Has the Sandbox been Abandoned?

[phantombookman]

Sorry to start a new thread but felt it may warrant it.

I have been posting in favour of the Sandbox's existence and I have 2 sites firmly stuck in the sand!

However...
2 weeks ago I registered a brand new domain and started to build a new site. I knew it would be at least 6 months before anything happened but..

This morning it entered the index for the first time - straight on page one for a one word search (a town, granted only 194,000 matches) but none the less the last 2 sites still cannot achieve similar results after 6 months.

Also preliminary early pages ranking very well
The site has only one incoming link, no adsense, banners or anything, vanilla html etc.

Built as per my last 2 sites so clearly something has changed!
Regards and hope to all
Rod

[skunker]

Are they even talking about this in the supporter's forum? Might be a good time to join, lol.

[siteseo]

Someone should compile a list of everything we DO know about the sandbox, or at least everything that's been TESTED:
* large sites vs. small
* niche sites versus malls
* new domains vs. expired domains (purchased and re-purposed or re-directed)
* shared hosting vs. unique IP
* inclusion in DMOZ or Yahoo Directory vs. not
* outbound links vs. no outbound links
* outbound affiliate links vs. none, and # per page
* outbound links to "authority" sites vs. none
* submitted manually to Google vs. allow G to discover
* Adwords vs. no and AdSense vs. no
* link to Google vs. no link to G
* Google Search on the site vs. no
* <H1> or <H2> tags vs. no
* high keyword density vs. low kw density
* blog / RSS / forum vs. none
* duplicate content vs. none
* lots more...

There are tons of factors to consider. Here's a classic:
-new domain (4 mo's)
-keywords in domain (keyword1-keyword2.com)
-included in DMOZ (but not updated in G Directory yet)
-dozens of inbound text links from quality, relevant sites
-several outbound text links to authority sites from home page
-several outbound text links to highly relevant sites (same keywords) from partners page
-maximum of 3 affiliate links per page
-forum
-no adwords or adsense
-site map & text navigation
-shared IP address

This site ranks well for non-competitive terms but not in top 100 for primary, competitive term. I've recently added AdSense to the site and purchased AdWords for non-competitive phrases. Site is 2nd on MSNBeta for the primary, competitive keyword (800+ searches per day, 287,000 results in Google). This isn't alot of competition, yet this site has been on the beach for the first four months of it's life. I'm rolling out another, similar site but taking a completely different tack.

Surprised no-one has registered googlesandbox.com ;-)

[Rollo]

I just started a new, faily large site with lots of pages and lots on inbound links. For the first time ever, Yahoo has beat Google in indexing both the index page and subpages. Google has finally got around to picking up the index, but still no subpages. Google in the past has always picked up eveything lightning fast. Googlebot also seems lethargic next to the Ink Slurp in my stats. I'm totally shocked. This is not the same Google.

[siteseo]

Rollo - that has nothing to do with the "sandbox" effect...

[skunker]

Yes, I rollo' in the sanbox a lot.

[DerekH]

Google has finally got around to picking up the index, but still no subpages. Google in the past has always picked up eveything lightning fast. Googlebot also seems lethargic next to the Ink Slurp in my stats. I'm totally shocked. This is not the same Google.

siteseo mysteriously added

Rollo - that has nothing to do with the "sandbox" effect...

OK, and I concur, but WHY is Google so slow in indexing and even reindexing certain pages?
Some of mine site pages have gone from daily visits to monthly visits, and yet my SERPS position is still strong.
Any answers?
DerekH

[siteseo]

From the shadows, siteseo mysteriously whispers, "lack of fresh links to your pages?"

I dunno, that's just speculation...but I bet if your pages haven't changed in awhile and there are no "fresh" links, G may stop coming around. Spiders look at date-stamps as well, and if the page doesn't get altered in a long time, they may decide to save a trip and not visit very often.

