Is My Site Sandboxed?

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by DireStraits

I've no fish to fry in this particular debate, Mike, it has to be said.

I will say that on the one hand, I concur with your beliefs that "domain authority" exists and counts for something.

On the other hand, I can't say that I've ever experienced anything that'd constitute "sandboxing" with any of my sites. Nor has my brother or anyone else who I know.

Penalisation for on-site "b1ackhat" tactics - yes. And possibly for off-site stuff, in very extreme, rare and obviously traceable/identifiable cases of self-backlink-spamming. Apart from that, all I've ever experienced is the sometimes-expected wild fluctuation of rankings that can occur when a site's still in its relative infancy and doesn't command enough authority and incoming link-juice (or have sufficient "roots", if you will) to withstand sudden and significant changes to its backlinking profile.

But I've never seen any of that as what has long been referred to as "the sandbox". Because I've never seen a site just get "stuck" in the dark depths of the SERPs for reasons that I cannot reasonably attribute to something pretty specific, and hopefully (and usually) resolve without "hoping and praying".

So on the basis of that, I don't know. But whatever the case, I'm not about to start losing sleep over it now, myself.

Right there with ya. I just don't agree with feeding newbies BS, especially when telling them it's normal for the QDF to last for months. That's laughable, at best.

But you've pretty much nailed it in your fourth paragraph regarding BH tactics. I've noticed the effects when the site is over-optimized, and the site comes blazing out the gates with a ton of low quality links - exactly what I'm going to send to dburk's domain. I'll be sending hundreds of thousands of links in a 48 hour period, and then have them all pinged.

Interesting read over at SEOmoz. Since dburk attempts to use Rand as a pawn to further his point then I may as well, also.

[Mike Grant]

Well this was awfully disappointing.

[R3Rbot]

Well Hi guy's. This is an interessting post... Joining the show to learn..

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Mike Grant

Well this was awfully disappointing.

Hi Mike,

Please don't give up yet!

I have registered a new domain and created a hosting account. I haven't had time to setup the Wordpress script yet. I'm working on it now so please give me about an hour to finish up.

[dp40oz]

Originally Posted by Mike Grant

Right there with ya. I just don't agree with feeding newbies BS, especially when telling them it's normal for the QDF to last for months. That's laughable, at best.

But you've pretty much nailed it in your fourth paragraph regarding BH tactics. I've noticed the effects when the site is over-optimized, and the site comes blazing out the gates with a ton of low quality links - exactly what I'm going to send to dburk's domain. I'll be sending hundreds of thousands of links in a 48 hour period, and then have them all pinged.

Interesting read over at SEOmoz. Since dburk attempts to use Rand as a pawn to further his point then I may as well, also.

Yea but whats the timeline on this Mike? I do this tactic to many of my sites. They get totally sunk in the rankings for about 2 months and then come back strong as ever. Ive actually recommended this for niche sites as a set it and forget it quick link building approach. Blast away, watch your site plummet wait a month or two, BAMM page 1 and im talking tens of thousands of profile links and blog comments in a 2-3 day span. If you'd like proof, I can show it. 2 days ago I was ranked 10th for a term, it wasn't moving so I just destroyed it with links. Now its ranked #259 and I will guarantee this site will be top 5 in the next 2 months, I just have to wait it out.

Now I fully admit I don't deal with highly competitive search's but if this is what the sandbox is then it is not at all what people like to believe it is. I also don't think it would be fair for the sake of the argument for you to do this, the site plummets, you declare victory and then 2 months or 6 months later when we've all completely forgotten about this thread, have the site bounce back strong as ever.

I'd also like to say Mike I consider you a well respected member of this forum and I always read through your posts looking for extra nuggets of wisdom as I know the huge success you've had, but in this case I don't see how this can possibly be proven unless you are saying "I can sandbox your site for 2 months" or a specific amount of time because from what ive seen and from what many have seen you almost always eventually bounce back strong.

[dp40oz]

So here is just 1 example of the so called sandbox. When my site started it got indexed with a few articles and was ranking in the lower 20's. I then sent 10,000 profile links and 10,000 blog comments at the site in 1 day. As you can see it then plummeted for about 2 weeks to the 300's and then BAMM! Back strong! Now ive had a steady rise but the site just wasn't getting to the top 5 like I wanted. Now a few days ago I blasted the hell out of the page again, I went up to #7, then to #10 now im at #295. Like I stated in my previous post I will guarantee that I'll be back on the 1st page soon. This is proof rather then speculation and talk.

