What's the point?

[Pi Squared Technologies]

I have done a lot of reading about the Google "sandbox" lately and I have one question left to ask about it:
What's the point of working my seo around Google's algos when all they do is throw the site into the sandbox after all the work is done?
By the time the site gets out, Google has changed their minds about what is relevent or not and my once "Search Engine Friendly" site is not so friendly anymore do to the changes in how Google ranks pages.
Is it a way for Google to keep designers a few steps behind them?
Meanwhile I will just continue to do what I am doing and hope that Google settles down and gets a better grip on things.

[adbart]

What's the point of working my seo around Google's algos when all they do is throw the site into the sandbox after all the work is done?
You'll only go into the sandbox once, unless you drastically change your content again, after inclusion in their index.

[KeithO]

actually i believe they will sandbox you before banning for spamming techniques.

As long as you keep your design within the constraints of what Google likes, the sandbox shouldn't bother you. Its been around for a while and unlikely to disappear.

[janeth]

Sites can come out of the sandbox. It just takes a lot of work.

[DMC_34]

Sites can come out of the sandbox. It just takes a lot of work.

Wouldnt that contradict what the sandbox is meant for? Trying to escape it by excessive IBL's or SEO only furthers the length of time in the sandbox?

I believe the sandbox is more like a "I am not sure if you are spammer but just in case, in the trash you go!" Therefore buy a ton of IBL's, gain a tremedous amount of reciprocating links in a short period of time, over optimize your pages, etc and it would seem Google continues to filter the site for competitive keywords even longer. The older a site gets without a drastic changes in IBL's or content the better chance it has to escape the filter. Some have said 8 months or 6 months. But what if it is just 3 months, but excessive tactics or changes just extend the length of time?

I am not saying I disagree with trying to get IBL's but there is a difference between not ranking well and a sandbox. Maybe G just wants everyone to be modest about link exchanges or SEO. But the stories of some where they go from >600 to #1 overnight brings up a few questions:

1. Did the site slow down on link exchanges or stop buying as many links in the 3 months before escaping or was it about the same?

2. Did the content or theme of the site change drastically in the last 3 months before escaping the filter?

I bet a site that just sits dormat for 3 months will probably not be sandboxed then sudden mass changes would throw it in this filter, unless it has a certain age such as a couple of years old. More SEO = More sandbox time....Makes sense to Google, sucks for everyone else. But it is an effective tool to lower the worth of SEO, spammers, cookie cutter sites, etc even if does hurt some innocent sites in the process. Google has already proven they do NOT care about webmasters just their search results.

[janeth]

Ok, others would disagree, but we all have rights to what we feel works for us.

[DMC_34]

I think new sites are either going to be sandboxed or not rank well for an extended time anyways. It takes time to get quality IBL's. So either way new sites should put Google on the backburner. I have seen sites get #1 on MSN in 1 month for very competitive keywords by simply buying 3,000 unrelated links. While those clients rant and rave about how great their SEO company is, they probably do not realize they just extended their stay in the sandbox.

Googles whole purpose is to discourage link buying and over optimization or any other means of altering their rankings, which is SEO. To the average search user as long as the top 10 sites are about the keyword it is good enough. So do they care if I am listed in top 10. Nope, neither does Google. Spam sites usually have 2 similar characteristics:

1. Massive amount of unrelated links in a short period of time.
2. Content fluctuates drastically.

Hence the reason for new site filters. Screw everyone to kill a select few. I truly cant believe Google put in place a filter that can be so easily swayed by practical SEO or links. Even below the ideas expressed here is Google doesnt even link exchanges for altering SERP's. People screwed around deciphered PR algo. People figured out to exchange links or buy links, now that is gone too, now it is gone as well but to a different extent. This will either be Google's demise or other SE's will do the same thing. Either way I am forced to do PPC's on my new site. In the end Adwords is probably the likely by-product of all this.

[0039] Consider the example of a document with an inception date of yesterday that is referenced by 10 back links. This document may be scored higher by search engine 125 than a document with an inception date of 10 years ago that is referenced by 100 back links because the rate of link growth for the former is relatively higher than the latter. While a spiky rate of growth in the number of back links may be a factor used by search engine 125 to score documents, it may also signal an attempt to spam search engine 125. Accordingly, in this situation, search engine 125 may actually lower the score of a document(s) to reduce the effect of spamming.


[0077] The dates that links appear can also be used to detect "spam," where owners of documents or their colleagues create links to their own document for the purpose of boosting the score assigned by a search engine. A typical, "legitimate" document attracts back links slowly. A large spike in the quantity of back links may signal a topical phenomenon (e.g., the CDC web site may develop many links quickly after an outbreak, such as SARS), or signal attempts to spam a search engine (to obtain a higher ranking and, thus, better placement in search results) by exchanging links, purchasing links, or gaining links from documents without editorial discretion on making links. Examples of documents that give links without editorial discretion include guest books, referrer logs, and "free for all" pages that let anyone add a link to a document.

[tcampione]

By the time the site gets out, Google has changed their minds about what is relevent or not and my once "Search Engine Friendly" site is not so friendly anymore do to the changes in how Google ranks pages.
I’m not sure I agree with this part of the statement. G does not seem to change its view on relevancy all that quickly or drastically. Rather, the algo changes are to kill spam. So, a clean relevant site will ultimately rank well, in all likelihood.

My suggestion is not to bother with keyword spamming, alt tag stuffing, anchor title attribute stuffing, hidden text, text swapping, or any other ‘latest tricks’.

Build a business plan knowing that you won’t get much traffic from G for 9 – 12 months. In the meantime, build a great site and I suspect you’ll be rewarded upon release from the box. Just don’t bet the farm on it. :-)

[incrediblehelp]

Sites can come out of the sandbox. It just takes a lot of work.

Wouldn't that contradict what the sandbox is meant for? Trying to escape it by excessive IBL's or SEO only furthers the length of time in the sandbox?

We all don't know what the sandbox is for. It may not be just for spammers or maybe for every new website that goes online. Also increasing IBL's does not further the length of time in the sandbox.


I believe the sandbox is more like a "I am not sure if you are spammer but just in case, in the trash you go!" Therefore buy a ton of IBL's, gain a tremedous amount of reciprocating links in a short period of time, over optimize your pages, etc and it would seem Google continues to filter the site for competitive keywords even longer. The older a site gets without a drastic changes in IBL's or content the better chance it has to escape the filter. Some have said 8 months or 6 months. But what if it is just 3 months, but excessive tactics or changes just extend the length of time?

A new website has to gain IBL's in some way. In fact if you think dramatic changes in IBL's hurts why then don't large affiliates like Amazon get hurt in Google? They gain 1000's of IBL's every week. Ahhhh, but all of those links have unique anchor text which helps, now we are getting it. I do agree that website unlike that of Amazon should gain IBL's in a slower and more diverse manner.


I am not saying I disagree with trying to get IBL's but there is a difference between not ranking well and a sandbox. Maybe G just wants everyone to be modest about link exchanges or SEO. But the stories of some where they go from >600 to #1 overnight brings up a few questions:

1. Did the site slow down on link exchanges or stop buying as many links in the 3 months before escaping or was it about the same?

2. Did the content or theme of the site change drastically in the last 3 months before escaping the filter?

I bet a site that just sits dormat for 3 months will probably not be sandboxed then sudden mass changes would throw it in this filter, unless it has a certain age such as a couple of years old. More SEO = More sandbox time....Makes sense to Google, sucks for everyone else. But it is an effective tool to lower the worth of SEO, spammers, cookie cutter sites, etc even if does hurt some innocent sites in the process. Google has already proven they do NOT care about webmasters just their search results.

(More SEO = More sandbox time) = not true. The thing Google really needs to start thinking about more is page content again. This is something that MSN and Yahoo seem to still consider. Of course this is easier said than done, but spamming techniques like Comment Spamming still work easily in Google and that is sad. Sandbox doesnt hurt SEO, it hurts everyone. A web designer making broad changes to a website, a new product coming online through a brand new domain, etc.

[DMC_34]

Also increasing IBL's does not further the length of time in the sandbox.
This may or may not be true. To have the answer to this would require knowing what the sandbox is truly meant for and the underlying mechanics of it. The only characteristics which have been noted on other posts are:
1. Length of time varies 6-9 months.
2. Established sites can be sandboxed with drastic content changes or even new designs.


A new website has to gain IBL's in some way. In fact if you think dramatic changes in IBL's hurts why then don't large affiliates like Amazon get hurt in Google? They gain 1000's of IBL's every week. Ahhhh, but all of those links have unique anchor text which helps, now we are getting it. I do agree that website unlike that of Amazon should gain IBL's in a slower and more diverse manner.

I dont believe 900lb gorillas fall into this category, and certainly not Amazon. I think this is specifically targeted at new sites.


(More SEO = More sandbox time) = not true.

Again we would need to know what the sandbox is meant for. For the most part every algo change is meant to provide more relevant results. If this is Google's basis behind filters etc, then it would make sense what the sandbox really is. Is a new site irrelevant just because it is new? Nope. We are all guessing and no one really knows what the sandbox is, except Google. It could be link age factor, content filter, inception date filter, etc. Google has already shown a disdain for SEO, ie OOP. Instead of constantly fighting it, wouldnt it be easier to implement a sandbox filter which is based in part on age, links, keywords, and drastic fluctuations?

This reminds me of our Adwords campaign last year. They started reviewing "BIG" keywords last year. The year before they didnt. When I submitted the keyword "christmas cards" they had to review the site before it was approved. They didnt do it on all of our 10,000 keywords just competitive keywords. I asked why, they said certain keywords were marked because of popularity and needed to be reviewed. Maybe this plays into a similar process for organics, but more on the side of a waiting period. Legit sites will weather that storm.

In either case I will get relevant IBL's to my new site and TRY to forget Google whether it extends my sandbox time or not.

[tcampione]

Is a new site irrelevant just because it is new?
No, but it is doomed to rank poorly because it is new. My belief is that the new site is simply not trusted yet. And, I believe that if your SEO is conservative, the site will gain trust in the shortest possible timeframe, however long that might be.

I also theorize that trust is inherited. If so, obtaining links from currently trusted sites would help shorten the period as well.

[DMC_34]

Is a new site irrelevant just because it is new?
No, but it is doomed to rank poorly because it is new. My belief is that the new site is simply not trusted yet. And, I believe that if your SEO is conservative, the site will gain trust in the shortest possible timeframe, however long that might be.

I also theorize that trust is inherited. If so, obtaining links from currently trusted sites would help shorten the period as well.

I truly hope you are right

[greeneagle]

I haven't personally been able to associate any sandbox effect with any well designed website outside of an immature or inadequate marketing endeavor after Site design, yet.

Ken