The sandbox effect

Apr 25, 2004 • 7:43 pm | comments (11) by twitter | Filed Under Google Search Engine Optimization,

This post at that other forum, a long time ago stuck in my head, considering the source was “G man” himself. “I heard that at PubCon, DaveN suggested that Google should only update the visible PR and link: data once a quarter or so... thatotherforum/forum3/22566.htm“

Now I hadn’t given it much thought until recently when a few clients of mine went out and purchased thousands of back links, and within 1-2 months were at a PR 8 for a new domain 2-3 months old. Now the situation: (And no I’m not going to post the domain don’t want a million link request coming in because of the PR but take my word for it, the site is well written, decently SEO’d (Completely SE Friendly from inception and just needs tweaking) and has more back links then anyone in its field. Also It’s field has hundreds of thousands if not millions of searches combined for its main keywords so a well ranked site would get tons of traffic, however this site is getting some 60 uniques per day from Google…60!

There are thousands of pages in the domain all targeting different terms and Like I said it’s a PR 8 so even with the slightest hint of SE friendliness (Which is not overdone btw density is like 1-5 % in most cases) they should by all rights ROCK EVERYONE!

So what’s the problem? Some good friends of mine and I have been tossing around the idea of the sandbox effect. Basically it states that PR and back link (pure link popularity) credit is placed in a reserve for a period of time say 2-4 months before it is applied to ranking and has an effect. The theory behind this is to combat PR purchasers from Google bombing, jumping into a field and dominating right off the bat. If PR appears to not be working people will stop buying it. If people stop buying page rank then its original purpose gains validity again. But instead of having to dump it because of abuse wait till people realize its no longer useful just put a delay on its effect and people will “think” it no longer counts and those spending thousands abusing it will quickly realize after 1-2 months of no benefit that it no longer works and move on.

Pretty sneaky and rather effective I think, however I can’t prove or disprove at this point I just wanted to put it to your attention for discussion. Also please realize I do not subscribe to this theory although it supported by a few hundred observed instances of the same phenomenon.

I would love to hear members comments on this situation and its implications, evidence to support but also evidence to refute its existence. Situations, examples etc also if anyone has access to any articles, forum posts, discussion groups etc pertaining to this phenomenon I would love for your to share, I am anxious to put this theory to bed either proved or disproved. Cheers

Previous story: Google Showing link from embedded flash file
blog comments powered by Disqus