The Sandbox Effect - Truth or Lies?

**incka** · 07-21-2004, 09:29 AM

If you don't know what the sandbox effect is, this is a brief explanation:

Your site gets a good initial ranking by google, then you fall far into the SERPS and between 2-4 months you rise to a good position based on your site.

I would personally be very doubtful about this, yet someone exactly like that happend to my MSN Emotions site. So what are your opinions? Is it truth or lies?

**chrispian** · 07-21-2004, 09:34 AM

Sound sort of odd to me. Your initial ranking is always a guess and should not have any indication of your actual site's rank. After 2-4 months Google will be able to rank your site and reflect your true ranking. It sounds like someone has just given a name to the natural evolution of your ranking in the SERPS.

**paul** · 07-21-2004, 10:25 AM

I have three sites where I have made major changes in the last month and have watched them rise

and then fall

One site moved from #16 to #10 and back down again. These are sites with few links, for VERY niche terms. However, even my oldest PR6 site moved from #7 to #5 and now is back down to #6. Others haven't changed at all.

I am left feeling the rankings are much more dynamic than I realized.

In the offline world, established players/companies are difficult for newcomers to dislodge. If Google is as dynamic as it seems, this would imply that newcomers online would might have an easier time getting good rankings.

**Chris** · 07-21-2004, 10:32 AM

I have had no problems getting brand new sites well ranked, consistently, and continuously.

**Mike** · 07-21-2004, 10:54 AM

But could that be because of all the PR you have to start with, from Jalic?

**r2d2** · 07-21-2004, 11:58 AM

My casino site was good for a coupla weeks, then disappeared, now is starting to come back after about 5 months.

In my experience, I would say there is some truth to it.

Apparently it is to cut down on spammers, due to them having to wait several months to get anywhere, should stop them, but decent webmasters should stick it out.

**incka** · 07-21-2004, 12:56 PM

Decent webmasters don't like waiting.

**Chris** · 07-21-2004, 04:45 PM

The whole "Sandbox Theory" though is directly concerned with such links. So I, of all people, should be affected.

**MarkB** · 07-21-2004, 10:38 PM

Chris, are there any secret methods of success you're not telling us?

**Kyle** · 07-21-2004, 11:14 PM

Yes, I'll speak for him.
267 dmoz listings for online-literature.com... that's his secret.

**incka** · 07-22-2004, 02:06 AM

I'll do same as Icebane - His orienteering, survival, fitness & aritst biography sites get most of their PR from dmoz too. There is some debate as whether DMOZ links count more than other links of the same PR...

**AndyH** · 07-22-2004, 02:52 AM

I highly doubt DMOZ links count more than other links. I would think that every single link anywhere on the internet counts the same as it just makes logical sense.

**r2d2** · 07-22-2004, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by incka

Decent webmasters don't like waiting.

By 'decent' I meant 'honest' rather than how good they are.

Incka, DMOZ links dont could any more in terms of PR than other links of identical PR. Even Chris states this somewhere in this sites tutorials I believe, you will get lots of other links from DMOZ copies though.

267 listings on DMOZ x 30 copies = ~8000 links.

(Not sure about how many copies there are, just I have roughly 30 backlinks from DMOZ copies.)