Why do some sites escape the Sandbox filtering effect?

Although there is a consensus that google implements some sort of ageing ‘delay’ or ‘filter’ for new sites, there are many, many examples of a new site avoiding this process. How is this possible? Is it not the case that strong promotion, good backlinks and massive traffic levels from day one will ensure that a new site is immediately included in the organic SERP results?

This is the only reason I can think of that many new sites from existing multinationals, which are very heavily promoted and linked to, begin to show immediately. Or it is because a new site from a ‘trusted’ multinational company will always be highly ranked from day one?

If traffic is indeed a factor, what would be talking from day one – thousands of hits per day, or tens of thousands?

Opinions please.

 

The sandbox only applies for certain competitive keywords so if you target a non-competitive keyword you will not be sandboxed.

If a site appears in the news then this can help it to avoid the sandbox. You can bet that a multinational will publicise their new site on lots of news websites so this may be how they avoid the sandbox.

 

Am I correct in assuming that only after paying for a press release did Alex Tew's 'Million Dollar Homepage' really take off? I'm sure that if you are mentioned on the BBC or CNN homepage, for example, then your site will not only see huge traffic levels, but will more than likely be seen by google as 'trusted' ... and therefore deemed worthy of inclusion in the organic SERPs.

 

Hi Jack ... if there is one word that could describe the sandbox phenomenon it would be vague.

If you believe Matt Cutts then the sandbox was actually a mistake, a by-product of a new algorithm that somehow developed. How the sandbox happened is debatable, it's existence is not. How you can get out is debatable also.

Here are some suggestions to help you.

• 301 all non-www traffic to www to avoid any duplicate content penalties.
• Open a blog and start link baiting.
• Write a few 'throw-away' articles and submit them to article directories.
• Release a press release, pay about $100 for greater exposure. (Ask Subnixus about his experience.)
• Get good one-way inbound links from established directories.

Then you could build up a small network of sites (blogs / reviews / articles / forums etc) around your core site (all on different IP addresses, with different registrants) and point 'natural' looking links back to your main site. Release free articles for syndication, a few press releases for your network sites and you should be on your way.

One piece of advice is that if you can make your website work with traffic from MSN / Yahoo, then you'll find that doing business is much easier once you are in Google and ranking.

Just my thoughts ... hope they help.

<added>But to answer your question, getting direct links from established and trusted news sites (like BBC, CNN, MSNBC) would definitely help. But I don't know whether those links would be enough to get you out in themselves.</added>

 

Thanks for the reply Andy.

Due to the adult nature of my site, I think it's unlikely that either the BBC or CNN would dare to give it a mention - regardless of the story. I have spent some time buying links and submitting to key, well Page Ranked directories and this has certainly helped. I have almost 20,000 Yahoo backlinks and my results on MSN are Yahoo are excellent for a three-month-old site (many #1 keywords). When searching google for my domain (without or without spaces), I see many results. Hopefully these will be converted into backlinks after the next update. I'm also optimistic that the PR4 will become a 5 ...

What we must remember however is how much is spent on AdWords by new sites that need a google presence - my site included.

Mistake or not, the Sandbox or ageing filter has certainly helped google to massively increase Adwords advertising revenue.

A remarkably fortunate mistake I'm sure you'd agree.

 

Well that would not appear natural to google and would put you firmly away from the leaderboard in your competitive terms, you dont always need tens of thousands of links.

I have 2 year old sites with 20 backlinks that rank well.

 

The Number #1 site for all my keywords has almost identical links on the same site - just more of them.

 

But what age is the number one site? If it is pre-2004 they can basically get away with doing whatever they want. Your new site is subject to a totally different set of rules.

I've got a site on engagement gifts that is coming up on 2 years old and is still sandboxed, even though it has plenty of links. Sadly it depends on age, who links to you and all that.

And yes ... the sandbox has a fortunate side-effect in terms of AdWords spend.

 

A very good point. The site in question is three years old - and it's now for sale on SEDO.

 

If it's within your budget, I'd buy it.

 

I've actually been giving it some serious thought. Take a look at the site in question - search for 'London Escorts' - and tell me, is it worth £100K?

Not according to the google allin: results it isn't ...

 

Is it worth 100k? probably not. Could it save you 100k on adwords? Maybe.

 

I never get Sand Boxed by Google. My sites are usually indexed in search with in 2 to 3 weeks or less. I never submit my site to google like alot of internet submission services tell you to do. I start my one way link campaign and let google find me from crawling other sites that contain my link. It has worked for me and my clients every time. Try it.

 

Have you got top rankings for a competitive term for a new site? An example?

 

I believe xtra large content can make a site beat the sandbox

 

Any multinational, any site from someone famous in their niche, has to be highly visible in Google. If it can't be quickly found, searchers expecting to find it will go elsewhere and while there may well find features to their liking and not come back. Thus Google stands to lose potential click-through revenue so it won't want that. This explains the very brief time BMW vanished and why so very very many sites survive high in the serps despite obviously spamming.

BB

 

I'd be interested to see your definition of the Sandbox. I suspect you're confused with mere indexing.

BB

 

If Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione and, um, oh I dunno, Traci Lords, went on national tv tomorrow wearing t-shirts (a wet one for Traci, I think!) extolling the virtues of your site and it was prominently featured in Playboy and Penthouse, you'd be out of the Sandbox faster than a Brit Slapper can drop her knickers. If Google know that people will be going to the index expecting to find "that site that was on the telly" or in the papers or wherever, then Google will make plenty sure that people can easily find it - if they can't, they'll be off to an engine where they can and once there they may well choose to stay there.

BB

 

I think a sandbox is a graph for you pr to go up. Some site have a long up road travel. Other don't

 

I don't know about this sandbox thing, either. I have new sites that are indexed within 24 hours by google, msn, yahoo etc and I don't do a thing to get that happening. The london maps site is an example - it was set up about 4 months ago, is now PR5 (and was that within 8 weeks), gets lots of good hits via search engines, I have about 3 backlinks (although I link to it from other sites I own) and is slowly building up its uniques per day. It also has an awful lot of content. But I have other sites with almost no content, and they're there on google within 24 hours as well. I remember one domain I set up with a single index page and google was there crawling through within 15 minutes of me uploading the page.