Found via Barry. A great debate at SEW on the effectiveness of DaveN's suggested sandbox-dodging technique that's become an all out brawl between big names like Jill Whalen, Ian McAnerin, Mike Grehan and Danny Sullivan on the existence of and qualities possessed by "the sandbox".
My real opinion is that it exists. Call it whatever you want "litterbox", "spam filters", "aging delay", "trustbox" - I don't give a @#$%!. The effect didn't exist prior to March of 2003, it affects many sites in a very similiar fashion. It's observable, testable, confirmed by Google (through doublespeak, but that's all you'll ever get from them) and something you have to pay attention to if you're launching a new site (and you're not a big, established company).
Go jump in at SEW and give 'em hell (or do it in the comments here if you want).
BTW - Going from 35 degrees and rain to 75 degrees and sun in December is nice.... very nice.
one more point.... I'm sure that when Aristotle said that the world was round, that some of the brightest people of that time said he was wrong, and debated it greatly....I'm sure that even when Columbus sailed to America that people still doubted him that the world was round...it took hundreds of years for people to finally admit that the world was round. Follow?
Amen. Can we move on now...I thought we were finally past all of the sillyness.
Here is my theory: if the keyword cost a dollar per click or more, any new site will be forced to buy Adwords while the spend one year in the sandbox. I call it the "money-filter!" The money filters from your pocket into Google’s pocket, until you have reached the age of admission (possible free advertising).
The sandbox is nothing more than a money filter. Again this is why I don’t listen to Matt or read his blog. He will tell you there are no Money filters, nor will he tell you there is a sandbox. Don’t get me started on this guy!
Oh Doug, not again!
How does that saying go? If it looks like a sandbox, walks like a sandbox, smells like a sandbox, acts like a sandbox....hum...it must be a sandbox!
I started to post a comment here, and got sucked in there. Darn...my comment here was gonna be about how easy it is to catch yourself spending a substantial amount of time crafting a thought about it. My end of year resolution is to not think about the sandbox until 2006:)
It's interesting to get feedback on the sandbox from such big names. I have to say I think the fortune 500 bit automatically falls under the Internet Phenonenon catagory. Google would look stupid if one of the biggest companies couldn't be found in the SERPs.
But I also think the sandbox is more than one filter with similar effects in the SERPs and that is where a lot of confusion comes from.
Trust definately plays a role. But as you (Rand) pointed out this site and "seo by the sea" both should have jumped up quickly and didn't.
Perhaps there is an SEO filter? ;)
I haven't been over at sew yet...but geez I'm in agreement w/EGOL.
have you posted over there yet EGOL?
I was just over there. Your post should be copied over there (though some there will see it here).
There have been experiments open to the public in somewhat similar fashion (McDar experiment at DP - https://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=256
There have been 75,000 visits to the experiment.
Dave
Geez... I am sick of these big guns denying the sandbox. If they have any koohonies at all they will regsiter a new domain... suggest koohonies.com (it's still out there unregistered) and see if they can power it onto first page Google SERPs in under a month for a middle money term - with everybody watching. If they can get it up then they got big koohonies and if they can't get it up then they got none at all.
This will either shut 'em up for good or let them strut their stuff. Walk the talk big guys!