Several references to the "Sandbox" lately

[greeneagle]

Why on earth would anyone want to continue to perp that old myth?

I would suggest that anyone who still believes in a Google "Sandbox" read this thread:

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=56893

and then discuss it in light of what we know has changed in alg adjustments since.

By the way, we did come pretty close to the "Sandbox" here last weekend.

LOL

Ken

[Chris]

i know why i talked about it: because of the new site crawl "sandbox," which a number of pundits before me have been talking about. even matt cutts made mention of it (without actually calling it a sandbox) and when the engineers themselves say certain optimization techniques can affect the way your site is crawled (exactly what the current use of the word is referring to), then it's safe to say there is something there. now whether you want to call it a sandbox is up to you.

[djstreet]

There exist some type of time delay that ranges from new sites, penalised sites, etc. I agree, call it what you want, but something is there. Just because we can't define it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[freehits]

You are the only one that contnues to come up with these conclusions but you fail to see the very simple fact.

"sandbox, but the algorithm might affect some sites, under some circumstances, in a way that a webmaster would perceive as being sandboxed. "

From your post regarding Cuts coments ^^^

"the algorithm might affect some sites, under some circumstances" - This is what people are "calling" a sandbox.

This is exactly what most people are descibing when they say the word "sandbox". So you have in fact just verified its existance. As hard as you are trng to have a point.

[frogmanandy]

I have an idea ... let's start a raging flame war over semantics!!!!

Or maybe it is more how people choose to see something

either way ... all we need is if...

Maybe we can get someone to brag about how their site was indexed in two days and #1 in google the next week and I can chime in with my sites' average google delay of about 7 months

and then we need someone to make some unintelligible remarks about someone's personal hygiene and how that affects their seo

but I say we start talking about the msn sandbox instead ;)

[greeneagle]

I was not singling out anyone.

The fact remains though, that in almost every "sandbox" example I have ever seen, the real problem was inadequate marketing of said site, and/or a non-realistic view of said proprietor's position against established competition.

Does anyone do a competitive analysis for potential clients?

Today I rcvd a call from a potential client.

Yes, I finance web development for selected companies. The problem with this particular call is though:

Wedding Invitations!

I respect entrepreneurs that bootstrap, believe me!

$6000-$8000 is what everyone else has quoted for what she wants!

Does she know in that competitive an environment that she needs to add on at least (very minimum) the cost of web development for promotion, to make a mark?

IMO - There lies your frickin sandbox!

I must turn down potential customers at a 10-1 ratio because of the hoplessness of their position!

Ken

[greeneagle]

This is an important issue here that I just don't want to see languish by the wayside.

This whole generic SERP inquisition is way out of hand.. It's a dead game.

One way or another you pay to play.

If you don't pay to play and want to "Woe is me", that's a personal problem.

Ken

[dburdon]

I think post Big Daddy we've got a link box. A box where sites with poor link behaviour are put.

I find it difficult to believe that companies are still selling:

1. Mass generic links
2. Automated link programmes

Google's definition of a link farm has been tightened up.

[greeneagle]

dbourdon:

"Google's definition of a link farm has been tightened up."

The spam war rages on. They had to go there. How much spam is clipped in the bud by OBL relevancy measures? That was in itself a multi-million dollar move.

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by frogmanandy

let's start a raging flame war over semantics!!!!

LOL, yes I love those!

[ash]

What compounds the myth is that "we who know" (or think we know) often use shorthand for expediency. Witness how many people talk about "quality links" whereas each of them may disagree strongly with the quality of the others' links.

Similarly, some of us are guilty of using the term "sandbox", which leads to "authorities" being quoted as declaring there is no sandbox! Yeah, we knew that months ago but it is quicker to say "sandbox" than to talk about effects, signals of quality, competitiveness of the search term which can present/not present the said effects.

In my day job my team has SEOd hundreds of new sites that have escaped the sandbox (hence it does not exist). In the SME space, particularly when one searches within a regional Google (AU in my case), the competition for such businesses is typically <500K results for most terms. OTOH, if I put up a new site for "debt consolidation" for global searches, I would probably believe in the sandbox.

[Jabber_uk]

Maybe there should be a new term to describe these scenarios? To me, the term Sandbox suggests certain things but I do not know a lot about it.

Are the situations referred to (not using that word hehehe) for some websites not being found in the SERPS a bit like when a plane hits a dead bit of air and sometimes drops a number of feet? Then takes a while to climb back up again?

I have a another question too:

Is it safe to assume that these 'drop outs' or Air Pockets or Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) I think they are called in the aeronautic world are caused be the algos not by a Google employees hand?

Anyway, was just wondering that the algos cannot be perfect - the Internet is a chaotic place so to index it perfectly would be very nearly impossible and extremely improbable. Therefore the likelyhood of a site hitting these 'Air Pockets' can, I imagine be quite high. Maybe when a site is first released it is more likely to get caught in a bad airstream which it can be difficult to get out of?

Anyway, my feeling is that there is no Sandbox (as I know it) but just unfortunate Air Pockets in this chaotic and crazy place we inhabit.

Caio guys -

"The Sandbox is dead, Long live the ......."

(Fill in your own descriptive word) :-)

[MtraX]

Can't we just put this one to rest once and for all? I suggest a test. One site that's older than a year on a topic with no SEO, linking done vs brand new site on same topic. The exactly the same link submissions, articles, SEO etc etc etc is done to both with published results here.

MtraX

[khurramali]

We keep hearing about more than 200 factors which google takes into consideration in ranking websites, How many can you Name or explain ?

Most people can only come up with a few dozen, so what the the rest of them, Maybe Sandbox as it is referred is one of them.

A recent Google May 2006 presentation by Alan , the Senior VP of Engineering at Google said that Google uses over 200 ‘signals’ to assess the relevance of a page for a particular query! Of course, he didn’t illuminate us on what these were.

Can someone give a rundown of the list of these 200 factors.

[greeneagle]

khurramali,

This is somewhat out of date IMO, particularly where it concerns IBL and OBL Relevancy, but is still one of the best:
http://www.seomoz.org/articles/searc...ng-factors.php
Ken

[freehits]

Originally Posted by MtraX

Can't we just put this one to rest once and for all? I suggest a test. One site that's older than a year on a topic with no SEO, linking done vs brand new site on same topic. The exactly the same link submissions, articles, SEO etc etc etc is done to both with published results here.

MtraX

Greg Boser AKA Webguerilla did this and discussed it on webmaster radio in an interview with Matt. He had two sites with similar content structure and link count one old and one new, he old ranked instantly the new never did. This is a test and evidence and he presented it to Matt and received no concrete explaination on why this hapened.

His test site received a handjob right after the interview too. Whatever the reason, this is what is called the sandbox.


So Eagle, For me you can squash these "no sandbox threads", If you doubt greg's abilty to run a controlled test, you can contect him to learn more. But I will respctfully take his evidence over your opinions on what is proper marketing.

The fact remains that you discount other arguments as "the real problem was inadequate marketing of said site", but again I will take Mr Boser's evidence over your opinions on this subject.

http://media.webmasterradio.fm/episo.../SEO013106.mp3

[khurramali]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

khurramali,

This is somewhat out of date IMO, particularly where it concerns IBL and OBL Relevancy, but is still one of the best:
http://www.seomoz.org/articles/searc...ng-factors.php
Ken

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction