1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Theory: The Sandbox is a flat, 90 day period

Discussion in 'Search Engine Optimization' started by kneukm03, Nov 30, 2006.

  1. #1
    I've been to this forum a LOT and know the frustration of being in the sandbox - or not knowing whether your web site is there or needs some other changes. Another poster here, mjewel, has posted several times claiming he thinks that the sandbox only lasts 3-4 months - and I tested this on a blog I launched that seems to show this exact result. You can read the posts about it here (the first post where I explain what I think the sandbox is and make predictions) and here (where all the predictions at least seem to come true).

    The short summary of what I think about it:

    1) The sandbox is a 90-day holding period, and it will be slightly longer because it takes Google time to crawl / find your site after you put it up. Think four months.

    2) If you've been waiting longer, you are not sandboxed. You either have another filter applied or don't have good enough links, and you need to fix your site - waiting will not help you and is counterproductive.

    3) The sandbox only applies to certain phrases. It's very hard to tell exactly what these are, but one example I am certain of is "forums." A sandboxed site won't rank for searches with that word in them - but it will for very similar searches without it. Just because you are getting some searches doesn't mean you're out.

    4) There's an easy test to figure out when your site has been released from the Sandbox: find some long phrases that are titles for your pages where no other site on the Internet contains the exact text, but doesn't rank. I had an example of one in my predictions post, where I didn't rank in the top 200. I can be sure I'm out of the sandbox because now I'm number one, where I thought I "should" rank.

    I'm open to any comments on it. And if you've got an SEO site or blog and like them, hook me up with a link to the posts (or even a digg). Shameless promotion of my site? Yeah - but I'm also revealing pretty detailed information about it for nothing, and I think it's of help to anyone out there who doesn't believe it exists or is waiting around thinking they're in the Sandbox (I've been there myself on other sites). If you think there's a hole in the theory you're welcome to let me know too :)
     
    kneukm03, Nov 30, 2006 IP
  2. mdvaldosta

    mdvaldosta Peon

    Messages:
    4,079
    Likes Received:
    362
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    I respectfully disagree with 1, 2, 3, and 4. I've seo'd dozens of websites (some sandboxed, others not) and none of what you suggested happened in a predictable pattern.

    1. Had a website be sandboxed for 11 months before it started showing signs of coming out. Took about 6 months to become fully out. Evidence of being sandboxed was that the site was being outranked for even it's own name (no competition), as it started ranking for it's name it began ranking for other terms. Meanwhile MSN was sending a good amount of traffic. This site had backlinks in DMOZ, Yahoo Directory, MSN Small Business, Wikipedia, and authority sites in it's niche. After fully escaping the "sandbox" the site gets 1/4 million uniques / month and is still growing. I have a dozen other sites just like this, in various stages. Sometimes the sandbox lasts a year, sometimes a few months, sometimes not at all. I'm not talking about 3 or 4 work keyphrases here that bring in a dozen referrals a day, I'm talking 1 word money phrases. For the long tail key terms, sites can rank for those relatively soon.

    2. Obviously these sites had good enough links, nothing on the sites to "fix", and waiting was all that was necessary.

    3. It applies to all phrases, though the more competitive phrases seem to extend the sandbox period.

    4. I don't agree with that test, the best way to find out if your sandbox is with allinanchor searches or using regular search terms mixed with stopwords.

    My experience shows the "sandbox" is more of an age filter. Seems new backlinks are devalued, often even hurting the site's rank depending on where they're coming from and in what quantity. As the backlinks age, they become full valued, thus the site's rankings increase. Depending on the keyword's competition or spam likelyhood, there may be a longer filter on the links.

    My best guess for getting out of the "sandbox" faster would be to build links in a natural way, with varying anchor text to varying pages from other site's in it's niche along with other general authority type sites.
     
    mdvaldosta, Nov 30, 2006 IP
  3. kneukm03

    kneukm03 Active Member

    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    88
    #3
    My response to that would be that I don't think you're talking about the sandbox. A site can fail to show up for 11 months in Google for reasons other than the age, ranging from duplicate content to bad links to repetitive use of keywords. I think most of the people who think they're in the sandbox for that long have other problems with the sites. For 3-4 months they can't rank because of the "sandbox," a flat time filter. For the remaining seven, my guess is that your site couldn't rank because of either other penalties or because it didn't have the required "juice" in Google (most likely).

