Strategies to Get Out of Sandbox Faster: Open for Member Discussion

[rustybrick]

This is the first in a series of threads for this special forum. We asked members to submit questions or topics (http://forums.seroundtable.com/showthread.php?t=115) for moderators only to discuss. The first post (http://forums.seroundtable.com/showthread.php?p=857#post857) asked us the following;

How can you get faster out of the "Google sandbox"?

Some factors worth thinking about: Site Age, Link aging, Link Speed, Link Quality, Link Relevance etc ...

So lets go at it.

[rustybrick]

We did cover a method of getting out of the sandbox (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/002944.html) at the blog in early December. Here are the step by step instructions given by DaveN (http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/).


Get an old domain, something which google crawls
Then put a subdomain on it ... newsite.olddomain.com original
Copy the site exactly on the sub as it is in the orginal date last modifed to a few months after the domain was first registered
Add a Link from the real site something like www .newsite.com ( forget about seo anchor text links, these are just to let google in
Now 301 the subdomain to the new site


That being said, what if you do not want the subdomain listed in Google? What other options do we have?

Well, most experts believe that the sandbox is about earning Google's trust. How can we earn Google's trust?

- trusted links from trusted sites
- quality content
- use an old domain name that has been live (purchase a site)

I have tons of ideas, but what do the other mods think?

[dazzlindonna]

How can you get out of the sandbox faster?

In some cases, the answer is "you can't". Ok, I'm being pessimistic there, but seriously, not everyone will have the resources to jump out quickly. In that case, your only hope is patience. Lots and lots of patience.

The few sites I've seen jump out quickly have been heavily linked to from super-mega, super-authority sites. (Think Matt Cutts here) If your site offers something that will cause those people to link to you, then you just may escape the box. If you are the average site owner, however, it may be hard to get out before the standard time limit (whatever that is).

So what do you do in the meantime? Grab as much of the long tail as possible. You can rank for those less-competitive terms, while you are sitting in the box with the competitive terms. And hey, if you rank for 2,000 long tail terms, it may not matter too much about those "big-time" terms. And be thinking about giving those authority types something worth linking to.

[Phoenix]

How can you get faster out of the "Google sandbox"?

Some factors worth thinking about: Site Age, Link aging, Link Speed, Link Quality, Link Relevance etc ...

I thought this was a really question to start out this question and answer session. Its probably the one important question everyone is looking to get some ideas from. Currently I don't work with a lot of brand new sites or try to take on projects that involve brand new websites with little aspirations besides being #1 in Google. It can be a waste of time. I would rather spend time developing strategies for getting around the sandbox and creating websites that initially start to do well from the beginning. :)

First, you are not doomed to the sandbox forever. Just a little while.

One of the popular ideas that has been thrown around lately is buying old domains and redeveloping the property in order to avoid the dampening of the sandbox. I have done this for some time and its my favorite way to create sites these days. The biggest problem with the sandbox is simply getting around the age factor. It can't be faked or created, it's age has to slowly develop over time. Patience is so important! Its really quite brilliant of Google actually to develop some kind of dampening for sites this way IMHO.

Ideally if you are able to get an older domain that might be able to get your into Google quicker you have to test it to find out if indeed it will rank from the start. Usually I look at log files, backlink data, whois history, serp checks, and any current rankings and traffic that might be going on. Approach with high scrutinty on all factors. You don't want to create a website on a domain that won't ever rank. If all stacks up then I would proceed with a redevelopment of the website under the SAME THEME. I don't mess with trying to convert a domain to new theme or category. Its a waste of time. I am a big proponent of leveraging the current assets and resources around a domain to catapult it into high rankings. Its a must in my opinion to look at the domain as a resident of a larger whole instead of a sole entity or island.

Some other strategies are also related to using a subdomain of an already exisiting website and 301/302 redirecting the subdomain pages to the new site. This might help the pages get ranked quickly, but its not really solving anything, just a temporary fix. I have also heard about 301 redirecting old backlinks for a previous site unto a new one and other complicated tactics to really confuse Google without doing anything to set off triggers for penalization or sandbox related.

The next important part is developing high quality backlinks that can contribute to the "trust" of the website. "QUALITY" is the key word here. I don't consider quality anything that is reciprocal or from a link page. I have seens sites spike in Ask Jeeves because of the addition of some nice authority links recently. Google is no exception. Authority links from small to large sites are really important, go after them. I don't like to personally throw around the word "trust" either as its confusing. Trust what, who, how? Get in the inner circle of trust basically, or Google will tell you to hit the road jack, there is no room for extraneous fluff in there Gentleman's Club. Once in, you are set until you screw up again.

I have found smaller niche websites to be much more successful in counteracting the sandbox, than those websites that target "top" terms initially. This a common mistake for many new websites or startups. They all have high aspirations for big terms but usually don't know you have to climb the ladder of success to get there. The niche strategy makes more sense, as more niche areas are less competitive and may not have as much trouble ranking highly for those terms. This method works well most of the time, because it can reduce the sandbox dampening and once fully in the index you can go about slowly targeting better and more competitive phrases.

My big annoyance in Google is: Authority Spam

You thought the litterbox/sandbox was painful to endure. Now factor in all the authority spam from every quote "corporate" identity competing in those top spots and you get even more competition in search engine result pages. Thus diluting any relevance further into the uselessness of advertising on car windows with flyers. Who really wants to look into more directories (yellowpages, bizrates, ebays, superpages, and so on) to find what they are looking for. Not many! I want it Now! Google give it too me, is my take. Some of my local clients I trade services for complain about this bitterly. "Why when I search for my town, are there NO websites about it in the top 10 results?" This obviously for not all categories, but it still is one effect against any new websites.

Another method: Target local results.

This has been a secret weapon for like 4 years I am happy to share. Those in the local vertical search space know what I am talking about too. Its a goldmine, largely untapped by many people and websites. This is a great way to get into Google slowly without raising too many alarms. Sneak in the backdoor. The strategy here is to target locally initially and then once a top 5 listing is obtained, slowly switch you link method to target phrases that don't include any local terms in them. Go from "Dallas texas web design" to "texas web design" to "web design". Keep a nice blend of links, definately vary the anchor text of the links and keep a high level of content.

Continually keep up link building and content creation.

I don't think I have ever seen a site get out of the sandbox that didn't continually from month to month keep up link building. It might be painful but it definately pays off. Content is of prime importance as well. Less on the ads, more on the content that is internally link well.

Finally, I don't think there is one exact super strategy for getting out of the sandbox. The only one that seems to work the best is giving it time. The other way to get around the sandbox is to work like it doesn't even exist. This works great, because your stress is lower and will allow you to go after oppourtunities that MSN and Yahoo and other places have you won't normally see if you become so focused on Google.

:peace:

[rustybrick]

These are great tips. So I guess you all believe that the sandbox does exist?

A few weeks ago, a very popular thread was started at SEW Forums (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=9319), which I blogged about under the title of The Big Dogs Debate the Sandbox Theory (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/003007.html).

In that thread, many said they believe in the sandbox theory, even Danny Sullivan said so (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/003034.html). But there are also many experts who say there is no such thing, such as Mike Grehan (http://www.mikegrehan.com/2005/12/not-sandbox-again-i-dont-usually.html).

Why do you think some are so skeptical about this theory? Do you think it is a definition issue? Do you think it is nonsense? Do you think they do not have experience with new sites? Please make sure to read Mike's points (http://www.mikegrehan.com/2005/12/not-sandbox-again-i-dont-usually.html).

[dazzlindonna]

I have full confidence that it exists. Ok, maybe Google didn't do it on purpose (although I personally think they did, despite what they say), but whatever changes they made, caused the sandbox to happen - intentionally, or unintentionally. For those that deny it exists, my guess is that they have either never tried to get a brand new site to rank (since March of 2004), or they are only working with Fortune 500 type sites. Or possibly they are working with such non-competitive terms, that Google has no choice but to rank the sites, because there wouldn't be anything to list if they didn't.

