Google Sandbox Version Two?

Jun 27, 2014 • 8:07 am | comments (33) by twitter Google+ | Filed Under Google Search Engine Optimization

Google Sandbox IconThe Google Sandbox was a term coined back in 2004 when SEOs and webmaster began noticing their new sites were not ranking as quickly as they use to. In short, your new site got put into a sandbox, where you waited, until you would rank.

That has not been talked about much in years but there are always some webmasters and SEOs that bring it up. Truth is, new sites can rank fast in Google these days, if they meet Google's algorithms requirements.

That being said, a Black Hat World thread has some SEOs and webmasters complaining it is taking longer than usual to rank new sites in Google.

If you look past all the bickering and yelling in the thread, there are many SEOs and Webmasters, likely on the black hat/churn and burn side, agreeing that it is taking longer.

Can this be a new Google Sandbox or just a specific case of some webmasters not building sites right and expecting them to rank well?

I have not seen many complaints elsewhere but I wouldn't expect to see that in normal forums.

Forum discussion at Black Hat World.

Previous story: New Google AdWords Distance Reporting & Location Bidding Controls



06/27/2014 12:34 pm

Oh please, not this again.... It took years to finally get people to accept there was no sandbox the first time. Even with Google themselves saying so.

Barry Schwartz

06/27/2014 12:36 pm

Um, actually, Google did admit to it on some level the first time.


06/27/2014 12:41 pm

Not in the context it was been used in, aka you are in the sandbox or the real index. So if you got put in the sandbox you wouldn't appear in normal search at all. The only sandbox I ever heard them talk about was the development sandbox which is different and has no affect on the live index.

Barry Schwartz

06/27/2014 12:46 pm

Yes in the context. See

Don Dikaio

06/27/2014 03:08 pm

Wow and boy genius @StevenLockey proven wrong again, this is like a never ending story with this guy.

Michael Martinez

06/27/2014 03:08 pm

"In short, your new site got put into a sandbox, where you waited, until you would rank." Actually, the Sandbox Effect was all about waiting to trust links. The impact on link destinations was secondary and unforeseen.

Sean Green

06/27/2014 04:16 pm

I am a firm believer in the sandbox theory. I have built numerous sites in the same exact niche over the years. I have had some rank very quickly and some take 4-6 months to rank for the same exact keywords. The only difference is on the sites that took longer to rank I optimized (not overly optimized) the pages with and tags and started building links early on. When I say building links I am not talking about a lot either. Maybe 5-10 links from higher quality sources. On the sites I ranked really quickly I never did ANY link building and didn't optimize my pages. I stumbled upon this because I wanted to get one of my sites aging and indexed so I quickly just posted the content and didn't build any links, next thing I knew I was ranking well. With the sites that took longer to rank it was always a common theme, I would just start ranking for every keyword one day, almost like a filter that had been lifted. Basically I think the Sandbox is a filter that can be tripped early on. ANY optimization on a good portion of your pages will trip it, early on link building can trip it.

Ashish Ahuja

06/27/2014 05:30 pm

Sanbox is true, there is a Google patent which is about depressing the rank of a site with respect to the links its getting for some time duration.

josh bachynski (SEO)

06/27/2014 06:31 pm

no it's ranking FASTER if you are generating sufficient buzz. too long to explain here, email me if you want to know what i mean ;p joshbachynski at gmail

Barry Schwartz

06/27/2014 06:32 pm

Josh, please stop asking people to email you from this site. Seems very much like a solicitation. Thanks!

josh bachynski (SEO)

06/27/2014 06:33 pm

oh ok, do you want me to link to my video instead? trying to do what is least spammy lol ;p

Barry Schwartz

06/27/2014 06:36 pm

Link to content/video, sure or explain it here.


06/27/2014 08:11 pm

Same old blah blah blah... Don't build useless sites, problem solved. That blackhat thread is so hilarious I couldn't stop laughing. People in there are still stuck on web 2.0, PageRank, blog posts, keyword density and press releases, what a time warp. I'd at least move on to web 2.1


06/27/2014 10:31 pm

If you read in a black hat context they are saying google search doesn't work. When you or anyone else makes a website that isn't findable then search is broken. Google is great at ads, but they really do suck at quality organic results... just search for pink socks... safe search is on by default. Google sucks at safe search too.


