Does Google Sandbox actually exist?

Hi robertransey,

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this is pure hogwash!

You incorrectly stated "Google had declared that the Sandbox filter is a reality." When did they make this statement? I have never heard of anyone from Google making such a claim. I believe this statement to be false both in it's premise as well as it specifics.

Google engineer Matt Cutts has flat out stated that the mythical sandbox does not exist. So I guess you have to include Google engineers in you list of "skeptics".

The notion of filters seems to be misapplied in your post. Google's algorithm uses some filters, but not in the manner you seem to be asserting. Google uses an objectionable content filter that filters certain types of content that may be inappropriate for a general audience and they use a duplicate content filter to help provide diversity in the results, but not much beyond that.

The primary SERP algorithm uses a system of scoring relevance, not filters. When I hear someone use a phrase like "Google uses a system of filters" in a fashion that implies that their algorithm is primarily made up of filters, it makes me chuckle a little. A filter is just that, it filters or removes listings from a SERP. A filter cannot be used to rank a webpage, only to ignore a webpage, as such they are only useful as tool to totally exclude, not rank or sort listings.

Yes Google uses filters, but only after they have calculated, ranked and sorted the query results and only to exclude inappropriate listings from the final results. They also use some filters, like the duplicate content filter, to prevent their crawlers from spending too much time crawling duplicate content, but that has nothing to do with the SERP algorithm.

I will acknowledge that some folks imagine their websites are trapped in a "sandbox". This is an imaginary construct that really exists, but only within their minds as part of their thought process. It's not something that exists in the real physical world. I don't think it is useful to an SEO expert to use such an imaginary construct. It's the kind of thing that leads to people believing in dragons and unicorns. They make good entertainment for storytelling in books and movies but you shouldn't expect to encounter them in real-life if you have maintained a grasp on your sanity.

Hi Marketing Ignite,

Where do guys come up with this stuff?

Yes, Google does use "trust" as a factor in calculating your relevancy scores, however there is nothing that "prevents" your page from showing up in results simply because it is on a new domain. It's true, you must earn your rankings, however Google deliberately boosts new pages in the search results to ensure late breaking information can be found near thew top of the results.

While a brand new domain does not help you, it does not hinder you either.

Hi Marketing Ignite,

Maybe it's just different semantics, but what does the domain have to do with it? Google doesn't rank anything based upon the domain, save localized .cc domains.

As someone who claims to be an expert "since 1998", you should know by now that Google doesn't index or rank websites, like all modern search engines they index and rank individual web documents. All new web pages are processed with the same algorithm, regardless of the domain age.

Sure, if you create a new page on an established website and link those established pages to your new page it will improve the ranking power of that new page. Likewise, if you link those same established pages to the same document placed on a brand new domain you get the same result. The domain age has nothing to do with why it ranks better, when a page has garnered inbound links from established pages the result is the same.

They did, they said that it doesn't exist. However, people choose not to believe their statements because it conflicts with their perception.

You're confusing competition for the mythical sandbox.

Sure, Google scores pages on well established authority sites higher. But the sandbox myth is that Google penalizes new sites, as a whole, in some way. They don't do this.

Hi Marketing Ignite,

I partially agree. The point I was trying to make is that those elements that are significantly important to ranking are not tied to the domain. To the URL, yes, to the domain, no. A new page on a new domain performs the same as the exact same page on an established domain when they have the same inbound links and have equally optimized URL elements.

The reason a keyword domain performs so well is that the primary keyword is included in every URL, which is one of the important factors for relevancy. This benefit is carried over to the internally linking structure and even includes your keyword in the anchor text when folks link using just the URL as the anchor text.

If you take an established website and move everything to a brand new keyword domain, putting in place the proper 301 redirects, you can often improve your ranking with that brand new URL. Which supports my argument that new or old domain names don't make any difference, it is the other factors that do.

Again, search engines don't rank domains, they rank individual documents, as an SEO professional you should know better.

Highly competitive phrases like "real estate" take a lot of promotional effort to rank. It's all that work that you must do to rank that takes time. If you were to recreate those same pages on a new domain and 301 redirect the old pages to the new pages on the brand new domain that brand new domain will rank pretty much in the same spot once the new URLs are crawled and indexed.

P.S. I'm sure that if Tiger Woods decided to play under a pseudonym he would play just as well. His skill does not come from the spelling of his name, just as your ranking power is not tied to your domain name.

Dburk, I think you are mis understanding what I am saying. Anyways, there is a sandbox in somel industries and it is confirmed by Google. You can read it all here.

Matt Cutts Confirms Sandbox Exists for Some Industries

I think this should close all these discussions.

Right on target. This is exactly why they would do it...


bgmacaw, so where is the source for that?

LOL, says who? Continuously sending links to domains you own should be a staple no matter what hat you think you wear.

Did you actually read the article? The headline does not line up with the actual content of the article.

The money line of the article has been stated for you 2x already, but perhaps the third time is the charm:

The headline, and the conclusion by this particular author are of course nonsense considering that he is relying on Matt's statements as evidence, but such statements are in fact contradictory to this author's headline and conclusion. This guy wouldn't do well on the critical reasoning section of the LSAT or GMAT it is safe to assume.

The headline could have been "Bigfoot sighted at campground", but it doesn't mean the article is actually about bigfoot being sighted at a campground.

I guess I need to just go around creating fictitious statements solely in article titles, and then people will go around referencing my articles based solely on the article titles. Pretty sweet.

Don't fall for a classic linkbait headline distorted for the express purpose of creating controversy. Such linkbait headlines are deliberately crafted to incite emotional responses by twisting and distorting facts to imply they mean the opposite of the truth.

That headline is pure fiction and contradicts Matt Cutts actual quote. Classic tabloid journalism, nothing more.

You are right marketing ignite but the problem is so are they. You both are arguing back and forth over semantics. In your link Matt did say that there is no sandbox but in explaining the article states that

" but the algorithm might affect some sites, under some circumstances, in a way that a webmaster would perceive as being sandboxed."

So its simply matter of how you perceive it. Telling you that you don't know how to read is not exactly fair or a good sign of reading and bolding stuff is just silly. The article says both. I believe they would state to you that its not REALLY a sandbox its just the same algorithm but if it affects your site is that such a big distinctive? not practically at least.

- I tend to agree with Dburk on no separate sandbox (not on the idea that a young domain - and yes every page sits on a domain so the distinction is meaningless - doesn't have very clear disadvantages in the algorithm. not impossible to overcome but they are there). Worry about linking and on page SEO not a sandbox.