example I posted above for holiday gift baskets in comparing:

#200 for Holiday Gift Baskets and Sandboxed

Somebody...Anybody...Have an intelligent conclusion, reason for why that page ranks 800+ slots higher than mine.

The evidence speaks for itself:

Content:
Sandboxed page has more and better content utilizing synonyms etc.

SEO:
This can be argued but neither are bad. They lack meta tags but are probably ignored anyways.

IBL's:
Sandboxed page has more external and internal.

Relevant Links:
Both are relevant but again I have more relevant external IBL's, they only have 26 internal links .

Indexing:
#200 Page - Jul 12
Sandboxed Page - Daily

W3C validated:
#200 Page - invalid 16 errors
Sandboxed Page - valid

Domain Age:
#200 Page - Created: 1997-10-25
Sandboxed Domain - Created: 30-dec-2004



OK, now given the evidence above, someone give an intelligent reason other than sandbox if its not the case.
Or we can keep avoiding it and cracking jokes about it.
If you Nay sayers really want this so called myth to vanish then you can start with me.

Prove me wrong.

To head off potential posts about "You dont know how to SEO for Google" My other site which is over 5+ years old is #1 for a competitive Holiday keyword out of 9.6 million results beating out some giants

DMC

[LLFitness_Derek]

The google sandbox is so obvious if you check your rankings every single day. That is the first thing i do when i walk in the office every morning.

My site http://www.massageking.com has been around for a few years now. When i find a new product or keyword to add to the site it takes a month at the most to get it on the first page of google. I dont even need links pointing to the page. I rank #1 on the serps for over 100 keywords for the site.

Example: SANDBOX/MONEYBOX/WHATEVE_YOU_WANNA_CALL_IT/

I launch two new sites at the same exact time:

http://www.pool-table-rules.com
http://www.pool-tables-cues.com


http://www.pool-table-rules.com
No google rankings for exactly 180 days.
Ranked #1 on MSN and YAHOO for "pool rules" and "pool table rules" Exactly 180 days pass and i jump from no where to #5 for pool rules & #3 for pool table rules on google.

http://www.pool-tables-cues.com
No google ranking for exactly 180 days.
Ranked #2&3 on MSN & #9 on Yahoo for "Pool Tables"
After exactly 180 days all my google rankings jumped for all non compeditive keywords like "Fairfax Billiard Table" "Pool Novelties" "Pool Tables Cues", I am still waiting for our compeditive keywords to get out of the sandbox. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that this magic number is not 360 :(

If this is not proof i really dont know what is...

[mike]

Sorry bout the joke. I couldn't help it.


At any rate, as for the existence/non existence of the sandbox, Googleguy has more or less denied the existence of a sandbox.


I have read quite a lot of people who, like yourself feel otherwise. Now, I would certainly not have a problem believing that there was in fact a sandbox and Google, for whatever reason, decided to say there was no such thing. Thing is, it's so inredibly hard to find a good 'apples to apples' comparison.


Your cited examples, while very similar are obviously not identical. For starters, one of the first things I noticed is the page extensions (.html vs .aspx). Mind you, I'm not going to sit here and suggest that is the reason for the ranking dispairity, but it does represent a significant difference between the two pages. Who knows, maybe this difference in conjunction with some other subtle variances results in a slower ascent for one page compared to another (again just a wild hunch/theory/possibility being forwarded here). I don't know.


It would be very difficult for me to say this is a case of clear-cut sand boxification given that the content of the pages (while similar in subject matter) is quite different insofar as their code/servers are concerned.


I'm not saying you're wrong. But I don't think the comparison of these sites lends itself to a solid conclusion one way or the other. There are variables we probably can't even guess at work here.


Maybe there's a sandbox, maybe there isn't. I'm really undecided on the thing. Say there is. What then? Say there isn't. What then? The existence of the sandbox (in my humblest of opinions) is utterly irrelevent. You still have to do the same things either way. Namely, try to advance your result through on-page seo and the cultivation of IBL's. Sandbox or not, isn't that still the bottom line?


