| 6:23 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
11 months and counting.
| 8:44 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
wow.. 11 months.. thats a LONG TIME.. sorry im complaning.. in 8 months ive been out and im back in.. damn 301 redirect.... im still there but only for one keyword.. ah well.....
| 9:41 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, I have had sites that came out within six months but I don't think that 11 months is unusual.
| 5:32 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I never understood this Sandbox thing. It has been about a year and a half since I don't launch any new site.
By that time, all my new sites were indexed immediately. They ranked really badly, but because I didn't have many external links, and by that time I used to exchange links with useless 88x31 buttons. But my sites were indexed no matter what.
Since that was more than a year ago, I don't know if anything has changed.
What is hard to believe is that Google refuses to renew its index. That's why I don't find a reason to believe in Sandbox yet.
Perhaps there is a logical explanation that I don't know.
| 5:40 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
With Jagger2 I just came out of the sandbox for one of my sites. Assuming it lasts...It has been roughly 8 months.
| 6:15 pm on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|With Jagger2 I just came out of the sandbox for one of my sites. Assuming it lasts...It has been roughly 8 months |
Same with my latest site but 6 months old.
Previous site took 1 year!
| 5:25 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I never knew it took so long to come out of the sandbox. Wow, it really makes me wonder how long I'm going to have to work at my site without many visitors! Visitors tend to get me to work harder -- but being sandboxed helps in a way, to prepare for the visitors coming!
| 5:33 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Let me get this straight. If the google sand box exists then google in effect is telling it's users "we feel you do not need nor want to see any website that is less than 6 months old therefore we will not even bother displaying those. Please instead visit the same 10 websites everybody else does."
| 5:33 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
11 months for me as well.
My site is www.KW1KW2KW3.co.uk
Nowhere (down through 20 pages) for KW1 KW2 KW3 search. Have a PR3 on the home page.
Get the very odd hit from Google.
| 5:36 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I know this is a stupid question, but I have been unable to figure out what it really means to be in the sandbox.
A clear explanation would be appreciated.
| 8:48 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google attempts to enforce a probationary period for new websites where they are not allowed to rank as well as if they were an older website.
| 9:04 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
11 months (and a bit) here as well. #1 allinanchor / allintext for main keyphrase, more PR and handgrown BL's than a lot of the 180 results in front of my site.
Jagger2 looks promising for me, but somehow I'm not very optimistic it will last through Jagger3. Would be nice though.
| 9:30 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the sandbox definition. Has Googleguy or MC indicated that it actually exists, or does it just seem that way.
| 9:54 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your reply Steveb.
"...Google attempts to enforce a probationary period for new websites where they are not allowed to rank as well as if they were an older website..."
A probationary period for new websites?
To my point of view, sandbox is the most strange myth most webmasters believe.
How in the world can Google be doing such a thing? What's the point?
Sorry, it is not my intention to sound harsh. I guess there might be several reasons for a site to not be indexed or showing in serps. And the Sandbox theory seems to be filling all the holes we can't explain.
| 10:09 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"To my point of view, sandbox is the most strange myth most webmasters believe. "
well.. lets put it this way.. till 2 months ago my website was only in a very specific search term, then it appeared in many many more terms!
But about 4 weeks after i added my 301 bam! im back to the very specific search term..
One good thing, my website is listed on many high ranking websites.. so im still there in the top 10 but its not my site its a directory :)
| 11:03 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm getting so sick of sand here.
In the recent update my 8 month old site got upgraded to PR6 with a link population of around 5,000.
Still its not in the top 100 results for its OWN SITE NAME. The domain is www.locationactivitysite.com which happen to be the three target keywords also.
Number 1 in Yahoo and MSN but Google hates me arghhhhh.
| 11:17 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sandbox, what sandbox? I put up a new site 3 months ago and it is ranking where I would expect it to be. Then again I haven't magically aquired thousands of backlinks within those 3 months... slowly does it.
| 12:41 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As for my experience, there is a process that lasts about three months. You can't expect to rank well with a new site the next day, no matter what links you have.
Google takes certain time to process inbound links.
One month, two months, three months tops? That's a reasonable time. That isn't a Sandbox. That is the period Google takes to process the relationship between sites.
When I'm being told that a site was hidden for about 8 to 11 months or more than a year, I'm pretty sure that there are external factors not considered and it is easier to blame it to this "Sandbox" thing.
| 1:04 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
When I first started the site it did indeed get a kind of boost in rankings and did appear where it was supposed to.
All sandbox theories and documentation states that this is normal.
What I fail to comprehend is how a site can dissapear of the face of a search engine when it has increased in PR, increased in unique content (approx 900 pages) and increased in terms of inbound links from topic related websites.
If that is not a "sandbox" effect please tell me what it is and how to get the hell out of it.
| 1:24 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If there was no sandbox / age filter, shouldn't you get some kind of decent ranking in Google as quickly as in the other search engines?
What kind of >>external factors<< could be responsible for this delay that don't apply for rankings in Yahoo, MSN etc.?
Another thing that seems strange to me is that for a short period after you launch a site you do appear in the Serps and then suddenly you don't. Why would the age filter not get hold of your site straight away?
| 1:33 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
2 years ago, we were building rubbish 20,000 page sites in minutes, buying a PR8 link for $250 a month and getting 10K referrals a day from G inside of 2 weeks from golive.
