Google Sandbox and the SEO Darklords

28 comments

While technically I'm on vacation and missed SEO Rockstars yesterday, one thing I noticed that wasn't getting mentioned elsewhere was Oilman and WebGurrilla are both looking for you to share your sandboxed websites with them in exchange for some revenue sharing. While I don't imagine either of them are going to share their bleeding edge tricks with you, I think there is a lot of benefit for in letting someone with a higher skillset help you fix what's broken and you might learn something in the process. For those of you who have a little trouble reading between the lines here's some basic math:

1 sandboxed website with no traffic = $0
1 non-sandboxed website with traffic and revene sharing > $0

Comments

That's about the only

That's about the only functional fairly scalable service based SEO biz model IMHO...split contexual earnings while keeping the workload low. If people are already getting shafted and thus have low expectations it is not hard to improve their results.

The Sanbox actually creates MORE opportunity for those who really know what they are doing. Selling traffic generation and ad optimization in a rev share package is way better than selling SEO services to a junk site that never converts.

And for those unable to

And for those unable to decide if they are sandboxed or not here is a handy tip.

If you get more traffic from Google images than Google web then you = sandboxed.

unless...

you've been capitalizing on the SEO opportunities of Google's image bank, of course ;-)

As for the biz model, what better way to buy a used car than have the seller's mechanic on your payroll?

What are they talking about

What are they talking about - the litterbox?? Is this somehow equivalent to the Google Sandbox that people talk about? If so, why are they using a completely different term?

I think there is a lot of benefit for in letting someone with a higher skillset help you fix what's broken

That's a poor statement to make - there are "dark" tools that can apparently address various SEO issues, and they require a high degree of technical expertise - but it doesn't mean to say that anyone should blindly hand their business over to such methods just because it might provide results in the short-term.

Also, I think if someone's looking to make a serious effort with a website, and they feel they're sandboxed, then they simply need to be patient - revenue sharing your way out isn't a long-term strategy at all.

Here's some basic maths:

1. 6 months sandboxing = $some
2. The following five years after = $all yours

Am I being too self-serious, or is there an element of parody in this thread that I'm over-looking?

Google isn't the only game in town

Based on a couple of my most recent sites launched I'd say MSN is very easy to get ranked in but the amount of traffic they serve up still pales to Google.

If you are ranking in MSN and Yahoo then I'd suggest waiting on Google and not give up the farm as patience can be rewarding.

If you are ranking in MSN and Yahoo then I'd suggest waiting on Google and not give up the farm as patience can be rewarding.

While I agree most everyone is too focused on Google I think people can end up waiting a long time and keep repeating their errors. If you run multiple sites it might not be a bad investment to partner up with a person who can seriously help you on one and take that knowledge and apply it to other sites.

Guess it depends on HOW long

I think people can end up waiting a long time and keep repeating their errors.

I launched a site a month before the Jagger updates started and it seemed like nothing was going on whatsoever but suddenly we saw movement after Jagger 3.

Everything in moderation. I never launch a new site with too many pages, links, or anything else that might get the site caught in the SpamBox as Matt claimed at PubCon X that it's spam traps, not sand traps, that catch those sites.

Of course the AdSense team claims I should make more money from site targetted AdSense ads that outbid the others [read outbid, not outperform] so who knows what to believe.

You put images on your sites????

Quote:
If you get more traffic from Google images than Google web then you = sandboxed.

No one told me sites had to have images.

Images

... are only good for their alt text anyway, but you might as well put those on the page itself. (I'm oldschool too *lol*) Otherwise, what Brian_Turner said (except the terms - I don't quite follow that). And a clever biz move from WebGuerrilla and Oilman. Gotta love it :-)

No need to partner look at

No need to partner look at mcanerin's blog he lays it all out there if you read between the lines.

...

I have a site that does very well in Google images, MSN and Yahoo - just waiting for Google web to catch up and join the party!

>No need to partner look at

>No need to partner look at mcanerin's blog he lays it all out there if you read between the lines.

I'm speechless.

wow - Threadwatched - I

wow - Threadwatched - I better fix that damn blog - I can SEO all day long but do you think I can manage my blog? ;)

Am I being too

Am I being too self-serious..

