Talk:Sandbox effect

message: Could someone please turn this into a correct English sentence? 194.76.219.19 (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Is the Google Sandbox ?" What does that mean? 

message: "Jaimie Sirovich and Cristian Darie state that they believe that, while Google does not actually have an explicit "sandbox", the effect itself (however caused) is real."
Who the heck are these people? I nominate deletion of this apparently self advertising.110.33.208.253 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of last sentence (possible self promotion?) 

message: The article on the Google "sandbox effect" needs a great deal more work on it, and it needs to clarify in detail what the alleged effects are. In it's current form it is highly speculative and offers no evidence to support the theory.
Issues that should be discussed in the article include:
* how can you check if a site is "sandboxed" or not?
* what length of time is the "sandbox effect" believed to last for?
* Is a sandboxed site omitted from the Google for all search results, or is a penalty applied to its ranking?
* why is it that sites alleged to be "in the sandbox" are said to rank well in Google for obscure searches, but not for other search terms? 
* what distinguishes search terms that are penalized by the sandbox, and terms that have no penalty?
* does the "sandbox effect" relate to new web domains or to new pages?
* what evidence is there to support the assertion that the "level of search engine optimisation appears not to be a factor"?
This last point is critical, as most discussions I have seen related to the sandbox effect actually relate to a lack of search engine optimisation techniques.
Howard Wright
----
: I'd be the first to condemn a conspiracy theory article on Wikipedia, but I know from personal experience that the Google sandbox effect is a real phenomenon. --Beachy 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be in Google's interests to ensure their ranking/matching algorithms are not public knowledge, otherwise they would doubtless be abused by SEOs. Hence the sandbox effect is not a simple "flag" that we can pick up on for a given site. Think of it more of a "phenomenon" from our point of view. You know your site is being hit regularly by the Googlebot. You know it has a decent pagerank. You know it is included (and not blocked) in the index because it appears in the results if you search for your domain name. However, it is not indexed anywhere for relevant keyword queries. At least not until some period later (usually 6-9 months), when the site assumes a sensible position in all keyword searches. The "sandbox effect" is a perfectly plausible description of this phenomenon, and perfectly viable as a Wikipedia article. --Beachy 12:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: One site that I am certain is currently sandboxed: http://www.travel-insurance-now.co.uk/ The domain was registered back in August and a number of similar sites agreed to reciprocal links. The pagerank of the site is very reasonable but it doesn't appear for any relevant searches (e.g. "travel insurance now uk") --Beachy 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The above site should rank highly for a search like "travel insurance now uk" After all, on http://search.msn.co.uk/ it features in the #1 (and #2) spot for this search. I think many of your questions have been answered, but I look forward to seeing a further investigation of the sandbox effect in this article and its talk page. --Beachy 08:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There are many combinations of keywords that should produce a good listing for the site, like "travel insurance now", "backpacker insurance now uk", "winter sports insurance now uk" that should logically put the site within the first ~25 results, judging by the pagerank and keyword occurence of the site and its competitors. Distinguishing search terms that are penalised is easy - do a search for a relevant term, including some words that distinguish the site from its competitors (e.g. "now") and if the site doesn't appear in the top 100 results, it is obviously being penalised. --Beachy 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that these link blocks could be viewed as suspicious, particularly as they are replicated throughout the site. However, we have emailed Google regarding the Sandbox Effect in the context of http://www.travel-insurance-now.co.uk/ , and whilst they have not acknowledged the effect, they clearly stated that the site was not being penalised. --Beachy 15:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's also worth noting that the top two results in Google for searches on "travel insurance" both use the link block technique. --Beachy 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly speculative 

message: Beachy,
I'm reverting the reversion of my addition of the 'contradict' template (i.e., putting it back).  Please read the edit summary of an edit before reverting it. The edit summary completely explained the (already self-evident, if you just read the article) rationale for adding the 'contradict' warning.
Relevant part from my original edit summary:
Added 'Contradict' template - para. 2 ("only...Google") directly contradictions para. 1 and para. 3 ("search engines" plural, in both cases)
You reversion edit summary:
Why discredit this article? Where is the discussion about contradictions??
Reply:
# I am not discrediting the article. Flawed articles discredit themselves.  This article is already "in trouble" and has been for some time, barely surviving an AfD, and doubly-flagged as unreliable (I even undid the redundant warning templates on this, as the more serious one subsumed the concerns of the second one.  I'm giving this article more faith than perhaps you are giving me credit for, and am simply labelling its problems as honestly and clearly as I can.
# The contradictions are so clear that they don't even need to be commented on in my opinion (as to their nature, they are clearly the result of someone editing the earlier article text without reading the entire article, with the result of changing the factual claims of the extent of the "sandbox effect" in only one place instead of all three related passages.)  But, I was very specific about the nature and location of these contradictions anyway, in my edit summary, even quoting the exact wording at issue.  What more would anyone want?
# There is no need to go into detail about trivial and obvious article issues on the Talk page when covering them in the edit summary will suffice.  Unlelss people won't read edit summaries, I guess. :-) 
PS: I did not simply resolve the contradiction with an edit one way or the other because I am not in possession of sufficient facts to say one way or the other whether whether the "sandbox effect" (if it is real, which is itself still an issue of dispute!) applies to "only...Google" or to "search engines" more generally.  Again, those are direct, and directly contradictory quotes, from the article as of this writing, paragraphs 2 and 1+3, respectively. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SMcCandlish, I have removed the contradictions as it is generally accepted that this effect is limited to Google, both in my own experience and that of others (see external links section).  --Beachy 19:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I really don't understand what all the debate is about deleting this article.  I see no reason to delete it.  I read this article because I wanted to know what people where talking about when they said "google sandbox" and the article accuratly told me what they where talking about.  There is nothing in the article (anymore) which is controversial because the article very clearly says that the google sandbox may or may not exist.
Even if the google sandbox is an illusion, the idea of the sandbox is real and talked about and there should be an article about it.  If an article that explicitly says the sandbox may not exist is in dispute, shouldn't the article on Santa Clause be in dispute too?  Should I nominate the Santa Clause article for deletion?  This article does not say that the sandbox is real, infact, being someone who has never heard of the google sandbox before today, I can tell you that this article practically convinced me that there is no sandbox, since it mentioned at least 16 times (that I counted) that no one can be sure that the sandbox exists and mentioned at least 4 very plausable alternative explanations for what causes people to think there is a sandbox.
I think that the "The Factual Accuracy of this Article is Disputed" could probably be removed with very little editing.  
----
As far as I can tell, the following facts are not in dispute:
* Some people believe that there is something called a "sandbox" which limits the appearance of pages on newly created domains.
* This does not seem to happen on other search engines.
* The sandbox probably doesn't really exist', although there is no way to be sure since Google would be unwise to publish their algorithms.
----
The facts that are in dispute are rightfully not included in the article:
* The sandbox exists.
* The sandbox does not exist
* Google policy limits new domains to protect against abuse.
----
As long as it doesn't say that the sandbox is real, there is not much else to be in dispute.  Maybe it is time to remove the in dispute tag.--VegKilla 23:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Idea Exists 