P.S.
LLfitness' example, to me, is a strong argument for the sandbox. As I've said, I have seen plenty of cases where people seem to have a pretty good case for the existence of the sandbox.

I'll stick to my what 'difference does it make?' non-commital stance on it though.

[LLFitness_Derek]

Sorry bout the joke. I couldn't help it.

I got a good laugh :)

How do you like my error page for MassageKing.com? This page is displayed if something goes wrong in the database (mainly during the shopping cart)



Customers are so much more forgiving when they get this "Lacy Error" ~

[DMC_34]

Mike,

I agree, its irrelevant and Google can do with their index what they want. My guess is that it exists but would be very bad PR for them to just come out and say so. My real infatuation with it is why is their a filter for new sites to begin with? To keep SPAM sites out? Has Google done so completely brain dead, it cant distinguish a spam site from a legit one? If thats true they should get a refund from their countless PhD's.

They obviously havent been able to figure out hidden css spam, so what do they do discount content in the ranking algo. Ooops cant figure out LSI and purchased links? Oh well lets just discount any new site and we can solve 90% of the problem with a single blow. Google couldnt care less if it thrashes the innocent to serve punishment to the guilty.

To me its just being plain LAZY, but I am sure Google has more reasons than I will ever know. One them is stockholders and profit the other incompetence.

DMC

[pcarlow]

No sandbox. LOL That's hilarious man. Right... That's why I'm spending hundreds of dollars to buy domains over a year old. Because there's no sandbox. Sheesh.

[CAD]

after you go here:
http://googlerankings.com/ultimate_seo_tool.php
utilize the default "stop word" list, they update it regularly!

I am sorry, but I found this tool to be almost useless in identifying useful keyword combinations. It missed my major keyword combination which shows a density of 4.8% using another popular keyword density tool. Actually, this tool did not even recognize it as even being within the visible text of the page. Considering I rank well for it in all 3 major engines and other popular tools all identify the key term, I must conclude that this one is flawed to a certain extent.

[PHPfan]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Anyone else with "sandbox" theories?

Ken

Yeah. We re-launched our site last year with a newly registered domain name (we added hyphens to break up the keywords in the domain) and could not break the top 300 for any of our keyphrases. After 6 months of being sandboxed we switched back to our old domain name (registered since 1997) without the hyphens and immediately ranked in the top 10-30 for many of our keywords with the exact same code/site that did not rank with the newly registered domain.

If that's not evidence of a sandbox then I'd love to hear your opinion.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

I hate to say it, but it looks like adword revenue preservation.
Ken

What?

Please explain this further. To say that Google is ranking website higher using AdSense is quite the bold statement. Think about the ramifications if that was true.

I do believe their is certain period that website do have to earn credentials to perform at the top ranking positions of Google. Whether that is called a sandbox or not, who cares. You cant rank #1 for "viagra" over night, or within a week, or within a month.

Someone stated earlier in this thread that if the sandbox was in existence it probably is for only certain keywords or keyword neighborhoods. This I must agree with.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by CAD

I am sorry, but I found this tool to be almost useless in identifying useful keyword combinations. It missed my major keyword combination which shows a density of 4.8% using another popular keyword density tool. Actually, this tool did not even recognize it as even being within the visible text of the page. Considering I rank well for it in all 3 major engines and other popular tools all identify the key term, I must conclude that this one is flawed to a certain extent.

I am also at a loss to understand how this tool helps us know that no sandbox exists.

[spiceboy]

This may be a bit off topic, but it may shed light on Greeneagles/In crediblehelps point about ADWORDS (not Adsense) revenue preservation.

I started a thread a while ago (some may remember this) http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...=asc&&start=25

The last post gets back to the point of the thread which discussed how much difference an Adwords campaign made to my SERPS ranking for a specific keyword.

The site dropped off the chart when I cut Adwords but after 1 month of restarting it I have risen steadily from mid 40"s position to currently No 25 on Google.co.uk.

