Google Sandboxing - again

What people call the sandbox now is to look at a process that has become very complex - and on forums, a word much abused.

A few years back, you could apparently drop a few hundred thousand links for semi-competitive keywords, and expect to rank well for them after a month or so.

This was when text link advertising really began to explode, and it seems that Google tweaked something to reduce the impact of links too quickly.

It was something only volume link builders (people who deal with links in the tens and hundred thousands) really noticed at first - content SEO’s saw nothing, of course.

Here’s a short history of how the issue was originally covered:

Google Sandboxing - an early history

It seems to have begun as a 3 month delay on link volume - I posted an example of tracked rankings on Google to try and illustrate what we meant by sandboxing then:
What the Googe Sandbox looks like

It seems Google saw from forums that something they were doing was limiting SEO efforts to manipulate their rankings - and that this was good for Google. So they expanded the concept.

I then posted an example of how 2 domains - receiving the same link building work - were ranking very differently. It seemed that the age of the domain had become a key factor in the links being discounted, with older domains being allowed more freedom with links.

Google Sandbox: Age of site and Allegra

This was before Google’s big patent on ranking factors was published, which described use of historical data for ranking purposes (among other things):

Information retrieval based on historical data

I stopped trying to cover the issue then, as “sandboxing” had already become a dirty word on forums - the debates were pointless.

Since then Google appears to have developed the sandbox further across a more complicated range of factors. At its heart is the prevention of manipulation of rankings in Google.

Now, of course, sandboxing has become a euphemism for “crap site, can’t rank”, and public discussions on sandboxing seem to pit misperception against misperception, so unlilkely to reach useful conclusions. If some SEO’s don’t see an effect - that’s great for them.

An interesting suggestion of how Google could apply historical data for counting/discounting links, was covered at Threadwatch a while back:
Google and the Golden Ratio.

My first impression of the claim for using phi was “tinhat conspiracy”. But after thought, it would have a brilliant simplicity than can certainly appeal to Google.

Rand Fishkin has written about the Sandbox a lot as well:
2005 Analysis of Google’s Sandbox

and even has a Sandbox detection tool on his site - though I personally think the actual sandboxing process has grown too complex to make easy judegements on these days.

The sandbox is real - what constitutes the sandbox is where the real discussion lies - and outside of Google, is unlikely to provide any definitive answers.

If pushed for defining the Google Sandbox, I’d say it’s a collection of anti-spam tools that Google continues to develop. If you want specifics on which sites may be affected, how to avoid it, and what exactly constitutes sandboxing at present - ah, well I can’t help you.

Mike Grehan doesn’t believe in the Google Sandbox - I posted a version of the above to his blog to try and inform him of what we originally meant by the term, then edited a new version here.

Then again, Mike doesn’t believe in sandboxing because he’s more interested in building for human visitors - using SEO only part of a wider and more integrated marketing strategy.

The more experienced I become in search marketing, the more I realise this has to be the most important concern of all.

The best advice is always the foundation of SEO good practice - build great sites and develop them, focus on human users first, and search engines second.