Papers & Articles

01/02/2007  |  What Is The So-Called 'Sandbox'?

There is serious debate among the Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) community regarding the existence of a system where Google quarantines new sites from the Search Engine Results Pages (SERPs). The Google ‘Sandbox’ theory as it has become known within the SEO industry, surfaced during Summer 2004 and became more widely debated after Google updated the way they index websites on 4th February 2005.

The ‘Sandbox Effect’ was first noticed when a number of websites suddenly lost their positions in the SERPs after being listed for a couple of weeks. Research identified that the majority of the affected website domain names had been registered around March 2004. Following the ‘Allegra' Google update in February 2005, conspiracy theories were traded throughout SEO forums. Previously well-ranked websites were losing their SERPs listings while lesser-rated sites were taking their places. Another strange phenomenon was that those sites previously thought to be ‘sandboxed’ were now achieving good rankings; the biggest indicator yet that there really was a Google Sandbox.

The theory put about by Search Engine Optimisers was that Google put a time-delay on new websites, no matter how well optimised these sites were, before allowing them into the SERPs. This theory has been the subject of much conjecture ever since. With no apparent confirmation or denial from Google of the existence of a sandbox, debate among the SEO community has flourished.

Another angle being put forward is regarding the age of inbound links. It is generally agreed that developing links from other websites will eventually ‘get you out of the sandbox’. But this doesn’t seem to happen overnight.

The argument against the Sandbox theory is carried by a number of well-respected figures in the SEO industry. They generally put forward the case that a well optimised website will achieve its deserved position in the SERPs. Their recommendations on how to avoid being ‘sandboxed’ follow well-established practices in good website optimisation.

Those practices include:

• A number of high quality inbound links that are anchored in your targeted keywords among good quality content on relevant websites.
• Good readable content that includes your targeted keywords.
• The site has been well optimised, particularly in the ‘title’ and ‘description’ tags.

What you definitely should NOT be doing:

• Allowing your site to be linked from multiple link exchange sites, otherwise known as ‘link farms’.
• Targeting keywords that are too competitive.
• Paying any self-styled ‘SEO Expert’ for ‘guaranteed’ positions in any search engine.
• Likewise, listening to anyone who claims to know the secrets that the search engines ‘don’t want you to know about’.
• Use hidden text or ‘cloaking’ or any other ‘black hat’ technique to promote your site.

So is the sandbox theory being used to mask illegal or unethical techniques? Or does the sandbox really exist to ensure that new sites are genuine and not just ‘spamming’ at the expense of more established sites? In the absence of a confirmation or denial, from Google, of the existence of a sandbox, the debate will continue.