message: Maybe the reference to Searchguild.com should be at the bottom of the page instead of in the article.
Should we change "Searchguild.com has created a test to determine whether a site is in the sandbox," 
to "There is an online test to determine whether a site is in the sandbox,"
We could still have the word test be a link to the Searchguild.com site, and the URL could still appear, but at the bottom of the page instead of in the text.
Since Searchguild.com is not just the URL but also the name of the company, I might be wrong in thinking that it should be moved.--VegKilla 23:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References at bottom 

message: The article is from the point of view that the sandbox effect really exists. I mean when I read it I thought that it really existed. --Luke 01:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of us know that the sandbox effect does in fact exist in practice, as we have seen it. Whether you believe it is due to "policy" or "algorithmic" effects is immaterial. This article attempts to explain a genuine phenomenon. --Beachy 12:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Biased 

message: Here are the external links.  These should be converted into references, as footnotes in the appropriate places.  A list of links is virtually useless because it doesn't relate the facts stated in the article to the source.  This stuff could be linkspam, or is at least an open invitation to more linkspam.    
*seomoz.org analysis of the Sandbox Effect
*What Is The Google Sandbox Effect?
*The Google Sandbox (on Software Marketing Resource)
*Jumping Over the Google Sandbox
*Google Sandbox Test discussion (long) on searchguild Google forum
*The Math Behind the Sandbox
*Andy Hagans guide to beating the sandbox
Cheers, Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're willing to convert the links to references then by all means do so - but don't do half a job and leave the article without any links! --Beachy 22:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox.-- Thinboy00 talk/contribs @961, i.e. 22:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but the first two instances in the "Community Response" section marked as in need of citations look like weasel words, such as "it is thought, by some..." or "Since Google...has distressed webmasters who...".  Am I correct in assuming this?
Thinboy00 02:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-added the fact templates. Basically these are statements that either need a reference or that should be removed. Labongo (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words? 

message: This seems to have had a dispute almost a year ago, but for some reason everyone stopped commenting.  I'm the only person who has commented in almost a year now.-- Thinboy00 talk/contribs @967, i.e. 22:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: I must be missing something here.  Can someone please explain how the webpronews article passes WP:SPS (part of WP:V), given that it seems to allow user contributed content?  I feel that that would make it self published unless the site has a moderation process with criteria for inclusion.  --Thinboy00 @912, i.e. 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webpronews article 

message: There are no factual citations in Sandbox effect due to Google's secrecy about it.  However, it would be a good idea to find citations from reliable SEO experts.  In the mean time, intelligent, good faith observations from established editors should remain until some type of supporting citations are made available. Worldedixor (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Required 

message: The name of an important source, David George, is mentioned in the article but with no presentation. At least "...search engine specialist David George" or whatever he is, would be appropriate - especially since he has no Wikipedia page to link to. Mumiemonstret (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, who the hell is David George? S!lver NL (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  And who is David George? 

message: I've added some more information at the start of the article which refers to the actual observations made when the effect was first noticed, and provided further background reference to help describe in basic terms what may be happening and why. The only deletion I've made is to remove a single line claiming that the sandbox effect refers to new domains having their PageRank limited - a point that has never been raised in original observations. I appreciate that there remains contention as to whether sandboxing exists, but as I've pointed out, if any such effect is real it is almost certainly part of Google's anti-spam filtering, and therefore getting any kind of detail from Google on the process behind any such claimed observations is unlikely. I've therefore tried not to describe the effect as "real" but instead referred to the process of observations that took place from early 2004. It is worth noting that if any such filter does exist it is almost certainly one that has evolved since 2004, and therefore coverage of this effect may need to remain flexible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.157.44 (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit made

message: There's a still-open merge proposal to merge Google penalty to Sandbox effect; it seems reasonable, given that these are two identical or closely-related concepts best discussed in one place. Klbrain (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2019 merge proposal 

message: Google sandbox affect to GMB listing , local seo 79.116.79.92 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is google sandbox afect to GMB listings?