Free-Reprint Article Written by: Jim Hedger
See Terms of Reprint Below.
*****************************************************************
*
* This email is being delivered directly to members of the group:
*
* internet_marketing_articleblaster@yahoogroups.com
*
*****************************************************************
We have moved our TERMS OF REPRINT to the end of the article.
Be certain to read our TERMS OF REPRINT and honor our TERMS
OF REPRINT when you use this article. Thank you.
This article has been distributed by:
http://Article-Distribution.com
Helpful Link:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Overview
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Title:
==============
Two Sides of the Sandbox - Getting Stuck and Unstuck on Google
Article Description:
====================
The mysterious "Google Sandbox" has been a hot discussion topic
for search engine optimizers since the phenomena was first noted
and named in late April 2004. Since then, ideas on the function,
scope and even existence of the sandbox have been a mainstay in
SEO and Google related forums, chats and articles.
Additional Article Information:
===============================
1438 Words; formatted to 65 Characters per Line
Distribution Date and Time: 2006-10-11 11:12:00
Written By: Jim Hedger
Copyright: 2006, All Rights Reserved
Contact Email: mailto:jimhedger@sitepronews.com
Jim Hedger's Picture URL:
http://blog.sitepronews.com/uploads/jimh.gif
For more free-reprint articles by Jim Hedger, please visit:
http://thePhantomWriters.com/free_content/d/index.shtml#Jim_Hedger
=============================================
Special Notice For Publishers and Webmasters:
=============================================
If you use this article on your website or in your ezine,
We Want To Know About It. Use the following URL to let
us know where you have used this article, and we will
include a link to your website on thePhantomWriters.com:
http://thephantomwriters.com/notify.php?id=3702&p=load
HTML Copy-and-Paste and TEXT Copy-and-Paste
Versions Of Article Are Available at:
http://thePhantomWriters.com/free_content/db/h/two-sides-of-the-sandbox.shtml#get_code
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Sides of the Sandbox - Getting Stuck and Unstuck on Google
Copyright (c) 2006 Jim Hedger, All Rights Reserved
SiteProNews
http://www.sitepronews.com
The mysterious "Google Sandbox" has been a hot discussion
topic for search engine optimizers since the phenomena was
first noted and named in late April 2004 (http://forums.seochat.com/t9919/s.html). Since then, ideas
on the function, scope and even existence of the sandbox
have been a mainstay in SEO and Google related forums, chats
and articles.
The term, "sandbox" describes a process of Google's ranking
formulas that appear to slow the debut of new sites in the Top10
listings. Whether or not the sandbox exists tends to depend on
the side of the black hat / white hat debate one comes from.
SEOs dedicated to "pure", non-spammy SEO tend to downplay the
effects of the sandbox while those who use dark-art tactics know
from personal experience that the effects are very real.
In a November 2005 interview (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/002809.html)
with WebmasterWorld's Brett Tabke, Google chief engineer
Matt Cutts appeared to acknowledge it saying, "How many
feel there is no such thing as a sandbox? SEOs normally split
down the line. There are some things in the algorithm that may
be perceived as a sandbox that doesn't apply to all industries."
While Matt's comments did not exactly confirm or deny the
existence of a sandbox, they did leave the barn door open wide
enough for a great deal of discussion. Between November 2005 and
September 2006, well over 300 credible articles, forum threads
and blog posts have addressed the topic.
For some, such as Search Engine Guide editor Jennifer Laycock,
the Google sandbox is an expression of importance and
credibility imbued upon sites that have established themselves
over time in Google's index. In a June 2006 article
(http://www.searchengineguide.com/laycock/007705.html), Jennifer
wrote, "... there is no Google sandbox! It simply doesn't exist."
When new sites are spidered and brought into the index, Google
compares them with similar sites already in its index and makes
a judgment on the relevance of that site against the others.
"After all," she wrote, "how many mortgage application sites
does Google really need to list? Why should they think that your
brand new mortgage site is any more worthy of a ranking than the
1.5 million (yes, MILLION) sites that are already indexed for
the phrase 'mortgage application.'"