[aditech]

When our site is new and we start the link building campaign once the keyword position goes down and its quiet natural don't worry you will be back to the previous position.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by dp40oz

So here is just 1 example of the so called sandbox. When my site started it got indexed with a few articles and was ranking in the lower 20's. I then sent 10,000 profile links and 10,000 blog comments at the site in 1 day. As you can see it then plummeted for about 2 weeks to the 300's and then BAMM! Back strong! Now ive had a steady rise but the site just wasn't getting to the top 5 like I wanted. Now a few days ago I blasted the hell out of the page again, I went up to #7, then to #10 now im at #295. Like I stated in my previous post I will guarantee that I'll be back on the 1st page soon. This is proof rather then speculation and talk.

Im sending a lot more than 10k comments and profiles, lol.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by dp40oz

Yea but whats the timeline on this Mike? I do this tactic to many of my sites. They get totally sunk in the rankings for about 2 months and then come back strong as ever. Ive actually recommended this for niche sites as a set it and forget it quick link building approach. Blast away, watch your site plummet wait a month or two, BAMM page 1 and im talking tens of thousands of profile links and blog comments in a 2-3 day span. If you'd like proof, I can show it. 2 days ago I was ranked 10th for a term, it wasn't moving so I just destroyed it with links. Now its ranked #259 and I will guarantee this site will be top 5 in the next 2 months, I just have to wait it out.

Now I fully admit I don't deal with highly competitive search's but if this is what the sandbox is then it is not at all what people like to believe it is. I also don't think it would be fair for the sake of the argument for you to do this, the site plummets, you declare victory and then 2 months or 6 months later when we've all completely forgotten about this thread, have the site bounce back strong as ever.

I'd also like to say Mike I consider you a well respected member of this forum and I always read through your posts looking for extra nuggets of wisdom as I know the huge success you've had, but in this case I don't see how this can possibly be proven unless you are saying "I can sandbox your site for 2 months" or a specific amount of time because from what ive seen and from what many have seen you almost always eventually bounce back strong.

I'm not saying the site won't bounce back strong. I'm saying I'll send his site to the abyss of G. It'll probably be about two months, but how long he'll be in the sandbox is not something I can control.

A site being able to bounce back after being sunk in the rankings - what would you call that? Why would it sink? Why would it bounce back? Surely this is not QDF.

[dp40oz]

Originally Posted by Mike Grant

I'm not saying the site won't bounce back strong. I'm saying I'll send his site to the abyss of G. It'll probably be about two months, but how long he'll be in the sandbox is not something I can control.

A site being able to bounce back after being sunk in the rankings - what would you call that? Why would it sink? Why would it bounce back? Surely this is not QDF.

I totally agree its not QDF. I have a few theories on why it does this none of which have any real proof behind them but here they are.

The most likely I think is that you have this incredibly vast algorithm that has to literally deal with every single collection of letters, numbers and sort webpages in some order that will give a quality result. Now lets say you take a search term "black leg warmer for dancers". Hypothetically this robot maybe has a collection of about 5000 times that its seen this exact phrase in anchor text. Now someone goes and throws 20,000 links all with that phrase or something extremely similar at the robot all going to the same page.

Now if I were sorting threw something physically id take that thing that was getting lots of votes and put it to the side. Then i'd reorganize everything that didn't change and then find where to place this newly popular thing. I think we all like to believe Google is better then it is. Maybe it takes time to reorganize this, especially for these niche phrases that it probably doesn't care much about and possibly more time then we like to believe the almighty Google could possibly take. Combine this with a little bit of wanting to hide the algorithm to possible spammers and analysts and I think you have a so called "sandbox".

For those interested though what ive found is that lets say you got your site "Sandboxed" for a ton of spammy blog comments. My tests have shown that if you wait a bit then throw a lot of articles and web 2.0, basically some different link method it kind of kicks the site back to the front. Almost as if you've forced the system to reorganize you earlier or whatever. I don't know all of this is just my own crazy theories but it works.

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by dp40oz

I totally agree its not QDF. I have a few theories on why it does this none of which have any real proof behind them but here they are.

The most likely I think is that you have this incredibly vast algorithm that has to literally deal with every single collection of letters, numbers and sort webpages in some order that will give a quality result. Now lets say you take a search term "black leg warmer for dancers". Hypothetically this robot maybe has a collection of about 5000 times that its seen this exact phrase in anchor text. Now someone goes and throws 20,000 links all with that phrase or something extremely similar at the robot all going to the same page.

Now if I were sorting threw something physically id take that thing that was getting lots of votes and put it to the side. Then i'd reorganize everything that didn't change and then find where to place this newly popular thing. I think we all like to believe Google is better then it is. Maybe it takes time to reorganize this, especially for these niche phrases that it probably doesn't care much about and possibly more time then we like to believe the almighty Google could possibly take. Combine this with a little bit of wanting to hide the algorithm to possible spammers and analysts and I think you have a so called "sandbox".

