Im sorry but the sandbox does exist!

[TomBuck]

I am promoting a product review aggressively and I have gone down in the SERPS.? Why?

[dburk]

Hi TomBuck,

I'm sorry, nothing in your post suggests the existence of a sandbox. Without having any specific details I could only guess why your rankings are dropping.

My first guess would be your original rankings are from the temporary boost of QDF. Now that the QDF boost is wearing off, your page is sinking to it's currently earned ranking.

My second guess would be that your "aggressive" promoting is low quality web spam and you are beginning to see it devalued.

Of course, if it makes you feel better to think of you webpage in a sandbox, go ahead, just realize it is a figment of your imagination.

[iAmNameLess]

You're still indexed right? Then you aren't sandboxed.

You're dancing right now, thats all.

[TomBuck]

Aww yeah this is one of my sites but one of my sites has been sandboxed, was page 3 but now not in top 10.....

[iAmNameLess]

Originally Posted by TomBuck

Aww yeah this is one of my sites but one of my sites has been sandboxed, was page 3 but now not in top 10.....

That isn't a sandbox. If you're indexed, you aren't sandboxed. You will just need to put more effort into it and focus on high quality manual links and very efficient back linking.

[Big__Lebowski]

it can be temporarily Serp Filter Penalty - keep linking your site and all will be fine

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Big__Lebowski

it can be temporarily Serp Filter Penalty - keep linking your site and all will be fine

It could also be gremlins.

YouTube - BT's Gremlin infested tech support ad

Seriously dude, I've never heard of such a penalty.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi TomBuck,

I'm sorry, nothing in your post suggests the existence of a sandbox. Without having any specific details I could only guess why your rankings are dropping.

My first guess would be your original rankings are from the temporary boost of QDF. Now that the QDF boost is wearing off, your page is sinking to it's currently earned ranking.

My second guess would be that your "aggressive" promoting is low quality web spam and you are beginning to see it devalued.

Of course, if it makes you feel better to think of you webpage in a sandbox, go ahead, just realize it is figment of your imagination.

You continue to say this, yet provide no evidence to support your stance.

I replied to you several times in the other thread about the sandbox to which you didn't reply.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

You're still indexed right? Then you aren't sandboxed.

You're dancing right now, thats all.

No, that means he isn't deindexed. Two separate issues.

[terryd]

I don't know why people post threads as fact and then don't back up with their statement with proof!

[dburk]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

You continue to say this, yet provide no evidence to support your stance.

I replied to you several times in the other thread about the sandbox to which you didn't reply.

Hi mgtarheels,

I may have missed your replies, please provide a link and I'll see if I can respond.

Wouldn't you say that if no evidence of a sandbox is found that it suggests it doesn't exist?

Matt Cutts of Google has stated there is no sandbox, only that some webmasters may experience swings in rankings, due to QDF, that they might perceive as a sandbox. The important thing to note is that it is a "perception" not based an actual real world sandbox.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi mgtarheels,

I may have missed your replies, please provide a link and I'll see if I can respond.

Wouldn't you say that if no evidence of a sandbox is found that it suggests it doesn't exist?

Matt Cutts of Google has stated there is no sandbox, only that some webmasters may experience swings in rankings, due to QDF, that they might perceive as a sandbox. The important thing to note is that it is a "perception" not based an actual real world sandbox.

If you honestly take anything Cutts has to say about G as truth, then you're feeding into his entire gimmick. Do you honestly think the figure head that prevents spam on G is going to tell you ways and techniques that do work and those that don't? Come on, there's a vested interest.

sandbox, is it there ??

[paulgl]

QDF
There is a short boost for newness.
But shortly thereafter, with no visible means of support, a site is likely to fall,
being taken over by the usual top SERP suspects. You have to make your site
as good, if not better than the ones on top. Why people think that just
because you

promoting a product review aggressively

Is no reason ever to think it's going to go to the top and stay there.

Even mgtarheels has to agree on that one.

And that's the main reason people think they are being sandoboxed.
That somehow they have followed some formula and so google MUST
put them on top. It does not work that way.

And I've said it before. If you fall from #5 to #35, and claim you are being
sandboxed, then what, pray tell, does that say about site #36? And #37?
That somehow google is giving them the double-secret-sandbox?

And when you got to #5, think about what the site that used to be #5 and
how now has dropped. Is that person going to say they were now sandboxed?

You took over #5 and now former #5 screams sandbox.

Now how about 10 sites doing what you did at the same time. Now #5 is at
#15. Screams sandbox. In reality, 10 sites just got a short boost. Those that
have staying power will stay there.

Your site is not in a vacuum being the only site that is doing something.
At any given time, there's probably millions of people working on websites.

Paul

[iAmNameLess]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

No, that means he isn't deindexed. Two separate issues.

I think you're confused. If a site is sandboxed, it is deindexed, not just showing up on another page of the SERPs lol. Show me a site that has been sandboxed...?

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

I think you're confused. If a site is sandboxed, it is deindexed, not just showing up on another page of the SERPs lol. Show me a site that has been sandboxed...?

Nope, you're definitely the one confused.

Sandbox does not mean deindexed.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by paulgl

QDF
There is a short boost for newness.
But shortly thereafter, with no visible means of support, a site is likely to fall,
being taken over by the usual top SERP suspects. You have to make your site
as good, if not better than the ones on top. Why people think that just
because you

Is no reason ever to think it's going to go to the top and stay there.

Even mgtarheels has to agree on that one.

And that's the main reason people think they are being sandoboxed.
That somehow they have followed some formula and so google MUST
put them on top. It does not work that way.

And I've said it before. If you fall from #5 to #35, and claim you are being
sandboxed, then what, pray tell, does that say about site #36? And #37?
That somehow google is giving them the double-secret-sandbox?

And when you got to #5, think about what the site that used to be #5 and
how now has dropped. Is that person going to say they were now sandboxed?

You took over #5 and now former #5 screams sandbox.

Now how about 10 sites doing what you did at the same time. Now #5 is at
#15. Screams sandbox. In reality, 10 sites just got a short boost. Those that
have staying power will stay there.

Your site is not in a vacuum being the only site that is doing something.
At any given time, there's probably millions of people working on websites.

Paul

Absolutely agree on a QDF factor, but that doesn't mean from going from #14 to #570 and staying in that range for two months despite consistent backlinking.

[ExploringInfinity]

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

You're still indexed right? Then you aren't sandboxed.

You're dancing right now, thats all.

ahh the fine art of Google Dance.

It takes a few tries before you get the hang of it, but once you do, you know what to expect.

[TomBuck]

Okay so I think I was not clear:

1.) I am promoting a product launch, my site has been moving madly in serps probably because I am doing loads of link building. It has now calmed down a bit but no movement up .

2.) 1 of my sites that was on page 3 is now nowhere to be seen...

The info helped thanks.

[ExploringInfinity]

I have a site that was at #4 for a week or two.. And then it got blasted down to 535. It's been there for about 3 weeks now.

I have continued building links to it, adding content, and improving my SEO.

Sandbox or not, I am not giving google a choice but to move it up in the ranks as time goes on.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

If you honestly take anything Cutts has to say about G as truth, then you're feeding into his entire gimmick. Do you honestly think the figure head that prevents spam on G is going to tell you ways and techniques that do work and those that don't? Come on, there's a vested interest.

sandbox, is it there ??

Hi mgtarheels,

Okay, I remember that thread. I thought I had responded, here's the link:

sandbox, is it there ??

Apparently you think anyone who says that the sandbox doesn't exist, even when it's a Google spokesperson they must be a liar. Well, where's you proof that it actually exists? Everything you can point to has a well known factor (not the sandox) to explain it.

If there is no evidence of it's existence, what do you base your belief on. To me this just seems like the kind of argument we typically see from conspiracy theory collectors.

Google isn't the Internet police, they aren't out to judge the quality of your writing, they aren't in the business of issuing penalties to websites. They are just trying give their users what they are looking for, useful and relevant search results.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi mgtarheels,

Okay, I remember that thread. I thought I had responded, here's the link:

sandbox, is it there ??

Apparently you think anyone who says that the sandbox doesn't exist, even when it's a Google spokesperson they must be a liar. Well, where's you proof that it actually exists? Everything you can point to has a well known factor (not the sandox) to explain it.

If there is no evidence of it's existence, what do you base your belief on. To me this just seems like the kind of argument we typically see from conspiracy theory collectors.

Google isn't the Internet police, they aren't out to judge the quality of your writing, they aren't in the business of issuing penalties to websites. They are just trying give their users what they are looking for, useful and relevant search results.

You're making some large assumptions and putting words in my mouth.

No evidence of it's existence? Surely, the 2 largest figureheads of the largest SEO websites on the Internet that claim there IS a sandbox is supposedly "linkbait" to you.

Show me evidence that a sandbox does not exist.

Google isn't the Internet police? Really? You may want to ask JC Penney about that now, considering they've just been bitch slapped to #70 for some of their tactics. That seems like policing to me.