Jennifer wrote her piece in agreement with a post Sheri Thurow
from Grantastic Design made to LED Digest (issue 2177) where
Sheri proclaimed, "There is no such thing as a Google Sandbox.
It's one of those terms that self-proclaimed search engine
"experts" came up with to explain why their methodologies don't
work."
Sheri's post generated a great deal of controversy, partially
because it was perceived by readers as a rant. She explained her
point by writing, "A search-friendly Web site is built on a
solid foundation of keyword-focused text and giving spiders a
means of accessing that text. Then, objective 3rd parties should
basically confirm what you say about your own content. It has
been this way for years. For that reason, no Google Sandbox. If
your site doesn't have the foundation, its pages won't appear in
search engine results."
What Jennifer and Sheri are saying is Google is not going to
automatically give a first page listing to a new site, no matter
how well optimized that site might be. There might be thousands
or even millions of competing websites being compared against a
site that has not had time to establish itself as a
peer-referenced site.
Peer referencing is an important cornerstone of Google's overall
ranking formula. Originally, Google built its search results
based on the number of links directed to a specific document
from other web documents. As technology progressed, the creation
and maintenance of web documents became infinitely easier,
especially with the deployment of blogs. Driving the creation
of millions of fresh documents, sites and blogs was the
popularization of Google's paid search advertising distribution
program AdSense. Suddenly, a direct profit motive existed for
some in the SEO sector to use their knowledge and immense
talents to game Google's SERPs six ways to Sunday.
Links, which have long been like gold for search savvy
webmasters, became increasingly important following the series
of algorithm upgrades that started with Hilltop in the summer
of 2004. Since that time, Google has raced to keep up with a
myriad of methods devised to game its ranking methods. The
implementation of a critical measure of how a site, or a
document originating at a specific domain, has established
itself along side similar sites and/or documents, is accepted by
most SEOs as a long leg in Google's race against manipulation of
their search results.
Google has consistently moved to limit link-based exploits of
its link-based organic ranking system. Starting this time last
year, it implemented a series of measurements examining a wide
assortment of data about documents in its index, along with data
derived from linking documents known as the Jagger update.
It is safe to say that for the past two years, the majority of
research and advancement in the field of search engine
optimization comes from the study and analysis of link
structures. When it comes to getting a strong ranking on Google
and to a lesser degree, on Yahoo, link partners are as well
scrutinized as the specific page or domain being indexed.
One of the newer clich�s being thrown around SEO circles is the
phrase "Link Baiting". Links from well-established, relevant
sites is good at Google. Getting good quality links is getting
harder every day. Link baiting describes a tactic to entice
others to link to your site by presenting enticing content.
One of the best-known and well-respected link analysts, Andy
Hagans wrote a strong piece earlier this week titled, "Secrets
to Beating the Sandbox 2.0 REVEALED: The Ultimate Guide".
(http://www.linkbuildingblog.com/2006/09/secrets_to_beat.html)
Though the title is in itself a fine example of link-bait (as
noted - http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/006245.html - by RustyBrick), the content of the piece is extremely thorough
and well written.
In his opinion, the Google Sandbox definitely exists. "The
sandbox/Trustbox is a set of filters in Google's search
algorithm that together prevent new sites from ranking well
until they gain trust." Andy redefines the debate by suggesting
"Trustbox" as a far better name than "sandbox". It is certainly
more descriptive.
Andy's "Ultimate Guide" opens with a concise tutorial on what
the "sandbox" is, how it affects sites, and methods he uses to
dig through it. As with most pieces by Andy, he clearly
delineates tactics that might be considered black-hat from those
that are simply smart work on the part of webmasters.
Though I earlier noted that those who believe in the sandbox
tend to fall on the dark-arts side of the SEO sector, I don't
intend to suggest all discussion about the phenomenon comes from
black-hat SEOs or to imply that all those who find themselves
playing in the sandbox are spammers. Due to their need for rapid
placement and their propensity of burning domains, the function
of a Google Sandbox affects black-hat (or, more appropriately,
self-servicing) practitioners far more directly than it does
in-house or agency focused SEOs.
I don't mean to disagree with Sheri or Jennifer either, not
exactly anyway. I suspect that for them the existence of a
sandbox is irrelevant and therefore far off their radar screens.
