The reason Google created the sandbox

I used to think Google created the sandbox to filter out scraper sites. But now I think it's because if you have a new site and want traffic, you need google ads to do it. It's all about the money.

 

maybe for the two reasons in general google Adowrd also do that if you gate a red flag you go out of search engine but u can use google adword that really very strange i think ....
and as for sandbox ai think in the 1st place to stop scraper sites then to have money >

 

Learning english for profit and fun. .. great book.

 

Let's face it, most brand-new sites aren't really ready for the web. The sandbox keeps the results more relevant.

But also, the sandbox keeps a search engine serp spammer from creating a new domain, site, and linking heavily to it only to drive it up the serps quickly. There seems to be other filters in place to prevent heavy, unnatural linking from happening to a site out of the sandbox as well.

As far as to keep scraper sites down, they could have fixed the 302 redirect bug and shot most of them dead immediately.

 

My theory:

It was the only solution to fight mass-made money-making spam sites, heavily linked to and targetted a certain KWs and thus ranked top on the SERPs for those words. The time it took for the Google spiders to find the site, realize it was spam and ban/penalize it the creator already had made 10 new ones. Maybe some chief engineer got pissed off and decided "lets filter all new sites! That's it!".

 

It's not a good solution in my opinion. Not all new sites are not ready at first. I design sites for clients and when we launch, we are always ready for the web with what is the final version of the site for quite a while.

Now we need to do stupid things like buying domain names 6 months in advance and sitting on under-construction pages before launching the site. It's a waste of money for the hosting. What they really need is a good way of finding out which sites are crap. Unfortunately they have a technology based model as opposed to a human one so I don't see the answer.

They should have a way of flagging spam sites and then reviewing them by humans but I guess that would cost way too much. So I guess we're stuck sitting on sites and posting on this forum in frustration. Is my site sandboxed? How can I tell if I'm in the index? When will my site come out of the sandbox?

I thought search engines were meant to help people find content. Not content that is 6 months old. Oh well.

 

If that's all it is, Google can easily, partially alleviate the problem very very easily.

1. They are doing a unified login. For the following suggestion, they need real identifying info, like a credit card.
2. Allow the webmaster to communicate with Google.
3. How much does it cost for a human to review a site? $5? $10? Charge the webmaster $25 to "break" the sandbox for new sites. A human gets paid by Google to look at the site for an initial review, then once again in a random time to make sure the user didn't bait and switch for a spam site. If they get caught in spam, no refund and they can't submit again. Since most spammers autoregister domains and autogenerate content, this should nip that shit in the bud.

This way new sites can "opt-in" for a reasonable fee. And new spam sites won't get in.

Who here would pay the $25?

 

I'd pay the $25 for some sites. Especially client sites. Unfortunately that's a slippery slope. These companies never know when to stop. Look at Yahoo's yearly fee for being in their directory. It's well over $25 and you have to pay it every year forever.

 

Last I knew, Matt Cutts at Google said that the sandbox was a myth...

 

One of the least reliable sources for Google algo stuff is Google staff. I've seen googleguy assure someone of something only to later back off when it turned out he wasn't aware himself of an algo change. And GG is one knowledgeable smart guy. Other times, they misdirect people purposely. And I don't blame them. They are in a war against the spammer. All's fair in love and war. But no sandbox? I doubt that's true. There's a sandbox alright.

 

IF it is a myth, then how to explain it - other than the 302 bug or effects due to the attempted fixes. The 302 hijack bug generally ranked the page with the higher traffic (robots, I assume, and after it is up, it is impossible to beat) or the higher pagerank. A brand new site is vulnerable, as is a site that does a change in url structure or has something happen that lowers that robot traffic, such as a drastic change in content or design, or a series of server outages.

Any other theories - assuming it is a myth? Remember, GG at one time would not believe the 302 bug existed. I don't believe it will be fixed, and the 'sandbox effect' would be helpful to Google's serps.

 

sorry i think thier is a wrong with my first replay when i copy it from notepad.. anyway
what i mean that google in adword program accept your site even if you already have a red flag in search engine and i think this is also for money ... so i am with you in this point ...

 

Hossam,

Are you trying to say that it is a contradiction that they dampen new sites in their search results when they let you sign up to adsense in the other?

Or are you saying that you think they sandbox in order to force people to use adwords to promote the site to start with?

It's hard to answer when I'm not sure of the question.

 

blackbug i do not know but that what i hear in other forum and maybe that completly wrong but i hope to know is that true or not ..
they said that google let you wait a long period in order to use adword to promote your site and i hope to know is that true or not ? and happy to be in this great forum with you all ... and hope to learn more about seo

 

You're in the right place

As for the sandbox to force you to pay for adwords... well, I'll leave that to the conspiracy theorists.

 

blackbug
thanx and i think so " conspiracy theorists "
and i think sandbox is good to stop spammer. as for me i am with google in this case ...

 

Yep.. a sandbox.

Oh there is a new site, it can rank top 10 for 'web design', even though there have been quality web design sites up there doing their job for 7 years, that have evolved, got traffic are well run etc etc.

What is the likelyhood of a brand new site being a better resource than the ones there already ? Low enough to not allow new sites straight to the top.

We call that the commonsensebox

Live8 was ranking very soon after the domain registration date.

 

That's a flawed example...

I would almost certianly say that the sandbox filter was removed on that site manually...
(I mean c'mon - how embarrasing would that be)...

I also think the same applies to milliondollarhomepage.com (A more recent example)

 

I disagree, I think that a REAL natural organic linking structure is probably quite an obvious thing to pick out.

If the government sites, charities, blogs and forums worldwide suddenly take an interest in a new site then the scale and style of the linking probably has a very distinct structure.

I cant see hundreds of google news reporters making sure sites like this rank well.

What, in all the different languages ? Im sure there there are "live8 site" kind of situations daily in many countries

I would be certain that someone double checks the important ones.

 

>>I would be certain that someone double checks the important ones.

That's what I'm saying...

I don't think google is intelligent enough yet to know whether links have been built "Naturally" or not...

I've got "From the Horses Mouth" documents I'll show you next time we meet that will basically back up what I'm saying...