    I don't want to try to make my response an attack on your sites, but I also think we may have different ideas about what kind of backlinks are good enough, just based on looking at the sites in your signature. For example, the Political Forums one has these:

    http://www.mixposure.com/listen.php?genre=Ska (a random footer link)

    http://forum.time2dine.co.nz/christchurch-restaurants/just-food-cafe-2955.html

    (another footer)

    http://www.nzportal.co.nz/government/ (random directory link)

    http://www.shark.cc/ (paid footer link)

    It's also got some that I'd consider "good links" because they look like real ones:

    http://aproudliberal1.blogspot.com/

    http://www.zoopolitics.com/

    And it ranks, so it must be out. I will point out that I have tried links on several of my sites that are the exact same kind as the ones you have that I'm classifying as "bad," so this isn't a personal attack on you. But I don't think those links are counting, and if you're only getting those kinds of links on a certain site I don't think it's that you're in the sandbox - it's that Google isn't giving you credit for the links. I think after the 4 month period, you're out - and with good links and no site problems, would be ranking. I'll emphasize again that I've tried the same kind of links as you have - with those I see a jump at 3-4 months, but not a big one, and the sites have yet to start ranking well after over a year. I don't think that links in a footer of a random, unrelated site with ten other links there are ever going to "age" or become useful - they just won't count.
     
    kneukm03, Nov 30, 2006 IP
  4. kneukm03

    kneukm03 Active Member

    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    88
    #4
    One other point about allinanchor: - those sorts of tests are inaccurate in my experience. There are often many spam / junk sites that show up there that will never get ranked, because it is not the newness that is the problem - so they don't give you a good idea of a "real" rank your site would get. The reason I like testing based on unique titles in your threads is that it will be clear that some of them rank, while some don't - and it's obvious that certain "commercial" words or phrases are triggering this. If the sandbox applies to all phrases, it doesn't make sense that I can rank #1 on a new site for blah blah blah blah but not rank at all for blah blah blah forums. If you're the only one on the Internet with a long phrase in the title of a page on your site, you will generally rank for it absent some kind of filter. And it also makes it clear that the sandbox is why it's been lifted - general filters or lack of links block you from appearing on nearly everything (which is what you've experienced). The sandbox only applies to some phrases, but not others.
     
    kneukm03, Nov 30, 2006 IP
  5. mdvaldosta

    mdvaldosta Peon

    Messages:
    4,079
    Likes Received:
    362
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    Actually the politics site you're referring to doesn't rank well at all, about 1k uniques / day. Part of the reason is that it doesn't have good backlinks - which you've pointed out. That site never really found it's way into a "sandbox" btw, even with those links... : )

    We're talking about the same thing, it's just that you're referring to long tail searches "blah blah blah blah" and I'm referring to "blah" searches.
     
    mdvaldosta, Nov 30, 2006 IP
  6. disgust

    disgust Guest

    Messages:
    2,417
    Likes Received:
    133
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    you do not get out of the sandbox automatically. you do not get out of the sandbox automatically. you do not get out of the sandbox automatically.

    everyone should be forced to say that before posting here ;)

    you're sandboxed until you establish enough trust. time is one element of trust but it's not the only one. it's possible to have a site sandboxed essentially forever because of trust issues. for example, if you have poor incoming links.

    sites that were never sandboxed don't face the same problem.
     
    disgust, Nov 30, 2006 IP
  7. minnseoelite

    minnseoelite Peon

    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    15
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    while i dont think there is any set method to the sandbox madness i have found that certian sites like myspace resource sites seem to have no sandbox what so ever. the reason i say this is I have launched 6 of them in the last 4 months and they all end up ranking for at least 2 of their targeted keywords within a month with one of them ranking within its first week.

    the only therory i have for escaping the sandbox for your nich is to copy the link stratagy of the top 10 sites for your targeted keywords.

    1. Get links from the same sites as them
    2. Try to get links from them
    3. Check the age of the top domains and the number of incoming links this will give you a rough idea of how quickly to build your sites incoming links.
    4. Vary your links anchor text between 5 - 10 keyword variations

    The following link ratio has also worked good for me

    1. 60% of incoming links are one way from related sites
    2. 30% of incoming links are one way from directories and articles
    3. 10% of incoming links are reciprocal
     
    minnseoelite, Nov 30, 2006 IP
  8. disgust

    disgust Guest

    Messages:
    2,417
    Likes Received:
    133
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    I agreed with most of your post but I can't agree with this.

    your competition may have a trusted site and may be able to get away with a LOT of tactics that you can't. they can have tons of junk links and it'll work for them. doesn't mean you should copy them.
     
    disgust, Nov 30, 2006 IP
  9. minnseoelite

    minnseoelite Peon

    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    15
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #9

    agreed i think what i meant to say was to copy their QUALITY incoming links
     
    minnseoelite, Nov 30, 2006 IP
  10. bdw

    bdw The Booler

    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    I must disagree with the three month speculation. I have had sites sandboxed for up to 15 months. I also had one site that was not sandboxed at all and started ranking almost immediately. (Happy client)

    I have analysed this site and can find no reason for this.
     
    bdw, Dec 1, 2006 IP
  11. kneukm03

    kneukm03 Active Member

    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    88
    #11
    The problem is that you're restating what I'm questioning - the idea that the "trust" is part of the "Sandbox." Let's say there are only three filters:

    1) No domain younger than 3 months may rank well in Google.

    2) No domain with duplicate content may rank well in Google.

    3) No domain with less than X links may rank well in Google.