[randfish]

I remember how frustrating it was to have sites in the sandbox for a year a time. I think that my experience was one of the first broadly recognized examples and back then, it was terrifically hard to get people to buy into the theory of "sandbox" as it had never existed prior to March 2003.

Nowadays, almost everyone is familiar with the sandbox symptoms, but a cure is still highly elusive. I have yet to see a site escape the box through the work of an SEO in a short period of time. The sites I see that escape quickly are typically of the "internet phenomenon" category where they attract thousands of links very quickly through bloggers, forums and communities then break out of the box in 15-30 days.

That's one clear way to get out - produce a piece of content that's going to skyrocket your site to Internet superstardom - del.icio.us/popular, digg, furl, mentioned on huge blog sites, slashdot, etc.

As far as I know, this is the best strategy to escape quickly. Besides that, I know of one site that "escaped" shortly after I overheard a gentleman chatting with Mr. Cutts at SES San Jose (I couldn't help but overhear as I was standing in the area)... it was in the "box" that night when I looked, but was ranking beautifully about a week and a half later - could have been coincidence, but building connections is never a bad thing. If you've got a site that is absolutely terrific and you've never done any kind of "manipulative" linking and don't mind having your links scrutinized, it may be worth the fee to attend a conference, raise your hand at a site review session and get some feedback after a session from the engineers themselves... It may not be foolproof, but it's a hard sight better than waiting and hoping, and search conferences have a lot of value besides just sandbox dodging.

[rustybrick]

Rand,

Thanks for that.

Question, what time frame was it when you overheard that discussion with Matt and the Sandbox'ed site? SES NYC?

[Phoenix]

That's one clear way to get out - produce a piece of content that's going to skyrocket your site to Internet superstardom - del.icio.us/popular, digg, furl, mentioned on huge blog sites, slashdot, etc.

Rand makes a good point here, I think this is another great way for sites to get help getting out of the box. Its a very popular method for community blogs and other user generated content sites. This however may not be a strategy for all sites as ecommerce sites and the latter often don't have any reason using the services mentioned above. (At that point, someone would probably tell them to create a blog so they could). I wouldn't jump to that so quickly however.

One of the interesting things about the Sandbox I have observed is the large amount of sites that are not so well connected, don't have a large amount of experience marketing on the web, nor are they well connected with other sites. They are your plain jane, mom and pop sites that are doing nothing more than trying to get a very very small slice of search engine pie. Its extremely tough for them. This group would be classified in what Mike Grehan would call "the poor".

These sites are actually a great place to research for sandbox information. They have the most against them, and struggle at all odds to beat out the more savvy marketers and companies on the net. Many fail, and many sites are abandoned due to over extended budgets and so on. They are the "long tail" of websites at the backend of the sandbox in the most need of assistance for getting out of the box. I often get the owners of these types of sites call me for help. I can't always help them, beyond some tips to improve their SEO. I think it will be interesting in the next 1-2 years to watch this segment and see how the "sandbox" as a lasting effect on the Google index itself and barriers it has now created for starting a business online.

[pk_synths]

I agree with all the above but I'm going to throw a bolt into the gears for a sec.

What I think Google is really focusing on is "why is a new site so gun-ho about getting noticed". All the suggestions above mention getting out of the sandbox fast and getting to your potential clients and getting great rank and blah blah blah.

The question is "WHY are you trying to get out of the sandbox SO FAST?"

Google is looking for sites that have a long term business structure and model. A site that is in it for the long haul. NOT a site that is in it too make some quick cash off adsense. Sell crappy product. Rip off their customers AND overtake legitimate, successful, loyal business in the process.

I understand there are many entrepreneurs out there with limited budgets that need to turn a profit but the best advice I can give is plan ahead (financially and emotionally) for 3 months of no business, load the site up as soon as there is product, dont wait to finish the site but just keep adding product while it's live, spread the word, sing & dance and by the time your finished with the site you'll be out of the sandbox. Rejoice and hopefully good sales will follow.

