Marketing & SEO Discussion List - LED Digest

======== SPECIAL ISSUE==============================

From: Michael Motherwell

Subject: Sandbox myth

> Shari is right... there is no Google Sandbox.

        - Jennifer Laycock, LED 2181

But you didn't explain what the term "Google Sandbox" means, so how

can you go on to disprove its existence?

> The more competition currently index, the

> higher the bar for admittance.

Hello, isn't that what the sandbox is reported to be? An inability

for new sites to rank for anything remotely competitive?

See, this is the problem with not defining what we are talking

about; we all say the same thing, but sound like we are disagreeing.

One quote from Jennifer comments:

> ... it makes sense that new sites are going to be judged

> and "allowed" to rank based on a sliding scale of how they

> compare to the sites that already exist in the index.

.. sounds an awful lot like what most people describe the sandbox

as. I don't understand how these comments don't agree with the more

serious Sandbox theories (not the "I am a victim" ones), but

discredit it. Am I missing something here?

I also found the example, (the lactivist site) irrelevant, as what

the Sandbox is reported to be is an inability to rank for

competitive terms. I looked, and

http://www.google.com/search?q=lactivist+tshirt showed the 30 days

site number one, with what looked like ZERO competitors, but

http://www.google.com/search?q=lactivist+tshirt showed no one

offering anything like a tshirt. Ranking well for such phrases

hardly seems like a discreditting of any sandbox theory I have heard.

> Because I chose a niche area to compete in that

> despite being somewhat competitive, still didn't have

> 1.5 million sites out there doing the same thing.

See, to me, that advice is true, but is made even stronger by the

sandbox's existence, not weaker. "New sites have great difficulty

ranking well, THEREFORE choose a niche area where ranking is easy"

holds a lot of merit. Without the Sandbox / aging delay in effect

(which I believe exists), the advice sounds hollow, as the equation

for which industry is best can be summed up quickly with this

formula:

Total revenue available * my expected market share = expected return.

Ranking averagely in a high turnover industry may be better than

ranking numbe one for a smaller niche, which as straight maths os:

$500 * 100% = $500.

$1,000,000,000 * 0.01% = $100 000.

(for those doubting this is reasonable, see

http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/travel/article.php/3433881:

"U.S. online travel sales are projected to reach a year-end total of

$54 billion in 2004").

But, with an aging delay for competitive terms, niche wins hands

down, as you have time to grow your niche, and non-competitive terms

are (according to the sandbox theory) still "rankable", where as you

gotta think anything travel is next to impossible.

My $0.02.

Michael Motherwell

-------- next post --------

From: Bob Gladstein

Subject: Sandbox myth

> ... "the sandbox" is... not a place that all sites go to grow

> up... In theory, it provides an easy explanation for the trouble

> that people have suddenly had in getting new sites ranked.

> In reality, it just shows that the industry is growing up and that

> search engine algorithms are growing up with it.

        - Jennifer Laycock, LED 2181

I agree, but doesn't that mean that there is in fact a sandbox, no

matter what one chooses to call it?

I think that at this point, very few knowledgeable people are

claiming that the effect is universal. Rather, they're pointing out

that the vast majority of new sites fail to rank for all but the

most obvious terms (such as their names) until they've been online

for 6-8 months. The vast majority of sites are not extraordinary,

original, or authoritative, and as such, the links pointing to them

aren't coming from sites that are extraordinary, original or

authoritative. It makes sense for the search engine to alter its

algorithm so that sites have to build up a degree of trust before

they're treated the same as well-established sites.

Quoting JL again:

> This is the reason that I keep preaching to small business

> owners about the need for niche products and niche approaches.

> The Lactivist site that I developed for the 30 day project last

> fall was full indexed and delivering quality traffic on great

> phrases within two weeks.

Right. The Lactivist site is an exception to the rule because it's

an exceptional site. You chose a niche that wasn't already

overpopulated, you updated the site regularly, you wrote

intelligent, original, personal, humorous copy, and you had SEOs all

over the world using the site as an example of how a new site should

be built, so a bunch of authoritative sites were linking to you, and

I'm sure that led to authoritative sites within your niche linking

to you very quickly as well.

If any site was going to get a pass on a waiting period that's used

to keep the mundane from jumping to the top right away, it would be

that one.

Let's say the New England Conservatory held open auditions, and a

bunch of small children showed up. Most of them are going to waste

the time of the faculty that has to sit through their auditions.

Some of them will have clearly worked hard, but they're just little

kids, and maybe in ten years they'll be worthy of the school. Maybe

one or two will be prodigies. Not only will they get in, but the

local news is going to run stories about how great they are -- in

fact, they may show up at the audition with a scrapbook of stories

about how extraordinary they are.

When Jennifer, Mike [Grehan] and Shari [Thurow] say there is no

sandbox and demonstrate that by telling us about some extraordinary

site that either belonged to a well-established company, contained

great content, or immediately got the attention of a large

community, I believe they're pointing out how, if one is lucky

enough to have great material to work with, one can avoid the delay.

But if you can avoid the delay, doesn't that mean there must be a

delay to avoid?

All of this makes perfect sense, and I think it's just a semantic

argument at this point, but we're left with this situation: we have

all seen (and pointed out as anecdotal evidence) that most sites do

not show up in searches for terms that are even slightly competitive

for 6-8 months and only a small minority of sites bypass this delay.

Call it whatever you like: sandbox, aging delay, Google learning

that it doesn't make sense to trust everyone you meet the moment you

meet them, whatever. Whether it's happening by design or it's a side

effect of the Pinocchio theory (I like that one), it certainly seems

to be there, and the only way to keep out of it is to be clearly

worthy of keeping out of it (at least until someone finds a way to

keep out of it by deceiving Google into treating a site as worthy of

keeping out of it).

Makes sense to me. And for what it's worth, I do have a

post-graduate degree, but I'm not sure an MA in History of World

Cinema is exactly what Shari was looking for.

Bob Gladstein

Raise My Rank

-------- next post --------

From: Shari Thurow

Subject: Sandbox myth

Hi all-

Wow! I am genuinely (and pleasantly) surprised at the reaction from

the statement I made about the mythical (in my opinion) Google

Sandbox.

I figured many of you would not like it when I said I wasn't

interested in your opinions unless you had considerable education,

training, and/or experience in the field of information retrieval.

Rubbed a lot of you the wrong way, didn't it?

First and foremost, the field of information retrieval is constantly

evolving. As this field evolves, so should the knowledge of

professional SEOs.

Browsers evolve. Code evolves. Content management systems evolve. So

should SEO methodologies.

In my professional and educational experience, I have to deal with

people who cling to sales pitches and improperly tested hypotheses

all of the time. I cannot influence anyone who chooses not to learn.

And it is quite frustrating to be in that situation. I recently

trained a large company about Web site usability and SEO, and I

could have trained a brick wall and got the same results.

Last year, I got to a point where I felt I needed a far better

understanding of the whole information retrieval process

(translation - I want to understand search engines better), and I

returned to graduate school. Graduate school isn't for everyone, I

understand. It was the best solution for me, however.

In one year, I have a million percent better understanding about

search engines and the industry I'm in. Part of my course work is

reading articles written by commercial Web search engine software

engineers. I sincerely doubt that many professional SEOs have easy

access to these articles, nor do they know of their existence. Heck,

I didn't.

The bottom line is that I swallowed my ego and admitted that I

needed to learn more. Now, I am a better SEO than I could ever

imagine.

Anecdotal evidence is a marketing ploy. An effective marketing ploy?

Yes. But I am more concerned with being able to objectively

reproduce results. In a commercial atmosphere, it's rather difficult

to do. I understand many LED readers use anecdotal evidence (ie

success stories and testimonials) that work well. That's fine. Keep

doing it if it works for your business.

I don't have the time to listen to self-proclaimed SEO professionals

who refuse to advance their technical skills, because SEO has a huge

technical element to it. I also don't have the time to listen to

computer programmers that have no usability skills, education, or

training. SEO has been and will always be part art, and part

science. If you are going to consider yourself an SEO expert, you

better have a wide set of skills. Or an incredible sales staff.

I do not proclaim to know everything there is to know about SEO, and

I certainly have my preferred circle of SEO knowledge professionals.

But at least I have the humility to admit when I need to know more.

I am doing exactly what I need to do -- I am learning more. I don't

base my research on anecdotal evidence. I don't base my research on

people who exploit the search engines, people whose opinions are

hardly objective. I prefer to go directly to the source and work

with the source.

It's my methodology, and it works well for me. So for all of the

"flaming" I received (which was rather entertaining, actually), my

reply? In spite of my so-called arrogance, I know when it is time to

listen and learn from other experts. Even if I don't necessarily

like what they have to say.

On a final note, for all of the whining I hear about the Sandbox, my

anecdotal evidence has revealed that none of my clients have ever

experienced this phenomenon. My more objective experience? It's all

about linkage properties. And every search engine has bad and/or

inaccurate algorithms every now and again.

Sincerely,

Shari Thurow, Webmaster/Marketing Director

Grantastic Designs, Inc.

http://www.grantasticdesigns.com/tips.html

-------- next post --------

From: John Smart

Subject: Sandbox myth

Unless I am being stupid (and how could that ever possibly

happen???) I do not see how there could be a Google sandbox:

A sandbox is simply where developers can play. The Authorize.net

sandbox allows you to make pretend purchases, and get genuine

looking but fake results (allowing you to test your online store

without maxing out your visa card!) The sandbox lets you ‘play’ with

authorize.net

My shopping cart software has a sandbox where users can tweak the

settings and it only affects a dummy site, so they cannot damage

their income tool.

By this definition, a Google sandbox would let you form POST or GET

data to the Google API where it would let you know if you sent the

data appropriately or not. There is no need for a sandbox ­ the only

possible need would be for testing ad sense paid for listings.

Further, why would there be one on the other side? Google tests the

code internally ­ if it works it goes live, if it doesn’t it doesn’t

­ why would they have a sand box? To what end would they want one?

