SEO experts are divided as to whether the so-called 'sandbox' effect is a real or imagined phenomenon. If you subscribe to the sandbox argument, it goes something like this:
Google in particular, but also to a lesser extent Yahoo, do not quickly provide new websites with high search ranks for their important keywords even where valid SEO strategies have been applied. MSN, however, tends not to operate the same delay.
Because of this, it has been assumed that new websites go into a 'sandbox' as they await repeated spidering cycles to ensure that their content and links are 'worthy' and not part of a spammy inter-linked group of websites with SEO as their only function.
Even if you do not subscribe to this sandbox argument, it is well-recognised that older sites that are at least a year old, seem to be 'trusted' by Google (assuming that they are genuine white hat) and are more likely to feature in keyword searches.
The sandbox argument contends that the new website has to become established with (at least some) high quality inbound links over many months to be taken seriously by Google.
It is the case, however, that if you go for particularly aggressive SEO - i.e. you buy 100s of links from high page rankers - that this tidal wave of 'interest' in your site will quickly carry your site out of the sandbox to high ranking prominence. That is if Google does not smell a rat - their algorythm is learning to sniff out non-organic links of this type and they have penalised prominent companies.
So does the sandbox exist? Perhaps, but it's more like a damn that will give if you hurl enough at it. Further, it is possible to understand the factors at play without needing a sandbox hypothesis.
Is it a useful concept then? Yes, but only in as much as it reminds webmasters that they have to be patient.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment