Sandbox Avoidance Technique?

How would you guys weight pros and contras of doing the following to avoid SB having to much of effect on a site, slated for future development.
Say, you have an idea for a site, but don't have time to get to it right away You put together a simple one-two page micro site that basically says "come back half a year later, and you'll see the best website in the world about ...". Then you put a single link to it from an established site and pretty much leave it to "age" so to speak for five to six months. Then, six months later, you go back to the site that's probably a month away from coming out of the sandbox "age" filter, and start building the content as well as getting links.

I guess main downside of this approach as I can see it is the fact that with only one or two pages you won't even notice that a site is out of the sandbox because the traffic is going to be a miser anyways. However, in my experience, any improvement (added content, on-page optimization or IBLs) that you do on a site that's not in the sandbox is worth ten times any improvement you do on a brand new site. For the same amount of time it takes.

Any other downsides to this approach I don't see here?

 

there are some alternate theories about the sandbox and that age isn't really the qualifying factor...

Anyway, sure I throw 1-3 page mini sites and get them indexed. Every couple of weeks I go back and add *something* even if it's just a small something. A get BLs as I'm getting them for other sites. And then when I have the time to make a big push I don't worry about the SB.

The one thing I would recomend is keeping any and all affiliate, ads, paypal, etc. stuff off the site for at least 3 months - 6 is probably better. Anything having to do with asking for money will likely trip the SB filter.

Also, avoid irrelevant links. G has to catagorize your site and BLs from unrelated sources confuse it also making a SB effect.

I don't have solid proof for these things but it is what I am working with and seems to be doing well so far.

 

Three theories that are 100% false in my experience.

I have done what you are talking about, but I never leave them for very long...maybe a month or two before I get around to developing them.

 

Thanks, Randall. The SEO business is rarely based on solid proof, therefore personal opinions from trusted sources will suffice

Your approach seems to be a good one. It does, however, achieve the same effect: it pushes the actual “grand opening” of the site few months into the future. It also takes your focus off your other, mainstream projects. If you are like me, I have about 10 different themes that interest me, and I want a site developed for each. In addition to that there are 10-some themes that seem to interest PPC advertisers, if you know what I mean There is hardly enough hours in the day to properly follow up on ALL the sites’ needs. I have to admit, I have been trying to do what you have just suggested here: adding a little here and a little there, but I realized that by the time you add a page of meaningful content to every one of the 10 sites, the day is pretty much over. There is no time for any strategy or bookkeeping or even link building (let alone any socializing ) Besides, all the efforts you put into a brand new site seem to be for pretty much nothing (with or without ads – I tried both ways), whereas the same time you put into an established site seem to provide good return in visits, sales, clicks and whatever else you consider a conversion.

This is why I’m thinking of delaying any time expenditure on a site until it may become old enough not to suffer from the SB just so the development time is spent more effectively. This should hold if SB exists, and I hear what you are saying. It is very much possible that SB is not a single directly applied filter but a combination of filters that make it seem like the age matters, but in reality it does not.

 

Either way, the SB effect doesn't start until the site is indexed. And a major change in structure can get it reboxed. So tread carefully.

"Maybe a month or two is not what I said, is it? I take exception with the word "experience" since you admit yourself you don't have it.

This doesn't mean that I'm right. Just that I don't understand the point of your post.

 

It is interesting that people believe that the sandbox may not actually be down to the age of a site. I read everywhere that any new site is sandboxed in Google as a matter of course, but it would be very interesting if someone could shed light on the other factors that could lead to sand boxing like building links too quickly.

I have noticed a pattern emerging with the negative effects of affiliate links, perhaps this is a deciding factor in sandbox-ability?

 

rmccarley, I don't remember saying I don't have experience. I said that your statements were wrong in my experience. My experience is 35 sites and 2 years of experience.

This wasn't directed at your rmccarley, it was directed at the OP, in regard to leaving holder pages on a domain until you are ready to develop it.

brandon

 

Ah. Gotcha.

I had a conversation with a Russian developer at SC that said Russian sites aren't sandboxed. He said that happened on other foreign languages as well. His speculation was that G didn't understand those languages well enough to apply a sandbox filter.

He also suspected that the sandbox had a lot to do with catagorizing a site. Sites that spread a net too wide, instead of specializing get sandboxed. That's why adding garbage text after a search phrase will often show a different, usually higher position for your site in the SERPs. Same with te allins. But the standard search has to confirm your relevancy and that is done by catagorizing the site based on content and BLs. The BLs work in a PR or TR fashion. Starting with sites that are hubs or authorities and then tracking the links back to your site to confirm that it really does belong in that spot. If you get off-topic BLs as in the case of SEOs that get hundreds or thousands of links pointed at new sites, it confuses your catagorization. It isn't until this is all sorted out that your site gets released. Also, it would explain slow gains as G is in the process of sorting those links and getting closer to deciding where your site belongs.