06/28/2014 11:05 am

If it's good it will shine and Barry would be happy to keep it on the page. I'm almost certain I've posted links here, once the posts are good and add to the discussion who cares?


06/28/2014 11:08 am

I was with you until the Web 2.1 comment. You really don't know what you're on about do you?

John Morgan

06/28/2014 11:12 am

If "Churn & Burn" isn't working then explain Black Hat World posts like this? It's very easy to mock the Black Hat community when you cherry pick the posts you read ;)


06/28/2014 04:15 pm

The comment is about 2.0 being a joke. Something that never actually existed and people still using the term in any context is funny to me. It just shows how outdated the blackhat garbage really is. They can have all the quantum computing walls of web 2.0s in the universe, it doesn't work, the technique is very outdated and Google can see through it. I just despise the term "web 2.0"... its time to move on.

John Morgan

06/29/2014 03:06 pm

Lol! Good, I thought you'd lost it then! I'm a big poster at BHW and although there are some garbage posts (As with any marketing Forum) there are people there who do some pretty good research into SEO methods. Quite often you'll hear about techniques or tactics first in BHW - then after about 12 months you'll hear about it in Moz or something.

Yo Mamma

06/29/2014 04:11 pm

"Day 13 (No 4)


06/29/2014 06:06 pm

Be it BHW, Warrior, if it's on there, it's outdated, someone realized the technique doesn't work anymore or someone else discovered it, so they tell everyone about it and open the floodgates. It just makes me laugh that people are creating these elaborate PBNs when they can put the same energy into creating a whitehat site and not have to worry about getting hit with penalties. Sure, do your churn and burn, or the flavor of them month for quick money but why not have your whitehat sites grow naturally in the background? Then you get the excitement and the long term plan so you can just relax when you want to.


06/29/2014 06:17 pm

Better still.... do both. You then get the excitement of the churn and but the stability (instability) of the whitehat cash. Google need to just die. They are bad for the internet and bad for the world.


06/29/2014 06:35 pm

But he is a level 10 on the "google abuse webmasters forum". How can he be so wrong so often when he is endorsed by google themselves?

Cristian Sepulveda

06/30/2014 12:44 am

I'l like to see this video josh!! So if you do sufficient buzz, but how much? there is a aprox. number? do you hace some example? or any case? You say that is just a matter of buzz??


06/30/2014 08:52 am

You might want to read what you linked to. 'There is a sandbox LIKE effect for some industries' Aka, there is no sandbox..... If you are in the desert and see a mirage that looks like a lake, it would be claim there is a lake there when you know it is just a mirage. This is pretty much what you are doing here. There is no sandbox. So no Barry. You are wrong. Google have NEVER admitted the existence of the sandbox. The whole point is, if people think they are in a sandbox, they look to escape it instead of fixing the actual problems with their website. So no, you are flat out wrong and on very edge of 'The Sun' level news reporting here I am afraid (If you don't know what I mean there, they are the ones who published the Freddie Star ate my Hamster story). Saying the sandbox exists is just nonsense.


06/30/2014 08:54 am

Well, Matt Cutts said there is no sandbox, I'm more inclined to agree with him than with Barry I'm afraid, particularly as the only 'evidence' Barry can give is MC saying there is no sandbox......

Robert Mangutl

06/30/2014 08:58 am

Well in my opinion it can be down to many factors. Server, loading time, sitemaps and I have also noticed quicker indexing when I am having dedicated IP address


07/04/2014 01:31 pm

Lol you believe what Matt Cutts says!? We have just over 300 clients and a nice pool of data to analyse. There is absolutely an age filter placed on results, rolled out on our around May 20th. Age of domain makes no difference so you can't go and repurpose an aged domain - it's link age. Sites take around 5 months to rank that would only usually take a month.

Secret Squirrel

07/07/2014 02:18 pm

Just to clarify - you say a 5 month wait, but the update was just a short while ago?

Secret Squirrel

07/07/2014 02:20 pm

And also, please dont allow people to be peddling their snake oil in here, just trying to cash in on peoples woes... again! I know of many people who tried the last product and did it work?? NOPE


07/07/2014 03:23 pm

He must be psychic and know it is 5 months, LOL.


07/08/2014 05:21 am

How can you say it takes 5 months when the filter has been added (according to you) only 1.5 month ago???

Larry Brauner

07/09/2014 11:10 pm

I'm seeing individual pages sandboxed while the rest of the domain remains unaffected.

blog comments powered by Disqus