We were happy, clients were happy & searchers actually got what they were looking for as each of our 20K phrases were relevant to what the site(s) offered.
To stop this practice, filters were put in place by G in late 2003 / early 2004 to "age" a link. A combination of a link's age, reputation & theme is now being used to rank sites.
If we had to spend $250pm for many months, chances are it wouldn't be profitable - so we wouldn't do it - so G is happy.
1 - Get too many links too fast - you get sandboxed
2 - Get decent links from authority sites slowly - you get out
3 - Get thousands of links inside a few days incl links from CNN / BBC, you get out.
| 2:18 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Of course that due to search engine spamming, Google had to come up with more advanced filters than Yahoo or MSN.
But saying that a site that doesn't show in one year is because Google wants to see if you are a good boy, its ridiculous.
This sandbox theory has been around a lot of time and experienced webmasters can have a clue of what's happening with a site, but newcomers just say, "hey my site has been sandboxed, lets wait until it is released!" B.S. It is in your hands.
Lets say that you launch a site and you get a legal PR9 text link with keyword1 in the anchor text from a site that is not yours.
Then two or three days later, you get another link from a PR7 from another web site that is not yours, again, with Keyword1 in the anchor text.
And so on.
I'm pretty sure that your site will rank really well as soon as Google ends with its links processing round which I don't know how much it lasts, but I guess it can take from one to three months.
Of course, that's a very difficult situation to achieve.
Usually, when a new site is launched, the first links it gets to ensure webbots visits are from other sites of the same owner.
Then, the second set of links a new website gets are from friends with unrelated sites or whatever.
Many mistakes are usually made in this point. So there is no way that Google can rank a site with that kind of inbound links.
It is not a matter of some kind penalty that Google imposes to new sites. It is the complex process of validating interlinking within sites. If your site doesn't rank well for a couple of months, it is the normal process. If your site doesn't rank well for a lot of months, there is some kind of "short-circuit" in the interlinking analysis where your site is included. Or simply a bad quality of inbound links.
The point is that it is near impossible to know which problem is that. So when you launch a site, you have to constantly work on getting new links IN A LEGAL WAY. And I'm pretty sure that you will succeed.
Of course, it is nor a fact, neither a theory, it is a guess based on what I've been reading and trying.
| 3:14 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I'm pretty sure that your site will rank really well as soon as Google ends with its links processing round which I don't know how much it lasts, but I guess it can take from one to three months. |
To use your own language ... BS.
| 3:50 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
BeeDeeDoubleU, this is what I said:
|"hey my site has been sandboxed, lets wait until it is released!" B.S. It is in your hands. |
I was not referring to anybody here, I was just citing a general saying.
Although my English is not good, I think it is quite clear.
So please, if you don't agree with what I'm saying, just use facts or concepts, there is no need to be aggressive. Let's keep this discussion in reasonable terms.
| 8:39 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Let's keep this discussion in reasonable terms. |
You referred to B.S. which suggests that your command of English is fine. Perhaps I am wrong but it sounds like you suggested that the sandbox was a figment of "newcomers" imagination. This is patently wrong or to use your own words ... no, I'll resist the temptation.
| 10:01 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Man you are tough! I will also resist the temptation...
Let's move to something more civilized.
|Perhaps I am wrong but it sounds like you suggested that the sandbox was a figment of "newcomers" imagination. |
Nope. Perhaps, as I told you, I don't express myself correctly in English.
What I meant is that it is common that when a Webmaster finds his site not showing in serps (or deeply buried) to blame the "Sandbox" about this situation.
The Ranking algorithm in Google is too much complex just to say "hey, my site is new, I will have to wait 8 to 12 months until it is released!". That's not true. If your site isn't alive for that much, there are many possibilities that you are doing something wrong.
- Using sitewide links between two sites you own.
- Getting hundreds or thousands of links in a day.
- Getting links from spammy sites
- Linking to spammy sites
- Getting graphics links (instead of text links) pointing to your site
- Bad keyword selection in your incoming links' anchor text
- No incoming links strategy
- Linking to bad neibourghs
- Getting links from unrelated sites
- Bad internal linking strategy (this is crucial when you get links to your homepage only)
- Many other factors I don't recall now.
So, these are a lot of things to be simply called "Sandbox". And all of these situations are under the webmaster control. But new webmasters with little experience may not know about this and start blaming something called the Sandbox and wait until their sites are released.
| 7:22 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Enrique, that is a good list but many of us in here, myself included, know a wee bit about SEO and the sandbox but we still get pushed in there. I have witnessed this with about ten sites so far none of which have broken any of the rules you listed.
A couple of people have claimed that they know how to get round it but I have yet to see any proof. But then again perhaps if I knew the full answer to this I would keep it to myself also. All I do know is the sandbox, filter effect, call it what you like, is very real and that Google have did a good job on this one, (even though they deny its existence.)
| 9:45 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have the following situation. There are around 10 desolated domains and each of them is three years old. All of them are located on free hostings that's why it was the hosters who removed these domains. I have all access data about them, I would like to know if these domains haven't existed in the google index for half of the year but they were there minimum 3 years; in this case if restoring the hosting can they avoid sandbox?
| 11:40 am on Oct 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My site until last week had a PR5 with 200 backlinks.
Today it is PR 0 (all 200 or so pages) and no backlinks - am I in the sandbox?
Any ideas how I get my PR back
| This 96 message thread spans 4 pages: 96 (  2 3 4 ) > > |