BTW: SEO the site during the time of sing & dance :)

It helps ;P

[randfish]

PK - My response to that would be that if Google simply wants to ensure that legitimate businesses don't get pushed out by SEO efforts on new sites, they should apply it on a keyword basis. However, that doesn't appear to be the case. Notably, SEOmoz and Bill Slawski's "SEO by the Sea" site were sandboxed (Bill's is still) for their own unique names. When "SEOmoz" was created, the term had 0 results in Google - it was completely unique.

This, to me, suggests more of an attempt to simply degrade ALL new sites, or a very large portion of new sites that acquire certain types of links (I believe this is the prevailing theory on how one gets "boxed").

Barry - the answer is in my post:
I overheard a gentleman chatting with Mr. Cutts at SES San JoseThat was in August of 2005.

As for other Sandbox dodging methods; I'd strongly suggest that those who are technically minded look into using various combinations of subdomain hosting (on non-boxed sites) and 301/302 re-directs. The cacophony of educated voices in the SEO sphere from folks like DaveN, Oilman, McAnerin & Webguerrilla suggests that there is a methodology that will function to "escape."

[pk_synths]

This, to me, suggests more of an attempt to simply degrade ALL new sites, or a very large portion of new sites that acquire certain types of links (I believe this is the prevailing theory on how one gets "boxed").

Agreed. I never implied that only certain sites get affected. That would be just "evil" ;P

All sites are treated equally and only the legitimate sites prevail. But I do believe some industries are sandboxed harder than others. Which again makes sense. If an industry has alot of spam it will be filtered harder. That's where a good business plan and patience comes in handy.

[mugshot]

There's definitely a lot of excellent comments in here.

Buying old domains + super articles + links (ARG!!!) = good. And then the famous 301 when done correctly will prople you to SERP-stardom!

While there are many ways to get out of the sandbox, I think it's one of those things where everyone knows the theory behind it but not many succeed in implementing it :eek:

The focus so far appears to be on webmasters with own sites - and in those cases the only pressure are bills stacking up while trying to rank a new site.

On the other hand, clients don't usually have that much patience. They want rank and they want it now - a constant :fencing: battle between SEOs and their clients. I'm not referring to the major corps that can afford tens of thousands to cloak, but rather the smaller mom and pap shops that decide to launch a website to complement their physical store.

Ben mentioned local search and that's of course an excellent way to fire off a project for the small local businesses but what happens when you get the 1/1,000,000 client who wants to reach national audiences. You tell them, "hey, it will cost you $x,000 per month" and the owner says "you must be insane!" Then you go into trying to explain that his www.newlyboughtdomain.com will NOT rank in Google and the owner says, but Google gives you the most traffic! AND YOU GO :confused: WHAT THE HECK DO I DO!!!

While the sandbox could be implemented with good intentions (or evil) it has certainly caused some smaller businesses and webmasters to cry over SEO.

[Enlightened]

Wow I can post

Sandbox???

Where???

Adwords yes indeed

Free results ...nope... can't see it.

Rand you seem to be the expert so I'll ask you first.

Why did the definition change? I am not sure if it was 2004 I believe where people made statements that websites with inception dates of 2004 were sandboxed we took domains with 2004 registrations seo'd received PR and rankings in a few months..

That blew the sandbox theory out of the water...

Fast forward till 2006 eliteweb.cc Shows Google Toolbar PageRank 2 within 15 days of going live also notice site hitting front page for every term closley related to lottery or lotto in US and Canada. Huge PR Press boosts site popularity/// Show me a sandbox please??

EDIT: Live 10-15-05 / PR2 10-29-05 - I do not believe there was toolbar PR update at the time...

There is a quality check yes and sites must work through the index barrels etc update datacenters etc so there is bound to be some lag but after that it is merely a lack of reason to move a website up the ranks

For example in most categories there are no less than 100 websites correct??

now john doe webmaster is sitting at home and decided he too can build a website for selling blue widgets..

He builds a nice original content rich website which attracts some quality back links. However it is like the 100 websites that already exist on the topic of selling blue widgets..

Why then should any search engine lift his rankings??? Why ??

In my eyes they don't and shouldn't.. you don't push the site.. then why should anyone else?? Free lunch went out the door with grandpa.....