Anyway, it's not my theory, but it is a good one.

I think the sandbox gets tripped by money matters. Any ads, affiliate links, etc. get you in the box. I think this is done to force new sites to purchase Adwords so they can appear in G's results - it's the only way to do it if you don't get in the organic search and ignoring the potential traffic from G is foolish. This is the simplest explanation in my eyes and most likely right. I'm working on disproving both theories.

 

First - I think the come back in six months is a terrible idea - why not just put up an "under construction" flashing sign and plan on waiting an additional six to twelve months after removal before serious search engines take you seriously?

The sandbox can generally be avoided altogether if you have a good diet of eating your P's in my opinion.

Professionalism
Persistence
Patience

Build a good site, get good incoming links, do not be in a hurry to over-react trying to build too many links too fast, and continue to incrementally add content after the bots have indexed you.

I have continually built sites over the past year for myself and others and none have been playing in the phantom sandbox at anytime.

Example One:

elizabethtown-yoga.com - you can view the whois and see that the domain was just registered a less than three months ago, we launched her site less than two months ago; seach Google for "elizabethtown yoga"

Example Two:

weaver2006.org - the domain we registered on 10-Nov and had to have it live by 16-Nov so it is still a work in progress, but not a toy in the sandbox; search Google for "election 2006 countdown" or "kentucky 2nd district" or many other term.

I don't think it's a monetary issue at all - you'll find AdWords, Overture, etc. campaigns running for these sites or any other that I'm involved with - it's about eating your P's.

 

W.R., not to rain on your parade, but I have a different take on that. For any one of my sites that I consider sandboxed (now 2 to 6 months old) at the moment there is a set of 20-100 (or maybe little more) key phrases that are so unique that this site's pages show up on SERP1, sometimes #1. With little competition (I'm talking less than 500,000 pages competing for the phrase) on-site factors like title, H1 or URL seem to outweigh the SB filter (or combination of filters). I do get about hundred of referrals from G per day per site, but I still consider those sites sandboxed because a 5 y.o. site that has approximately the same number of indexed pages and similar theme (in the same industry, anyways) receives 10,000+ referrals per day.
I’m just curious: how many referrals a day you get for “election 2006 countdown” ? I’m not picking on you, I’m just trying to see how far can a #1 SERP get you on a rare phrase like this.

 

I'm with 1-script on this one. The KWs you mentioned are *not* competitive. It isn't a matter of being more professional - it's a matter of taking a bigger risk and targeting a tougher KW. I'm sure I could throw up a site today that will rank for "elizabethtown yoga" by the end of Thursday. There's no challenge in that.

 

Those are but two examples.

However, I will concede that the more competitve the keyword market the more likely there is to be a sandbox effect.

Sadly, this is almost a necessary evil as Google is trying to weed out sites trying to spam the Net solely for generating AdSense revenue etc.

I've been able to replicate the process though with other sites and more competitive keywords.

I think the other problem with some sites, is going after unrealistic keywords right out of the shoot.

There's nothing wrong with being ambitous, but thinking you'll come out of the shoot for "webmaster" is not realistic.

Trying to generate traffic to a page on a plethora of keywords is also unlikely - IMO, it's better to find a less competive phrase and as you gain recognition, traffic and SE trust, you can modify to more competitive terms.

"female celebrity news" "female celebrity pictures" and "female celebrities" should all bring up freshdames.com very nicely in Google for another example.

another example is "elizabethown ky" to wit you'll easily find etowninfo.com on Google, Yahoo, MSN and others.

Maybe I've had some good and even dumb luck.

Maybe I've not gone after the most competitive keywords.

But I still hold to the fact that following the 3 P's, particularly patience, seems to work for most.

Maybe I should add an "R" to my diet - be realistic?

 

LOL - I think the R is a good idea, but I also think you are still missing something when it comes to SEO: there is no place here for patience. It is a necesary evil because we have been unale to out-think the SEs but we should always be striving to get our sites ranked higher, faster.

 

That particular "P" is in my diet because I continually see site owners over react to every little alleged change, tweak, and algo modification. What tends to happen more oft than not is a an over correction ... but your point is well put, valid and taken. Thanks.

 

I agree about the over-reaction stuff, too.

 

I don't have any pee in my diet...