Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
If your site is less than a year old you are likely sandboxed.
I can't believe most sites under a year's age are in some sort of penalty box. Google would be useless. So, I want to know:
1. Are all sites sandboxed, or do certain traits (like affiliate links, low content) trigger it?
2. How long does it last?
3. How variable is the duration?
4. How do you know your site is being sandboxed?
5. Does the effect taper off or is it a binary thing?
6. What gets you out of the sandbox? Is it merely time or do good links or whatever speed it up?
Thanks.
I can't believe most sites under a year's age are in some sort of penalty box.
Neither can millions of others ;)
And not all of them are.
A trade widget client of ours launched a brand new web site in the middle of 2004. This is hosted on a completely different server to any of our sites.
It is linked to our authority site and several of our trade sites as a trade widget supplier from several PR5+ pages.
After the site was constucted I did their site submissions, yes, I still do that regardless of what anyone else says. The site was picked up within days and now, some 6 months later it ranks very highly in Google, Yahoo!, MSN and MSN Beta.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has done this, maybe we just keep quiet and hope that it does not happen to us, however I would surmise that probably the main reason it has never been sandboxed is that it has these links from an authority site and from the very beginning.
Would you agree?
I also recently, November/December, launched 14 new sites, 7 .biz and 7 .info all trade widget sites again and all hosted on a separate server to the main authority site.
These have all appeared high in Google and Yahoo! after their recent updates and some even at #1.
If this is the simple answer then you know what to do, if it is not this simple then what could it possibly be?
I'm just trying help where possible.
Do you think hosting a site on the same server (and IP) as another of my sites is an inherent disability?
My main site is a classic authority site with no spam penalties. Both the old and new sites are low on commercial content.
> how do you define authority site?
Good question!
Without giving too much away I work within a very large international widget industry, not the motor trade in case anyone is wondering.
Over the past decade or two I have collected quality, representative images, offical test data, origin of the widgets, specific usages of the widgets etc, so that anyone searching for information on the widgets would find correct data regardless of whether they bought from us or not.
This was driven more by me for people having the correct information rather than hearsay since I had read so many horror trade stories from different people having used the widgets inappropriately.
This site is now referenced by many others for having all the correct and relevant information, consequently we do have a lot of very high quality links not only with other trade widget sites but also educational and governmental establishments.
It is fair to say that anyone who wants their widgets bringing to the world market now comes to us since they know that not only will they be referenced immediately, but they also gain immediate trade benefits from it.
In case you were wondering we do not charge anyone for this service, only a simple commision based upon converted sales.
Win-win situation all round.
So far from the 30,000+ widgets worldwide I have completed some 1,200+ of the most popular so you can see I have my work cut out, however I hope to be working with another wdiget company which specialises in reproducing the images which would make my life a lot easier.
I guess that any web site is viewed differently depending where one is stood, however any site that offers all the above must be fairly authoritative and especially so when no one else has collated that information to such an extent?
>Do you think hosting a site on the same server (and IP) as another of my sites is an inherent disability?
Some would say yes, some no. I have never had a problem with this.
The only reason I use two different servers is that I am moving all my 100+ sites from one host to another over a period of 12 months since I have a far superior deal.
I must admit though that I am considering keeping some of these sites separate so not to induce a possible penalty for whatever reason since I have seen groups of widget sites fall foul of a duplicate penalty when their trade organisation had not realised the possible pitfalls by offering all and sundry a hosting deal.
Incidentally, I don't think many realised that until a year or so ago.
>Both the old and new sites are low on commercial content.
Are you using a trade group hosting?
Nailing down the "sandbox"
I'd like to nail the lid down on the guy that came up with the bloody sandbox - it truly is demoralising to see a good site 'cursed' in this way
Hehehe...you must allow this Brett, please:
[google.com...]
Now doesn't that make you wonder?
>as it is a fluff topic.
Not tummy button fluff? :-)
Even with a fluff topic someone can be #1 and be recognised for that. How many fantastic hobby sites do you see that would make any webmaster proud since they are so well constructed and researched?
It's not all about money. When I started my authority site I did it with the intention of organising our widget industry so that anyone who wanted to know information or locate something would have a place to go to.
The funny thing is that no one in the trade wanted to pay anything for links/banners etc when I first offered the opportunity therefore, after a while, I didn't bother trying to market the site.