Yes :)

well Ian's blog posts are

well Ian's blog posts are not particularly a wealth of information I will agree that the sandbox can be avoided but that's not what we're after here. WebGuerrilla and I want sites that are already past that point and are sitting there with shovels and pails building sandcastles.

But I have to give Ian double man points for being in Calgary - my home town :)

Personally I am happy Ians

Personally I am happy Ians posts are not very informative.

Good move guys

oilman and WebGuerrilla - As far as I can see this is a very smart move on your part. Revenue sharing, now why didn't I think of that...

Aaron is right, this so called 'sandbox' provides a lot of opportunity for folks that know what is tripping the spam filters.

I personally never find Ians posts informative... ;-0

Well Webprofessor....

I'm not sure what I think of McAnerin's test as http://www.mcanerin.us shows up in the SERPs but the domain redirects to http://www.mcanerin.com, so did he just leech PR from his dot com to get that rank?

BTW, McAnerin has a nice article for noobs on 301 redirects but it makes you stop and wonder about this:

http://www.mcanerin.com - PR 5
http://mcanerin.com - PR 0

I'm not sure what I think of McAnerin's test

Dumb covers it. Made up words don't count for starters, its a great shame some pixels have had to die for such a pointless excercise.

:-(

On that note I should reconsider it then. I am just a simple tool maker :(

I thought the 301 redirect to an established site to get it to rank initially was interesting. I wonder how long it will last once he removes the redirect, assuming he keeps the content the same.

There's the rub

As it stands it's an incomplete test that proves nothing. Unless he has already proved it to himself that it works and doesn't want to simply give everything away. I'm sure few people would actually try it with one of their own site in order to find the truth. Personally, I just purchase existing sites.

..

I wonder how long it will last once he removes the redirect...

Not very long at all...

This is the reason why I like this site

People will tell you your an idiot and have a reason why.

SEW today

Danny drumming up donations with the old trick of links to members pages

Quote:
Google Sandbox, Sandbox-Like Filters & Escaping With Trusted Links

For well over a year, there's been massive debate and speculation that Google puts all new sites into a "sandbox," preventing them from ranking well for anything until a set period of time has passed. Now we get more confirmation from Google that if there's not a sandbox, there's at least part of its algorithm that may make it seem that way for some sites -- plus thoughts on how trusted links may help sites escape those filters. Google Sandbox, Sandbox-Like Filters & Escaping With Trusted Links for Search Engine Watch members looks at some of the discussions and articles that have fueled this over the past few weeks

--

The information in the members only article this time is basically just a compilation of links to other discussions on the topic.

No need to partner look at

No need to partner look at mcanerin's blog he lays it all out there if you read between the lines.

I've never seen so many links on a homepage(mcanerin.com) that 404. What is up with that?

DotUs? Seriously, come on...

Anyone want to do SERIOUS analysis??? Sticky me with the info you'll analyze and be willing to SHARE it and I'll give you a large list of sites that escaped the box.

how to beat the sandbox

Andy has already told us how to beat the Sandbox. Trusted links. In large enough quantity. Timed properly.

There it is - the secret. Why would I want to revenue share in perpetuity for those two words.

What Oilman and WebGurilla can offer is access to those trusted links. They can moderate the doses.

I say hire these guys by the hour or on a fee basis. I don't think the revenue sharing model in this case is justified in any way unless you are getting a permanent ongoing no-fee SEO deal for the life of the site.

Then maybe.

Let's not give SEO a worse reputation as usurers than we already have as snake oil salesmen.

Revenue Sharing SEO

Maybe for any pro the Revenue Sharing Model may not look that good. I know I would not personally do it, but I am not a beginner just learning the biz.

However, I think for anyone that is just starting out and who’s site tripped the filter, this is a wonderful opportunity, they can learn and earn at the same time. We all know it is far better to learn and earn than sit around, a broke dick and wonder...

What Oilman and WebGurilla can offer is access to those trusted links.

I think you should really let them tell us (if they want) what services they are offering or not.

Off-Topic:
Trusted Link - Sooo, just what do you all think a 'trusted Link' in a competitive area is worth anyway?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.