[Powdork]

Surprised no-one has registered googlesandbox.com

I didn't want to bother with any trademark issues so I chose sandlag.com

[Powdork]

Also, some claim a 'coop advertising network' of sorts will beat the sandbox, but I would personally be leery of anything that could so easily be identified and penalized. Plus, I shouldn't have to add a bunch of unrelated links to my site in order to get past something that so clearly doesn't exist. ;)

[DerekH]

siteseo wrote

From the shadows, siteseo mysteriously whispers, "lack of fresh links to your pages?"

<snip>I bet if your pages haven't changed in awhile and there are no "fresh" links, G may stop coming around. Spiders look at date-stamps as well, and if the page doesn't get altered in a long time, they may decide to save a trip and not visit very often.

Quite so. I follow your reasoning entirely. In my case, it was a site overhaul (changing some templates for presentation, rather than content) that made every page "changed" - that, and a small namechange that actually freshened about 1/4 of all the links to our site - and that was the point at which Google snubbed the popular pages, and ripped everything out of the index and made it URL only, topped off, as a coup de grace, by deciding that as it *had* all changed, none of the pages would get indexed for aeons...
From a couple of dozen pages visited almost daily, and the rest weekly, down to two pages visited in a month.
And all because I made the site LOOK nicer...
<smile>

Ah well, never mind. But yes, your explanation is entirely reasonable, and I'm sure fits the model I used to have in my head.
But on one of my sites I've moved from sandbox to socialoutcastbox, which is somehow more degrading <grin>
DerekH

PS - wondering if Google ought to say
"8 billion pages indexed and 3 billion put somewhere for later but we're not sure where"

[Spine]

Or maybe that decision by Google to save money and replace a bunch of computers with abacuses wasn't so smart after all.

[AnonyMouse]

<quote>PS - wondering if Google ought to say
"8 billion pages indexed and 3 billion put somewhere for later but we're not sure where" </quote>

Classic!

[Rollo]

Yes, I rollo' in the sanbox a lot.

Lol... My sides are killing me...

The sandbox sort of seems to be a catchall phrase for a number of issues, slow indexing may be a symptom of a larger attitude toward new sites... but just real quick... all the links are new and on-topic links, the website is new. Google is just ignoring them while Yahoo is eating them up... the MSN beta is indexing them faster as well.

I don't think the sandbox has been abandoned, only applied differently. I almost wonder if it has a semi-random component to it so as to stagger the victims so that all the top sites for certain keywords don't disappear and thereby really effect the SERPs. In our areas, all the top say 10 sites are optimized the same and have many of the same links in and out and high PRs, many are identicle in structure right down to the name of the directories.

I've got one site right in the middle of the sandbox now and the Google Team informed me there was no penalty. Furthermore, it's definitely not due to optimization/links/PR issues as websites with PR 2 and 3s with perhaps one mention of one keyword buried somewhere in the body and nothing else to recommend themselves out rank us. We're so far down, we're in the area where our SERPs neighbors aren't even on topic anymore. It wasn't a slow descent, but more like top 5 to page 13 in an instant.

My take on the sandbox is that it's sort of like the draft. Unlucky websites from the common classes get called up and sent off to Adwords while the elite get deferments. At least that seems to be the effect.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

I think most people who are savvy enough to have had success also realise that they are not 100% sure and don't want to be shot down by you and others.

Those who have been back here gloating (no need to name names - we know who they are) about having beat the sandbox for the last few weeks seem sure enough. Are you casting aspersions as to the veracity of their claims? Are you now saying that they don't know if they have beaten it?

Why don't we have a poll amongst those of use who have half a clue? How many people have sites that have been sandboxed versus those that have not?

(Please don't respond if you don't believe there is a sandbox. You guys should be happy in the knowledge that things are hunky dory so don't spoil it for those of us who are deluded and suffering from paranoia.)

Here mine! Since February I have created 12 websites and of these I am pretty sure that all 12 have been sandboxed.

[skunker]

Disney has been massively promoting their movie websites for individual films (e.g War of the Worlds) and they can't even get in Google, so they have resorted to a massive PPC campaign.