Also care to explain the Hubpages bitch slap a bit ago? Surely you're aware of the reason for their new quality control guidelines. Again, more policing.

[Mike Grant]

You also didn't address anything I posted in the previous thread.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

You're making some large assumptions and putting words in my mouth.

No evidence of it's existence? Surely, the 2 largest figureheads of the largest SEO websites on the Internet that claim there IS a sandbox is supposedly "linkbait" to you.

Show me evidence that a sandbox does not exist.

Google isn't the Internet police? Really? You may want to ask JC Penney about that now, considering they've just been bitch slapped to #70 for some of their tactics. That seems like policing to me.

Also care to explain the Hubpages bitch slap a bit ago? Surely you're aware of the reason for their new quality control guidelines. Again, more policing.

You say "figureheads", to me they are most famous for their link baiting tactics. They are famous for implying someone said the exact opposite of what they actually did say. It's important to note that what was inferred was not actually said by Matt Cutts. They based their inference on what Cutts didn't say. Still, to date, nobody has every provided credible evidence of a sandbox only innuendo.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by dburk

You say "figureheads", to me they are most famous for their link baiting tactics. They are famous for implying someone said the exact opposite of what they actually did say. It's important to note that what was inferred was not actually said by Matt Cutts. They based their inference on what Cutts didn't say. Still, to date, nobody has every provided credible evidence of a sandbox on innuendo.

Are you familiar with Rand's background? What about Greg Shuey? They are not famous for their linkbait tactics.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

You also didn't address anything I posted in the previous thread.

I just reread it, I don't see what I'm missing. Can you be specific?

[MikeFriedman]

I'm going with the gremlins. Has to be gremlins.

It is completely normal for a site to bounce up and down the rankings, even drastically, when there is a lot of backlinking going on, especially a new site.

If you are doing something silly like pinging all your backlinks constantly. That will get the site dancing even more. On top of that, if you are building all your backlinks to your main site, with no buffer, you are even more likely to dance around for awhile.

This is nothing new, and it does not mean that a sandbox does or does not exist.

I've had numerous sites go from the first page to the 30th or even not showing in the top 100 pages. I just kept doing what I was doing and they came back, typically ranked even higher than they were originally.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by dburk

I just reread it, I don't see what I'm missing. Can you be specific?

Greg Shuey, asking where Cutts flat-out denied it, personal experiences, the poll from SEOBook that showed over 65% of people believed it to exist (just added), etc.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

I'm going with the gremlins. Has to be gremlins.

It is completely normal for a site to bounce up and down the rankings, even drastically, when there is a lot of backlinking going on, especially a new site.

If you are doing something silly like pinging all your backlinks constantly. That will get the site dancing even more. On top of that, if you are building all your backlinks to your main site, with no buffer, you are even more likely to dance around for awhile.

This is nothing new, and it does not mean that a sandbox does or does not exist.

I've had numerous sites go from the first page to the 30th or even not showing in the top 100 pages. I just kept doing what I was doing and they came back, typically ranked even higher than they were originally.

People aren't confusing dancing with a sandbox in this discussion.

Care to elaborate how a 4 month old site was #14 before a campaign, then two days after the campaign the site dropped into the high #500s and stayed there for over 2 months despite constant backlinking from high authority sites?

[dburk]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

Are you familiar with Rand's background? What about Greg Shuey? They are not famous for their linkbait tactics.

I have admired Rand's link baiting tactics for years. To me he is one of the most skillful link baiters I've ever had the pleasure to read.

These guys are famous because they are masters of publicity, link baiting is just one of the tools in there bag of tricks.

Don't get me wrong, I think Rand is a bright fellow. He knows what he's talking about, but it doesn't work as link bait unless he can twist things into a controversy. Rand systematically studies what webmasters are focused on and then he finds a way to stir up a controversy. That's what made him famous and that is where his mojo is. And I am a long time admirer of his publicity skills.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by dburk

I have admired Rand's link baiting tactics for years. To me he is one of the most skillful link baiters I've ever had the please to read.

These guys are famous because they are masters of publicity, link baiting is just one of the tools in there bag of tricks.

Don't get me wrong, I think Rand is a bright fellow. He knows what he's talking about, but it doesn't work as link bait unless he can twist things into a controversy. Rand systematically studies what webmasters are focused on and then he finds a way to stir up a controversy. That's what made him famous and that is where his mojo is. And I am a long time admirer of his publicity skills.

No, he was made famous for having the #1 SEO company which led to books and speaking engagements. He was the head of the company.

Greg Shuey is the same. Director of SEO @ seo.com. Both claim to believe a sandbox exists.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

No, he was made famous for having the #1 SEO company which led to books and speaking engagements. He was the head of the company.