Same key word, no more backlinks, no site changes. Just started the Adwords campaign again.

Who says you cant buy rankings?

[DMC_34]

By nature of it Adwords should not help your rankings. I am sure there are sites out there which have been sandboxed and come out without running a single Adword. Either case I am beginning to wonder if it isnt an influence after all.

DMC

[incrediblehelp]

OK understood on the AdWords not AdSense thing. Still I have say bogus on this one.

Why in the world would they simply move your organic page to the top of the SERP's just for spending money on CPC placements for the same keyword?? It has no benefit for them. Google is simply doing you a favor for buying keywords through them? I think not. I think the Google algorithm has to be a bit more complex than that.

If anything Google moving your page higher in the organic results would take away monies that you could be spending on their CPC ads. It is totally contradictory thinking to assume that Google would help you organically because you are purchasing keywords through them.

[Steve W]

Hi all,

Great thread, very interesting.

IMO there's definately a link between new sites, keyphrase competitiveness and Google ranking.

I'm new at web design and SEO (I can sense the groans but hear me out), so didn't know how to find popular search phrases to optimize my first site - I just guessed what people would type and optimized each page accordingly (maybe not good on page SEO either, but consistent page to page).

For the non-competitive keyphrase (stop repossession wales), we rank google page 1 #6, but for competitive phrases, nowhere. The site is just over a month old.

We'll probably drop out once G updates, as I've since found the phrase we should have gone for and had another go, but IMO it's hard to deny there's a link between ranking and new sites targeting competitive phrases, what's the problem calling this effect a sandbox? Does the term imply a specific meaning I'm not aware of?

Kind regards
Steve

[dburdon]

IME (in my experience) the "sandbox" concept is irrelevant when when looking at uncompetitive terms. A couple of weeks back someone arrived on my site having searched for "Easyjet online customer acquisition strategy". Did I optimise for this keyphrase? No. Where did I rank? Number 1 in the world on Google and Yahoo. Big deal. Whether I was sandboxed or not, who cares? I'm sure I've seen some research that says that 40% of all new searches are new to the world. Therefore, by and large, many new searches won't be sandbox inhibited from reaching your site.

I have my own theory that sandboxing is closely related to revenue generation of the adwords kind. Take travel. Big spend on Adwords. Lots of sites sandboxed. Just mention sandboxing in the UK travel industry and everyone runs a mile. Why? Haven't Google just launched their own travel business. MMM.

[Steve W]

Hi dburdon

I see your point, but that's what we got - one visitor (did convert though!) - the phrase we scored well with just doesn't get searched.

So here's the question, how do I pick keyphrases for a new site?
Please correct me if I'm wrong (as I said, new to all this) but my current thinking is:

If I pick uncompetitive terms, I'll rank high, but get little traffic. Longer term, still little traffic as the term gets little or no searches.

If I pick competitive terms, I'll rank nowhere for some time, then traffic will pick up once I'm 'trusted' or whatever and have built sufficient IBLs to rank higher.

Basically, no shortcuts for 'traffic out the box' besides paid ads?
Cheers
Steve

[freehits]

DMC, I see little question that there is a filter on new sites, or a filter first felt by new sites that cause them not to rank until the filter is lifted.

Call it what you will.

My most prominent example is in a search term of 350,000 results, and is a city based 3 word term.

With currently 1100 links in google and a PR of 4 the site is #3 for its own domain name, and not in the first 20 pages for the main keywords.

The site has 67 pages listed in the index, is currently #1 on YAhoo and MSN for all top keywords.

The top 2 result pages contain 4 sites only present because they link to me with my keyword, the sites are not rlevent beyond that link (same genre and region only).
Site is about 6 months old.

This site is not suffering an optimization issue, since I have 15+ pages of non-relevent results ahead of me.

The site is all CSS, text heavy, and has IBL's of all related terms with decent variety.

Again call it what you want, but there is no reason related to relevency for it to be competely off the map for 6 months now.