Now I make more money out of it through Adsense than I ever hoped to with the links/banners concept plus, obviously, every time I add another widget section it adds even more value.
My bet is that no matter what the subject matter, even fluff, there is a space for them on the Net to be an authority site and to make money from it.
I tell you this, my first ever Adsense cheque paid for a year's hosting, a year's broadband access and my first holiday in years!
Thanks! I found some interesting piece...
"The probation does not apply to new sites. It applies to links. When the algorithm was deployed certain older links were grandfathered in. After that, links will be (are being) given partial credit, and be essentially on 'probation.'""It applies to links, not sites. And the age of the link is not the only factor. The IP range of the links and other considerations are made..."
The logs show no sign of GoogleBot.
Ive heard people say Google is quick on adding new sites. Well definitly not this one.
Its been in the Yahoo Serps for about a month.
Could it be that Google's spam-detection alogorithms require the sort of complex, network-wide structural calculations that PR does? So Google's probation is first and foremost a delay to allow spam-detection to happen?
If so, I suggest that if a previous cycle's "spam score" is low enough (ie., the Red Cross, New York Times, Yahoo), Google takes the links on trust until another full calculation can take place.
The sandbox refers to completely new domains that have been started in the past year. (Since March 2004)
People seem to keep forgetting that the sandbox does not refer to new pages on existing domains.
This is what people have said and I have not had much experience, so I don't know. But is it ok if a site has been around for a while, but not received any links in a long time (+1 yr). Then what would happen if a new page goes on the site and suddenly it gets a large number of new links pointing to it. Would this throw up a red flag?
I bought a domain that was 2-3 years old, with zero links, the domain was live with a splash page, i.e welcome, site for sale etc.
My site went *live* September, i.e indexed, and link aquisition started, but its sandboxed :(
So I would have to say *yes* to the above.
I am 100% convinced that the position has got worse since the IPO and its all about increasing PPC revenue.
You have to ask yourselves why it takes Google over a quarter to do any kind of update.
Love or Hate the new MSN at least the index treats all sites as equal from the start and spiders all content and updates on an ongoing basis. Meanwhile Google spiders like mad your site but then does nothing with the information in the index untill after a quarter update if you are lucky.
Google is currently utter, utter cra@p at the moment if you ask me.
1. IF a site/page already has the status to achieve rank for a target keyphrase on the basis of on-page facrors (content, META tags etc) then that site does not get subjected to sandbox problems. So, established site that has the link popularity / authority status enough to rank for a given keyphrase, will easily get ranked.
2. IF a site starts from a point where rank can only be achieved for a target phrase by further improving on the link popularity, that site will be subjected to sandbox problems. But if that very same site is targeting another lesser phrase for which it has enough strength/popularity to get ranked will easily be ranked, just on the basis of on-page factors.
So a site may or may not show the sandbox problem depending on the phrases it is targeting and on the need for furhter link popularity.
Sites such as CNN, Amazon will virtually never show the sandbox problem, since they start from a dominant position and they can rank for most phrases on the basis of their authority status.
New sites will be sandboxed virtually for most phrases (am not talking about some remote phrase), since they start from a point of zero status.
Sites that are in between, may or may not be subjected to sandbox, depending on the need for improving the link popularity to get rank for the target phrases.
So, finally it boils down to links, which presumably are sandboxed, not when a domain was registered. I still have sites that are more than 2 years old, behaving exactly like sandboxed sites.
Mc
I have an older site, nearly three years old in fact, that has almost no inbound links. Yet it ranks extremely high for a variety of key phrases.
I've optimized my 7 month-old site for those same key phrases, using the same techniques that I've learned on WW, but the site ranks at best #26 for just one key phrase.
Re the thing about sandbox being a link based thing, I think I tracked down where that story began, and it was a google 'leak', aka 'spin', aka put out some information to a well known search engine site, not this one, have a guy write an article saying that, and then watch as that story spreads across the web until it's believed to be true. The author of course is flattered to get such a vital scoop, 'first hand information', so he doesn't question it at all. Classic case, Google knows how to do web spin, I've seen them do that a few times now, they are very careful about where they start that spin, and who they give that 'insider information' to, it can't be questioned in the first release, after that it takes on a life of its own. Never mind that it didn't explain anything of course.