Greg Shuey is the same. Director of SEO @ seo.com. Both claim to believe a sandbox exists.

See... masters of publicity! Thanks for making my point so well.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by dburk

See... masters of publicity! Thanks for making my point so well.

Ah, selective reasoning. How humorous to use logical fallacies during a debate.

Figured you'd do as much without providing anything of value to further your point besides pictures and videos from youtube attempting to belittle one's intellect.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

People aren't confusing dancing with a sandbox in this discussion.

Care to elaborate how a 4 month old site was #14 before a campaign, then two days after the campaign the site dropped into the high #500s and stayed there for over 2 months despite constant backlinking from high authority sites?

There are so many variables in something like this. It would be nearly impossible to narrow it down to one thing. Some of the causes could have been things like...

• Links from known link farms.
• Loss of high PR backlinks that were the main thing keeping the site ranked as high as it was. Links disappear all the time. Websites, for that matter, disappear all the time.
• Changes to the content and/or title tags of the site. I did this recently. I was playing around with a site that was ranked #1 for its keyword. Wanted to change the layout a little bit. Three days later it was #37. Then disappeared for two days. Now it is back to #8 and climbing.
• If the site is on shared hosting, someone on that IP may have been doing something that Google didn't like and causing the ranking of all the sites on that hosting package to be pushed down.

These are just a few things off the top of my head. I could keep going, but I think you get the point.

[Mike Grant]

Pro Tip:

Found the #1 SEO company or become the Director of SEO for a top SEO company and you're automatically a master at publicity!

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

There are so many variables in something like this. It would be nearly impossible to narrow it down to one thing. Some of the causes could have been things like...

• Links from known link farms.
• Loss of high PR backlinks that were the main thing keeping the site ranked as high as it was. Links disappear all the time. Websites, for that matter, disappear all the time.
• Changes to the content and/or title tags of the site. I did this recently. I was playing around with a site that was ranked #1 for its keyword. Wanted to change the layout a little bit. Three days later it was #37. Then disappeared for two days. Now it is back to #8 and climbing.
• If the site is on shared hosting, someone on that IP may have been doing something that Google didn't like and causing the ranking of all the sites on that hosting package to be pushed down.

These are just a few things off the top of my head. I could keep going, but I think you get the point.

Honestly, I stopped reading when you claimed link farms can penalize your site.

edit: OK, read the rest. I didn't lose blogroll links. I have a program that monitors such a thing when a link is removed. No content was changed, and no metas were altered. Site was on a VPS by itself.

[Mike Grant]

Danny Sullivan believes in the sandbox.
Jim Boykin believes in the sandbox.

[yukon]

I suppose bigfoot doesn't exist?

Tell that to Ronald!

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

Honestly, I stopped reading when you claimed link farms can penalize your site.

edit: OK, read the rest. I didn't lose blogroll links. I have a program that monitors such a thing when a link is removed. No content was changed, and no metas were altered. Site was on a VPS by itself.

Ok. Then you tell me. What caused your site to lose ranking?

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Ok. Then you tell me. What caused your site to lose ranking?

I think it's the sandbox effect because it's a new website. Can't find a reason for it.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by yukon

I suppose bigfoot doesn't exist?

Tell that to Ronald!

[yukon]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

I think I'm worried more about that d@mn clown sitting in the woods, than the sasquatch, lol!

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by yukon

I think I'm worried more about that d@mn clown sitting in the woods, than the sasquatch, lol!

No worries.

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by yukon

I suppose bigfoot doesn't exist?

Tell that to Ronald!

Poor Ronald! He was just kidnapped and held for ransom in Finland!

YouTube - They kidnapped Ronald! -Finnish...

Paul

[rosalina]

i think it is just a slap of google in judjing a site. One of my site has same situation disappearing in google for a week and now come back to it's positioin and gain two more position.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

Ah, selective reasoning. How humorous to use logical fallacies during a debate.

Seemed appropriate for an apparent straw man argument.

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

Figured you'd do as much without providing anything of value to further your point besides pictures and videos from youtube attempting to belittle one's intellect.

There is no credible evidence of a sandbox. What more need I say.

Famous people aren't right simply because they are famous. None of the folks you are pointing out have ever offered a shred of evidence of the existence of a sandbox. A belief based on other people's believe is not evidence, nor is it credible. One's fame does not improve ones accuracy or judgement.

If you so desperately want to believe in the existence of a sandbox go ahead. But if you want to be taken seriously bring some evidence. For the absence of evidence suggest that it doesn't exist.

