TheOptimizationIdiot - 11:23 pm on Apr 5, 2013 (gmt 0)
Yeah, pretty silly to be arguing about whether there's a "sandbox" for sites in some niches, since it's been confirmed although "not for everyone" and not a "specific delay" set in the algo by Google. Even Barry Schwartz has reported it as Matt Cutts confirming it exists.
Matt Cutts Confirms Sandbox Exists for Some Industries
Original Thread Here:
So, for some sites, in effect there IS a sandbox.
The above is quoted by a number of fairly authoritative sources even before the 2006 so called "debunkment".
I guess if you really want to argue it's filters causing sites in some areas to not rank initially and those are something different than what people call a sandbox, then you can, but it seems a bit like semantic silliness to say filters keeping a site(s) from ranking initially (something keeping a site from ranking initially is what sandboxed is generally understood to mean) in some niches is different than saying a site is "sandboxed" or is different than saying there is a Google sandbox for some sites.
Maybe we should technically add "effect" after the word "sandbox" to quash hair splitting over semantics, but even that seems a bit like unnecessary silliness to me since whatever the mechanism (filters, penalties, delays in trust being awarded, whatever) that keeps some sites from ranking initially has been confirmed and is exactly what people are are generally talking about when they say "sandbox".