John Smart

InternetDesign.com - A Human Touch in a Digital World

-------- next post --------

From: Dirk Johnson

Subject: Sandbox myth

Michael Martinez said in LED Digest 2179:

> If you can create enough interest in your new sites

> that they get a lot of natural links quickly (that is, you

> don't get the links through a link-building campaign),

> you generally don't see any Sandbox Effect.

Michael, where is the proof of your statement that "link building"

is not effective? We are not seeing that effect here. Could you

define "link-building campaign" and (more importantly) also provide

some verifiable proof?

I prefer to look at the "sandbox" as a reflection of the Google

algorithm. For non-competitive keywords, sites can move to top

positions relatively quickly, regardless if the links are reciprocal

or not. For highly competitive keyword terms, sites need to become

"more established" than the other sites competing for the same term.

There appears to be a time delay, but it's just the weeding process

in action. I am not sure that the method of link development means

anything at all.

Now, let's look at the term "natural links", since some people in

the SEO community like to hang this misnomer on what they do, as a

marketing / promotional ploy. That may not describe you, Michael,

but people within SEO love to abuse the term "natural links".

Let's define it. The ONLY "natural links" in this world are ones

that are earned gratuitously. That is, the link was not prompted by

some means. Gratuitous, natural links do occur, such as a customer

going to a discussion board and posting about a product that they

bought, with a link reference in their post. Sometimes, other people

will cite the content they find on a site. These references could be

quite mundane at times, but nevertheless, they are unsolicited,

gratuitous links that nobody was asked to place. Those describe

"natural links", and it may never happen for some sites, even sites

with "great" content. It's a waiting game.

A real estate agent in Small Metro, USA, can post all manner of

"great content" about their beautiful city (possibly at "great

cost", on the advice of some SEO expert), and then learn that nobody

else cares about that wonderful prose. The world just ignores it, or

is not even aware that it exists. Content without promotion can be a

very poor investment. The myth here is that the world is at the

ready to cite "great content". It's not. The rest of the world is

busy trying to get their own "great content" cited.

Once a person determines that they want more links than truly

natural methods provide, then they begin to take action that will

facilitate the placement of links on other sites. That's when the

games begin. But these links are not "natural". They are prompted,

solicited, requested, paid for, etc. Sites that do the best job of

this, often using multiple tactics, often do quite well with search

engines.

In order to get some links, they start taking action. Those actions

leave trails. Quite possibly, as a tactic becomes too well known and

far too easy, the search engines determine that the tactic is not

yielding "natural links" at all. They revise their algorithm, and

take some weight off that method. Sites that lean on that method

alone for their link popularity might find themselves caught in the

downdraft. This typically sends the SEO forums into Chicken Little

territory, since the "white hats" who congregate there and were

using that tactic suddenly find that their pristine white hats have

been painted a darker shade of gray.

What's my point.... that like many things in the SEO world,

terminology is used as a marketing ploy. White hat SEOs do not go

out and get "natural" links. They prompt for them. They cajole for

them. They pay for them. For the site owner, they should know

exactly what this means and read through the white hat posturing and

smoke-screen. Natural links are the links that an SEO specialist

*does not* get for a client, not the ones they do. Having more links

can certainly help a site to get natural links, but SEOs should not

sell their services based on a claim that they get "natural" links.

They don't.

SEOs use action to get links. Some use more action than others.

Let's just not call them "natural links".

Michael also said:

> There is no magic threshold number... 1 link from a killer blog

> might be worth 10 news site links. When it happens, you're in

> the clear and you don't need to worry about getting more links.

Let's use a hypothetical client here, in the form of a real estate

agent in Small Metro, USA. Just how do they get that CNN link? At

what cost?

The SEO community thrives on discussing the "quality" of links. It's

a lot of hooey, and focusing on "link quality" can actually lead to

mistakes. Yes, some links are better than others. But site owners

would do well to simply get as many links as possible from other

relevant sites. Doing that insures that you get the "good" links, as

well as the "best" links. Leave no openings for competitors.

It's amazing what happens when site owners just go out and get all

the links that are right for their business, and keep doing it

continuously. They find out that some of those "average" links from

an SEO perspective turned out to be truly "golden links" from a

customer and business perspective. They find that their sites become

quite stable in the SERPs. They find that they get lots of real,

"natural links" because of all those other links.  While their

competitors are out there chasing only "quality" links, (whatever

that means), and are likely spending a lot more money for inferior

results.

Approach linking from a core marketing / branding perspective, not

an SEO perspective. That will help you make wise decisions. Anyone

who advises that a site should not continue to earn relevant links

using legitimate methods is advising that site owners leave large

undefended holes in their front lines. Holes that unrestrained

competitors will gladly fill.

Best regards,

Dirk Johnson, Partner - Operations

DomainDrivers LLC

www.domaindrivers.com

www.linkstrategy.com

-------------------------------------------------------

The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks:

pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains

© Copyright 1995-2006 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Si jeunesse savait !

Si vieillesse pouvait !"

"If youth knew!