[iAmNameLess]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

Nope, you're definitely the one confused.

Sandbox does not mean deindexed.

Show me PROOF that the sandbox exists, PROOF!

Originally Posted by TomBuck

Okay so I think I was not clear:

1.) I am promoting a product launch, my site has been moving madly in serps probably because I am doing loads of link building. It has now calmed down a bit but no movement up .

2.) 1 of my sites that was on page 3 is now nowhere to be seen...

The info helped thanks.

Did you stop building links at any time? Do you have more back links than you have visitors? How many bookmarks do you have? It isn't natural to have thousands of back links without a decent ratio for bookmarks, and without proper traffic.

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

You're making some large assumptions and putting words in my mouth.

No evidence of it's existence? Surely, the 2 largest figureheads of the largest SEO websites on the Internet that claim there IS a sandbox is supposedly "linkbait" to you.

Show me evidence that a sandbox does not exist.

Google isn't the Internet police? Really? You may want to ask JC Penney about that now, considering they've just been bitch slapped to #70 for some of their tactics. That seems like policing to me.

There is no sandbox and you have no proof of it and neither do they. The largest figureheads have been wrong before and switch techniques all the time, it is what needs to be done. What do you consider the sandbox? Since you think that deindexing is not a sandbox, so you think that anytime there is a noticeable change in the SERPs it is due to sandbox?

Evidence that a sandbox doesn't exist, well, since you can't show proof it DOES exist that is good enough for me. But really, it is a matter of what you think the google sandbox really is, you have yet to make that clear.

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

Honestly, I stopped reading when you claimed link farms can penalize your site.

edit: OK, read the rest. I didn't lose blogroll links. I have a program that monitors such a thing when a link is removed. No content was changed, and no metas were altered. Site was on a VPS by itself.

So... you believe the sandbox exists... but you don't believe link farms can penalize your site. That is strange.

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

I think it's the sandbox effect because it's a new website. Can't find a reason for it.

Yeah, many SEOs use that line for new websites, myself included. Doesn't mean we actually believe it. It is a stalling method. lol.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

Show me PROOF that the sandbox exists, PROOF!



Did you stop building links at any time? Do you have more back links than you have visitors? How many bookmarks do you have? It isn't natural to have thousands of back links without a decent ratio for bookmarks, and without proper traffic.



There is no sandbox and you have no proof of it and neither do they. The largest figureheads have been wrong before and switch techniques all the time, it is what needs to be done. What do you consider the sandbox? Since you think that deindexing is not a sandbox, so you think that anytime there is a noticeable change in the SERPs it is due to sandbox?

Evidence that a sandbox doesn't exist, well, since you can't show proof it DOES exist that is good enough for me. But really, it is a matter of what you think the google sandbox really is, you have yet to make that clear.




So... you believe the sandbox exists... but you don't believe link farms can penalize your site. That is strange.



Yeah, many SEOs use that line for new websites, myself included. Doesn't mean we actually believe it. It is a stalling method. lol.

Holy ****, you're clueless about everything when it comes to SEO.

[iAmNameLess]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

Holy ****, you're clueless about everything when it comes to SEO.

And since you disagree with me you're clueless as well. We're going with that logic right?

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

And since you disagree with me you're clueless as well. We're going with that logic right?

Depends, it's apparent you didn't follow links in this thread.

[4morereferrals]

Well I never thought the SANDBOX did exist .. but perhaps after you get to page 5 - the end of the article here you may re think your position ...

I dunno ....

NYT Outs another website ... a big one ... you or Id be DEAD but a multi million dollar adwords client - sent to the woodshed for a lesson. After they made a few extra $million$ of course ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/bu...arch.html?_r=1


"He noted, too, that before The Times presented evidence of the paid links to JCPenney.com, Google had just begun to roll out an algorithm change that had a negative effect on Penney’s search results. (The tweak affected “how we trust links,” Mr. Cutts said, declining to elaborate.)

True, JCPenney.com’s showing in Google searches had declined slightly by Feb. 8, as the algorithm change began to take effect. In “comforter sets,” Penney went from No. 1 to No. 7. In “sweater dresses,” from No. 1 to No. 10.

But the real damage to Penney’s results began when Google started that “manual action.” The decline can be charted: On Feb. 1, the average Penney position for 59 search terms was 1.3.

On Feb. 8, when the algorithm was changing, it was 4.

By Feb. 10, it was 52."

And oddly enough ... a lot of my sites were hit either a little bit 4-5 spots or whacked 5o or so spots on a few and 100+ on some others [ new and franky they likely deserve that ]

Not bitching about that - but its just interesting ...