Google's Aging Delay for New Sites

You've Got To Pay Your Dues Many site owners and SEOs are worried because their new sites that rank well in Yahoo and MSN, aren't doing well in Google, and they're blaming it on the "sandbox." The current theory is that new sites are somehow being penalized for obtaining too many links, too quickly.

Is There a Sandbox?

Is there some sort of link analysis going on; some sort of threshold that will get links to new sites discounted? It sounds like a logical possibility. However, many of us who don't buy volume links or participate in linking networks are seeing the same ranking delays. New resource sites with a few good relevant links are taking just as long to climb Google's ranks as the instant link pop sites. I think a lot of people are confusing the sandbox, with an "aging filter" that appeared earlier this year.


6 Months For Results in Google

I haven't seen any brand new sites with new domains appear at the top of the search engine results pages (SERP) since early in 2004. There seems to be a delay of about 6-8 months. I've checked with many site owners and SEOs and I haven't found anyone who's gotten a brand new domain ranked well in Google. If there's a magic bullet, no one's spilling the beans. What happens is new sites get indexed, they appear for some obscure queries and they may appear at the top for a week or so, but then they drop to the bottom of the SERP for several months. The page shows a PageRank in the Google toolbar, as well as backlinks. Everything else works fine but it just doesn't rank well for any terms in Google. Many times, not even the company name.

I thought this was quite some interesting info.

 

Thats very annoying, experiencing it now too, what I wonder is, does it also happen to new PAGES you create? Let's say you have domaina.com ranked nr1 for keyword domaina, you make a page domaina.com/new.php can you get that page ranked quick or does the sandbox effect also appeers on that new page while the real domain doesn't have the sandbox effect?

 

I have a long #1 ranked domain and recently added many new pages but they are all sandboxed, the domain has PR5 and remains at this PR. Also the old pages which are replaced by the new, but are still on the server without internal links to cover links from external sites are still ranked PR3-5

 

Here's a link to the full article.

 

Í have just had a site released from the sandbox today. My client rebranded and we repointed the old domain with a 403. Many of the links were from group companies (on different servers & continents) who were happy to relink to the new domain.

It has taken 8 months and a lot of stressfull meetings to get back in the SERPs.

I'm gonna have a party if the site is still listed tomorrow.

 

I have to agree their must be some type of a filter or sandbox I really did not give much credit to the theory until today.

I have 26 keywords that i track for my site while i have held top positions for many of these keywords in Y and Msn for several months I was unable to make much headway with G until now in the last few days i went from 1 keyword in the top spot to 16 keywords in the top spot some of them from positions >200. 14 of these I hold the #1 and #2 spot and 9 out of the remaining 10 are <26
either I just came out of the box or some filter was changed!!
I started seo on this site in sep 04.

 

That's right, I submitted an webpage on tsunami before 25 days and is still not indexed..
__________________

Online Directory | Advertising | Business | Computing | Healthcare | Human Resources | Industry | Money |Shipping and Transportation |Telecommunications

 

I tend to agree with this. I think that all new sites (I'm not sure about pages as I've not seen this) are filtered in some way. This happens despite your linking strategy. I hear lots of people advocate just building 2-3 links per day in an attempt to avoid the sand box - this I don't agree with, firstly beacuse I don't believe this works and secondly if your competitors sites have several thousand IBLs, then it'll take several years to get up to this level. I'd rather be sandboxed for a few months than not comepete for severl years.

I think Google may be shooting themselves in the foot with this policy. With stagnated SERPS and little fresh content people will soon start looking elsewhere.

 

I personally believe in the sandbox theory when it comes to new sites, but not new pages. I think that new pages on old sites are indexed immediately and hit the SERPs quickly. This piece from the article that is listed above sort of validates the new page question:

Pages on subdomains are generally treated as part of the main
domain, making them a possible workaround. If your client has
the option of building their site on a subdomain instead of a
new top-level domain name, let them know that this may avoid
the time delay.

 

I've never experienced this 'sandbox' effect...
An example:
site I created just 2 days ago already 25 pages indexed and in serps...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:www.facko.com
I think as long as you have natural links pointed at it there won't be any sandbox.

 

I am not a firm believer of the sandbox theory. I have a domain registered 24th January which has been ranked number one on google for the last 3 weeks for a moderate keyword. On the other hand I had a previous site which took 3 months to rank using the same techniques, so there does appear to be a delay for some sites compared with others, what the criteria for selection is who knows.

 

well, most people seem to think that a new site jumps to the top of the rankings for about a week, then plummet to the nether regions for a couple of monthes, and then slowly come back towards the top if they are good.

I am launching a new site in the next two weeks so I hope you are correct. With that said, I put up an old site that we don't use anymore on the domain about a month ago so google will start indexing it. Then, when I launch the new site, google will be used to going there.

 

I created a landing page and 2 days later it was indexed ald already sending visitors from Google.

Maybe big sites suffer, but landing pages and minisites have no problem at all.

 

The sandbox doesn't affect the site being indexed and cached but the appearance of that site in the SERPS for any competitive keywords, is your site ranking well for any of your search terms?

I've several sites that were built around the tail end of last year. They are ranking well in Yahoo and MSN but now showing in Google. I'm not expecting them to either for another couple of months. However they are showing well if inanchor: and allinanchor: searches.

 

What exactly is a landing page?

 

A page that is optimised for a particular search term designed to rank highly in the SERPS for that term

 

My site (see my sig) has the sub-domain nicely indexed, but the main domain is not. Although recently the main www domain has been appearing in the SERPs but only as the domain name with no extra info.

I think if Yahoo and MSN marketed themselves as search engines rather than do-anything portals they would find they could get a lot of people coming who would not switch back to G when they realize how old G's DB is. At the moment only people on these kinds of forums know what a poor service G is starting to look like, particularly next to the new MSN.

They really have to stop letting stuff like the sandbox happen, because if the consumer gets wind of it, they will go over to the other side.

 

Exatly after 9 months our site was out. Even on the started on 21, ended on 21 nine moths later.

There IS a sandbox.

 

What criteria do people use who believe in the sandbox to establish when a site comes out of it?

 

I'd simply say when it starts appearing in the SERPS for your keywords. If it's not going to appear anyway then you'd have no way of telling, sandbox or not