Next thanks to Gavins text link ads/// and all of the seo experts hoping on the links bandwagon...(present company excluded but then I'm no expert) most gave webmasters bad information on links which started a land slide of link abuse, thank you :rolleyes:

Google penalized or filtered for it ...and then all the mistaken seo's start spouting ohhh..your site is sandboxed... so then everyone hops onto the "I must be sandboxed" bandwagon...

Well guess what folks your not sandboxed...you were duped...


Links - just say no to anything other than a one way link.

[Bruno]

Well, don't get me wrong, but you must be blind if you don't see sandbox.

[Enlightened]

Hi Bruno

Actually blind in one one eye and can't see out of the other.

Here are some sites for you to play with

http://www.myspacetweaks.com

http://www.xenra.com/graphics/layouts

http://www.myspacenow.com

http://www.myspace-counter.com

http://www.myspacetips.com


See how long registered ...look in Alexa many are two months old and under 100,000 already.

I did one here for you

* Traffic Rank for myspacetweaks.com: 37,027 (up300,666)

* Speed: Slow (73% of sites are faster), Avg Load Time: 3.0 Seconds (what's this?)

* Other sites that link to this site: No Data

* Online Since: 27-Aug-2005



They rank for myspace codes, myspace tweaks and many other terms becoming popular quicker than anything before them.

Most of those sites are owned by under 18 year olds who may one day buy many of the sites you know if as their coffers are filling fast.

One I know is 15 making $250.00 a day.. has close to 500 people on his site constantly.

I am not sure who the owner of the quote is but he said the key to success in the SERPs initially is popularity and that the web is like a teen high school popularity contest....

There are 5 teen sites proving that theory quite nicely. Those who learn early learn best.

I've got my eyes wide open...:thumb:

[Bruno]

I don't want to argue but this is not proof that sandbox don't exist at all. You can give your pages and tousand others webmasters can give you hundreds domains that don't rank well for their unique names.

[Enlightened]

Hi Bruno

We are not arguing. I agree there are thousands of webmasters who have placed websites of varying popularity online and watched as those sites suffered lag time.

However this is the webmasters fault and not the search engines.

To further illustrate my point of popularity needed in order for a site to rank well for it's keywords I need to bring in some unfortunate incidents

After the earthquakes in indonesia information was online and listed in the front pages on all search engines within 24 hours.

After the hurricanes in New Orleans the Red Cross shot to the tops of many SERPs for various keywords as did a blog that was running during the whole tragedy.

Lastly I will bring up the Tsunami from last year for no other reason than to shamelessly plug these two groups.

http://www.louisewillgrasstsunamifund.co.uk

http://www.dolfilms.org

So Bruno the inconsistencies in the definition of a sandbox site in the past, events such as my earlier post and these events have reinforced my thoughts that in order to get sites to the front pages there has to be a reason for them to belong there...

A site without traffic is just like the 99 others without traffic..............without traffic

Internet Success = Popularity Party

[Enlightened]

Phoenix said

This has been a secret weapon for like 4 years I am happy to share. Those in the local vertical search space know what I am talking about too. Its a goldmine, largely untapped by many people and websites. This is a great way to get into Google slowly without raising too many alarms. Sneak in the backdoor. The strategy here is to target locally initially and then once a top 5 listing is obtained, slowly switch you link method to target phrases that don't include any local terms in them. Go from "Dallas texas web design" to "texas web design" to "web design". Keep a nice blend of links, definately vary the anchor text of the links and keep a high level of content.

Continually keep up link building and content creation.

Man you gave away most of the farm... and the farmette...did the silo make it or was that included???;)

[Phoenix]

haha. Silo included I promise, but the :fish2: stays. Its not really a huge secret, but it does have some power you can use to propel your efforts faster. Its worked well for me on many occasions because the intent of the user can be broad or focused depending on the location and keyphrase. It make for great study too if you have the time. Patterns occur in local search as they do in regular search patterns. Towns become well known for the simple fact that a popular university if based there. People floak to news about a particular when its on TV and incidently want to find more about the town. So there is a lot going on, and lots of possibility if you give it a chance.