    Obviously this is a gross oversimplification and not how it really works, but it makes it easier to understand what I'm saying. Say you have a domain that meets #1 and #3. For 3 months, it won't rank because of both reasons. One day later, it only meets #3. Yet it still doesn't rank - because it still has less than X links. That goes on for 9 more months - then the site gets enough links and begins to rank in Google. To the webmaster, their site has not ranked for 12 months total since they started it. It looks like a 12 month stay in the sandbox - hence everyone saying "I was in for 5 months" or whatever period.

    What I'm saying is that I think the filter that affects NEW sites as opposed to ANY site is some kind of flat, 3 month filter on your site. That is the only thing that can be properly termed "the Sandbox" because it's the only filter that could apply ONLY to a new site. When you talk about trust or duplicate content or not enough links, you're not talking about the same thing - those all are restrictions or filters that can be imposed on any site regardless of age.
     
    kneukm03, Dec 1, 2006 IP
  12. kneukm03

    kneukm03 Active Member

    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    88
    #12
    The problem I have with this point is that it is plain that whatever filter Google is applying to new sites does not filter out every search term - only phrases and terms that have been deemed somehow to need protection from spam. I can start a site today and get searches from Google within a week or two. There is no limit based on the number of terms (I've gotten one word searches that quickly). But there is some kind of limit based on what words are in the search, designed to keep new sites from ranking for certain kinds of terms. I've seen lots of people point out that they rank immediately for some stuff in Google, and I've seen it myself on pretty much every site - but I have yet to see a new site that didn't seem to be filtered on some commercial phrases. I test this as I described by searching randomly for titles that seem to be unique - some don't rank when the site is new and some do, and I haven't been able to figure out a pattern. My guess is it's certain words that cause the "Sandbox filter" to apply. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't some other filter on that site I was referring to - it was straight up normal blog links to the site, no goofy SEO or anything out of the ordinary.

    I do have one proposed experiment that would test at least part of what I think: rank for a search phrase that includes the word "forums" within 3 months after starting your website. My guess is it can't be done on a new domain, although I don't know what would happen if you tried a truly long tail search. Maybe that should be the next SEO contest.
     
    kneukm03, Dec 1, 2006 IP
  13. disgust

    disgust Guest

    Messages:
    2,417
    Likes Received:
    133
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #13
    no, you're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

    I'm saying things like duplicate content (to some extent), the number of links, the quality of links, the rate of link development, etc, are all monitored more closely on newer sites.

    if you're careful with a new site you can rank just fine. you just need to be VERY careful. if you don't do anything to challenge your trust and you do more things to gain trust, you can rank fine... despite age.

    old sites don't have to worry about it to nearly the same extent. a lot of people do really dumb link building, etc, on a new site, and it won't rank pretty much forever. that is part of the sandbox. that behavior started in google the same time the sandbox came out.

    an old site can have a new page put up, have 10,000 new incoming links pushed at it overnight, and it'll rank fine for the term in days.

    if you do that on a new site it'll completely tank.
     
    disgust, Dec 3, 2006 IP
  14. mikelombardy

    mikelombardy Peon

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    I have read in various forums that traffic to sandboxed sites increases after each Pr update. has this trend been true with your sites .
     
    mikelombardy, Jan 13, 2007 IP
  15. S.Phoenix

    S.Phoenix Peon

    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    The theory of kneukm03 is quite fine.

    And to answer you mikelombardy, i believe you said the truth. My blog is on the sandbox and now, after this pr update my visits started to increase.

    But is still really really low compared to the period i was not on the sandbox.

     
    S.Phoenix, Jan 18, 2007 IP
  16. pete917

    pete917 Peon

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #16
    I seem to be hitting around 90-120 days. I have never managed it sooner. On the other hand, Google is always first to index new sites for me.....and of course MSN is always last :-(
     
    pete917, Jan 25, 2007 IP
  17. patrox

    patrox Member

    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    48
    #17
    One of my site didn't get sandboxed at all, brand new domain, just did about 20 link exchange with relevant sites ( i mean real link exchanges, not burried in some sort of links.html page ). No sandbox, front page in 2 weeks with the keywords i wanted.
    Another one of my site : no link exchange, only "low quality" free directories, sandboxed for 13 months.

    Both sites have top listings on yahoo and msn.

    pat.
     
    patrox, Jan 27, 2007 IP
  18. kgrad

    kgrad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    82
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    130
    #18
    I read in another forum, that sandbox is a totally hypothetical concept, and so the details do not matter.
     
    kgrad, Jan 29, 2007 IP
  19. davidboyd

    davidboyd Peon

    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #19
    The sandbox....I was looking at stats from a brand new site I started last year and you can see on the traffic trends after 3 months the traffic ramps up...I reckon it only took 3 months to get out of the hypothetical sandbox
     
    davidboyd, Feb 1, 2007 IP
  20. amnezia

    amnezia Peon

    Messages:
    990
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #20
    the length of time spent in the sandbox differs depending on the type and length of keywords which you are targetting
     
    amnezia, Feb 1, 2007 IP