For those interested though what ive found is that lets say you got your site "Sandboxed" for a ton of spammy blog comments. My tests have shown that if you wait a bit then throw a lot of articles and web 2.0, basically some different link method it kind of kicks the site back to the front. Almost as if you've forced the system to reorganize you earlier or whatever. I don't know all of this is just my own crazy theories but it works.

I agree with everything except the last paragraph. The web 2.0, articles, or other various links didn't work for me but a trait of some specific link did. Can't reveal it, though.

Doesn't seem like this test is going to happen.

[dp40oz]

Originally Posted by Mike Grant

I agree with everything except the last paragraph. The web 2.0, articles, or other various links didn't work for me but a trait of some specific link did. Can't reveal it, though.

Any chance at a hint? Ive been using AMR which seems to work and if not, I'll do a huge Senuke campaign. Neither are a sure shot but im always looking for better ways.

Also just thought i'd mention Mike ive been doing my own dumbed down version of the link service you offer. Now mind you its not nearly as powerful and exactly constructed but it has given me huge boosts. You really know your stuff and even after just 2 weeks of seeing what you offer Ive been able to dramatically move my ranks for tougher keywords. I recommend anyone looking for quality link juice to buy your package or at least look at the structure. I know it wasn't necessarily intended as a learning tool but I appreciate the top tier warriors sharing some of their secrets and tactics.

[syahbiz]

you are not sandboxed, do some improvements on your seo

[kennygoodman]

I would say initial fluctuation - see how you are in a couple of weeks


Kenny

[Chris Sweeney]

So I guess this test isn't gonna happen, huh?

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by Chris Sweeney

So I guess this test isn't gonna happen, huh?

Never heard a word from him.

[siwell16]

Originally Posted by Mike Grant

You keep clamoring this over, and over, and over.

Create a new site and give me the URL.

I guarantee you I will sandbox it for months.

I agree sandboxing is not a myth if you want proof just get thousands of links to a newly indexed site and watch it get buried in the sand!

[dburk]

Originally Posted by siwell16

I agree sandboxing is not a myth if you want proof just get thousands of links to a newly indexed site and watch it get buried in the sand!

So are saying websites that go viral are buried in the sand? How do those sites, that do go viral, avoid this sandbox burial? Are they bribing Google? Exploiting a secret loophole? What is you theory on viral websites that contradict your conclusion?

[jack jastin]

I think You need not to worried about it so much. Keep doing your link building strategies and you will get all fine. Because this is the starting stage of your site, And all you need is to concentrate on link building techniques. This is the only platform where you can get help for You.

[dagaul101]

It could be a temporary fluctuation 5-13 links a day is hardly going to raise suspicion that you are building links too quickly, which is one of the factors that can get your site sandboxed

[racheltom]

I guess that its not penalized you need to work on content n keep working on your back links soon you can get back your place on google

[dburk]

Originally Posted by dagaul101

It could be a temporary fluctuation 5-13 links a day is hardly going to raise suspicion that you are building links too quickly, which is one of the factors that can get your site sandboxed

Hi dagaul101,

Google has no problem with building links quickly. They love finding meritorious links no matter how fast they are created and they hate finding spam no matter how slow you drip feed it.

The more aggressive you link building the more exposure your website gets and the quicker your spam is discovered and devalued.

Creating spam slower isn't necessarily going to delay the discovery of that spam, since it is often found on the same page along with spam created by other highly aggressive spam campaigns. If you want to hide your spam for as long as possible, you need to find places that no other spammers have discovered.

Or, you could build meritorious links at the fastest pace you can manage and not worry about "looking natural".

[Keep Trying]

Oh man... I actually read through this entire thread, and was anticipating the experiment. I really wanted to see if Google Sandbox was a myth or not.

[Peter Clark]

Originally Posted by Keep Trying

Oh man... I actually read through this entire thread, and was anticipating the experiment. I really wanted to see if Google Sandbox was a myth or not.

Hahaha me too!

Lets see if DBurk actually steps up...

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Peter Clark

Hahaha me too!

Lets see if DBurk actually steps up...

Hi Peter,

I'm still game if Mike is.

I already created a new blog just for this experiment. In fact I registered a .info domain so that those who believe in the domain authority myth... err... I mean theory, can not say the domain authority is preventing the mythical "Sandbox" from attacking the website.

So it is a newly registered domain (never previously registered) using a so called "weak" top level domain. So in theory I have a domain that should be easy to "Sandbox", if Mike is still willing to try.

@Mike Grant,

What do you say, still willing to give it a go?

[anislagan]

I have a new site in April and blast XRumer after a month. After checking the PR in June it rose up to PR 2. Sometimes, big G is generous.