[Bruno]

However this is the webmasters fault and not the search engines.


Yes i did personally create sandbox, not google :)

you can also read this blog post, just a quick explanation:
http://www.seo-scoop.com/2006/01/10/dealing-with-the-sandbox/

[Enlightened]

Bruno

I meant that it is not the search engines fault a site is unpopular it is the webmaster's since they are ultimately who needs the traffic and if they are not proactive in generating traffic to the websites then they cannot reasonably expect (big issue in SEO) to be listed in the top pages of the search engines.

As for the forum post I am a little lost..I do not believe a sandbox exists ...nobodys writings will change that as the evidence I have seen suggests otherwise.. But what I find strange is this posting which I am understanding is you also

Lots of national domains in EU are not sandboxed, i know for sure for croatian and couple countries around

Left by Bruno on January 10th, 2006

But yet you posted this here in the thread earlier

Bruno Said I don't want to argue but this is not proof that sandbox don't exist at all. You can give your pages and tousand others webmasters can give you hundreds domains that don't rank well for their unique names.

So what is your stance is there a Google sandbox other than the Adwords Sandbox ??

[Bruno]

So what is your stance is there a Google sandbox other than the Adwords Sandbox ??

Yes, there is, and i have been couple times in and out, it exist.

[Enlightened]

Hi Bruno

We will agree to disagree then

Cheers

:)

[rustybrick]

Nothing arguing definitions and theories.

[Enlightened]

True...

I just don't want to offend anyone.

I seem to do enough of that ......


:bump:

[rustybrick]

Yea, it is fairly easy to offend people at a forum.

Just need to be able to use that sandbox to chill out before typing.

[Enlightened]

Well

Was never one to back down...my name sake in ways cursed me perhaps.

One should traipse around and play nicey nice in business??

A few CEOs current and past would laugh at that notion..

However the message is understood.....I may be insane but I'm not crazy

and Ive done well here so far eh....

[viggen]

none of my site ever experienced the sandbox effect, i dont really have the answer why, however i might have some clues;

none of my sites are in ultra competetive fields...
all of my sites are useful sites with real content that people like to link to...
all of my sites have a discussion forum...
all of my sites get links from .edu .org and other authority places
all of my sites have at least one entry in the ODP
all of my sites have just basic seo (descriptive title, no worries about keyword density, couple of <h>/<b><I> tags and are not bigger then 10k
all of my sites start in a sub-sub-sub niche and then spread into the broader niche eventually get to the main topic

maybe by the time i compete for the big keywords my site is already old enough to rank top anyway (it takes me about 8 months to a year to get to the main topic of my sites theme)

all in all, i never had to worry about the sandbox so far, probably because i built sites this way for 3 years now, and havent changed my way of building. So for me it is normal to rank for the top words only after a year or so... ;)

patience is a virtue...

cheers
viggen

[Enlightened]

Viggen

I do not know you but I see that you are one who also understands.

Would you do me a favor and tell us how long your sites hold rankings.

I have several clients who for over 18 to 24 months, have never budged from the top 3 rankings for their main keyword terms.

I am betting you've held position as long if not longer?

Thank you for an excellent post.

[rustybrick]

This is a forum you know. :)

[viggen]

Viggen

I do not know you but I see that you are one who also understands.

Would you do me a favor and tell us how long your sites hold rankings.

I have several clients who for over 18 to 24 months, have never budged from the top 3 rankings for their main keyword terms.

I am betting you've held position as long if not longer?

Thank you for an excellent post.

hello enlightened,

thanks for your kind words :)

...if it wasnt for my daily reading on SEO forums i wouldnt have known about any algo update in the last three years, none,no matter how major, had ever any real effect on my rankings

once i am top i stayed top till today...

...i sometimes get the feeling people tend to make this "game" way to complicated, i stopped chasing the algo a while ago, deinstalled the toolbar, ignored the various DCs and started to focus on my content, my communities, and my logfiles.

Probably my personality, because i like to build things that last. If all the SE stopped giving me traffic today i would still make a profit on all of my sites...

cheers
viggen