Good information on the authority to new site link patterns, these are the kind of things I've seen too that so clearly demonstrate the total absurdity, self evident to anyone who pays attention to empirical matters, of the link age claim. The sandbox is I believe a flag that puts pages that trigger it away into somewhere else than the main result set, which is drawn I assume from the main index set. How the pages get stuck in there is interesting, but not that, since if they are in there, it's very hard to get them out.
You have to remember that for every person complaining that they "dropped" or are "sandboxed" there is someone else who has "moved up" into their place or has gotten out of the sandbox - or is happily perched at the top of the serps (i'm speaking as someone who has over a dozen "great" sites firmly mired in the sandbox right now).
When someone remarks that their new website about the Asian Tsunami doesn't rank well in Google but news sites with relatively less tsunami content (and less SEO) DO rank well...they're forgetting that those news sites are old, established websites. I wouldn't expect a brand-new site to outrank Yahoo News or the BBC!
Finally, as much as we would all love to think that we can "crack" the Google algorithm, that's simply not going to happen anytime soon. Consider the dozens of unknown variables that cannot be empirically tested (Hilltop, LocalRank, stemming, LSI, etc.) without inteference from OTHER unknown variables. It's a mathematical improbability that ANYONE would figure out how to make ANY site take the top spot for a competitive keyword for any great length of time - even though I and many others have done it. The challenge is - can one do it again? Why does one site achieve #1 and another site doesn't, even though seemingly identical measures are taken? It's because there are unknown, unquantifiable variables that we cannot discover or account for in the Google algorithm.
Do I think Google is working through issues with it's algo? Absolutely. Are they intentionally trying to prevent all new sites from ranking well for competitive terms? I highly doubt it.
So folks, if we can't get our spiffy new widget site into the top 10 after 12 months - maybe it's our problem...not Google's. I'm just as frustrated as everyone else, but perpetuating a conspiracy theory isn't going to improve the situation - though it may make us feel better.
My entire site is in the sandbox. It is very rich in content, it has over 3000 sites that link to it of which Google currently show 900 odd, The spider visits every day and takes information but doesnt put any of it in the SERPS index. It currently has over 40,000 of my pages listed when i search my domain name on Google. I have found one sector page that lists at 370 ie after loads of pages that have nothing to do with the keyword.
Meanwhile my pages are listing in the SERPS of Yahoo, the new MSN and ASK and other engines - so you tell me that Google isnt doing something in its Algo to bias towards supporting older sites in favour of New.
Manipulating their algorithm to "force" people to migrate to AdSense would bring short-term revenue gains, but in the long term the business model breaks down as people leave Google for other engines believed to return better results.
I am not really one to care as we have old, new, sandboxed, unsandboxed sites and as a whole we're fine.
However, in this case that short term gain you speak of might not be so short term. Implementation, 4 months or so pre-IPO. Lifespan, still going... all those insider selling lockups expiring or expired.
And as far as actually doing this on a long term; who said they were going to? Users don't seem to have noticed, there was a slight loss of users reported but nothing major and no media outcries. So, if they get their act together in the next few months this little sandbox might have served them very well financially without being a long term strategy. Now they'll have a larger AdWords user base than they would have and significantly larger amounts of money to work with from the IPO.
Yes, I agree, the idea that anyone would try to do something to make possibly ten times more money on an IPO, and then after when they sell off huge blocks of those 10 times overpriced shares is completely absurd, how can anyone think such a silly thing. I'm sure I'm speaking for all of us here when I say I'd never do anything that might result in my getting something like 1 billion dollars in my pocket. And I know I speak for all Venture capital firms as well, they would have no interest in any company they founded maximizing their short term profits, in fact sending them to new record levels right before the IPO, and keeping them at the level as the major stock holders start selling off those overpriced shares.
It's really beyond me how anyone could believe that any body, least of all google, who have such a cute name, could possibly do something like that. Thanks for cleaning that up, sometimes strange ideas like that creep in from somewhere, maybe it's all those business economics classes people took and you apparently missed.
A new site I put online 6 weeks ago, pertinent and offering the best info in its field, still languishes at 180-190 in G for the obvious search. The new MSN has it at #1. Google can sandbox as much as it wants, but it's no longer the only game in town, (apologies to Yahoo).
I would suggest that Google abandon whatever strategy it began with the sandbox nonsense and think in terms of fresh, pertinent serps, rather than manipulating search results in hopes of bumping up the profit margin, (to satisfy investors).
"Do no evil", eh? Nahh, just line your pockets with lots of money and claim a dodgy moral superiority.