It is not in Jennifer or Sheri's interest to spend time delving
into the dark-arts of SEO as neither practice black-hat
techniques.
Something resembling the Google Sandbox, or as Andy calls it,
Trustbox does exist for new websites. Jennifer Laycock actually
summed it up best herself, speaking in a session about small
business at SES San Jose, in which she used the opening of a new
restaurant to describe the non-existence of "sandbox effect".
In the analogy, Jennifer explained that she was a fan of Chinese
and Ethiopian cuisine. In her mid-west city, there are hundreds
of Chinese restaurants, several of which she has eaten at or
regularly frequents. The opening of a new Chinese restaurant
might register on her radar screen but would not likely cause
her to race out to try it. If a number of friends recommended
the new restaurant, she would be more likely to try it out.
Chinese restaurants are ubiquitous in North American cities. If
a new Ethiopian eatery opened in that same large mid-west city,
she would be very likely to go out of her way to eat there, with
or without recommendations from trusted friends, simply because
there are very few restaurants specializing in Ethiopian food.
In other words, Jennifer's observation brings us back full
circle to Matt Cutts' original affirmation, "There are some
things in the algorithm that may be perceived as a sandbox that
doesn't apply to all industries."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Search marketing expert Jim Hedger is one of the most prolific
writers in the search sector with articles appearing in numerous
search related websites and newsletters, including SiteProNews,
Search Engine Journal, ISEDB.com, and Search Engine Guide.
He is currently Senior Editor for the Jayde Online news sources
SEO-News (http://www.seo-news.com) and SiteProNews
(http://www.sitepronews.com). You can also find additional tips
and news on webmaster and SEO topics by Jim at the SiteProNews
blog (http://blog.sitepronews.com/).
--- END ARTICLE ---
Get HTML or TEXT Copy-and-Paste Versions Of This Article at:
http://thePhantomWriters.com/free_content/db/h/two-sides-of-the-sandbox.shtml#get_code
.....................................
TERMS OF REPRINT - Publication Rules
(Last Updated: May 11, 2006)
Our TERMS OF REPRINT are fully enforcable under the terms of:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281.ENR:
.....................................
*** Digital Reprint Rights ***
* If you publish this article in a website/forum/blog,
You Must Set All URL's or Mailto Addresses in the body
of the article AND in the Author's Resource Box as
Hyperlinks (clickable links).
* Links must remain in the form that we published them.
Clean links should point to the Author's links without
redirects having been inserted into the copy.
* You are not allowed to Change or Delete any Words or
Links in the Article or Resource Box. Paragraph breaks
must be retained with articles. You can change where
the paragraph breaks fall, but you cannot eliminate all
paragraph breaks as some have chosen to do.
* Email Distribution of this article Must be done through
Opt-in Email Only. No Unsolicited Commercial Email.
* You Are Allowed to format the layout of the article for
proper display of the article in your website or in your
ezine, so long as you can maintain the author's interests
within the article.
* You may not use sentences from this article as an input
for any software that steals sentences from others in
order to build an article with software. The copyright on
this article applies to the "WHOLE" article.
*** Author Notification ***
We ask that you notify the author of publication of his
or her work. Jim Hedger can be reached at:
jimhedger@sitepronews.com
*** Print Publication Reprint Rights ***
If you desire to publish this article in a PRINT
publication, you must contact the author directly
for Print Permission at:
mailto:jimhedger@sitepronews.com
.....................................
If you need help converting this text article for proper
hyperlinked placement in your webpage, please use this
free tool: http://thephantomwriters.com/link-builder.pl
=====================================================================
ABOUT THIS ARTICLE SUBMISSION
http://thePhantomWriters.com is a paid article distribution
service. thePhantomWriters.com and Article-Distribution.com
are owned and operated by Bill Platt of Stillwater, Oklahoma USA.
The content of this article is solely the property
and opinion of its author, Jim Hedger
http://www.sitepronews.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/internet_marketing_articleblaster/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/internet_marketing_articleblaster/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:internet_marketing_articleblaster-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:internet_marketing_articleblaster-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
internet_marketing_articleblaster-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment