Page 4 - The sandbox effect

This is completely true. Initial sites are given a SERPs boost, but one update after that, they fall out into oblivion.

I have been stating this for months now, that Google uses a rolling SERP updating scheme with some type of dampening system that effects how fast your site moves up into the SERPs.

The reasoning behind the "initial boost" is simple. New forum posts about, lets say, new computer hardware, or new news from CNN about Iraq is instantly pushed to the top of the SERPs for 2 to 3 weeks. After that, it falls and disappears to make room for the real top ten sites for those keywords. During this period of six months to follow, the PR of the site is dampened by a large factor, and the dampening factor is increased gradually throughout the course of the months and updates to follow.

It seems that each rolling SERP update decreases the dampening factor by about 1%, and each real Google update decreases the dampening factor by about 3%-5%. After about 6 months, you're up to full strength.

Do I sound sane or insane?

Hexed

Absolutely sane. I completely agree with the process and net effect of initial boost / dropout / gradual increase over time. This has been the scenario for me for quite a long time - nothing new to me. I always give my sites 3-6 months before they reach the peak. Anything sooner than that would be a surprise, not an expectation.

Hi Jocelyn,

It would not kill the link sales, but it would change the price structure. Instead of paying $100 a month, you would pay maybe 150$ for the first six months and 100$ for every month thereafter. The link sellers would make less money, but they would probably get more faithful customers.

I'd like to suggest a different reasoning behind this phenonmena where a new site might achieve great PR, only to settle down after a month or two. I think it might also shed some light on why existing 'well established' sites quickly gain great ranking for their new pages. I'd like to mention that I'm not an SEO, per se, I just follow the industry since I have to 'manage' the SEO's for my clients' sites.

It appears reasonable that Google would support a policy of artificially boosting newly launched sites as a way of exposing them to the public. After a period of time, it would be easy for Google to examine that site's capture ratio of the keyword searches, along with the site's visitor rates and viewing patterns (as Alexa does). Well, let's keep it at the capture rate since we don't know if Google has ever tracked a site's page views, etc. Anyway, this would be the Adam Smith approach to the judgement of a site's success. If the market liked the site, Google would know by the capture rate. After a month or two, it would adjust the the site's rank accordingly.

Well established sites have already proven their market's worth and, it seems reasonable, Google would not subject the site's content to the same algorithm as sites with a lower credibility status. So, new pages would get ranked without delay. However, a good site today may not be a good site tomorrow. What better way to test a site's value in the market than to artificially drop the site's ranking for a short time (i.e. sandbox it?). This would give the second-string sites a chance at bat to ring-up their keyword capture rates. After a month of two, it would be easy for Google to compare past versus present capture rates to determine the market's assessment of the two sites and award the higher PR to the winner.

My justification for these theories rests on Google's consistent public statements that their value in the SE industry is determined by the extent to which they can provide quality content to their users. This certainly explains why established/credible sites would get quick, favorable, ranking immediately. As for the boost given to many new sites, I suspect Google knows that fresh content is vital to it's user's assessment of Google's value (like late-breaking but no-yet-verfied news is to a newspaper: better to be inaccurate than late with a story!). For Google, better to list a junky site for a short while, than to not list a hot one everyone discovered on Yahoo!

In summary, I simply suspect there is some classic marketing evaluation techniques being performed within portions of Google's ranking algorthims. At least, such techniques seem to explain the lion's share of the 'aberations' and other 'confusing' phenomenon within Google ranking methods.

I think people are confusing the "sandbox effect" with another phenomenon whereby new websites are given an initial ranking boost, only to plummit and have to climb their way to the top, this is not the sandbox!

The sandbox applies to backlinks, not sites. In kind it doesnt matter whether you have an established website or a new website.

Lets say for arguements sake I want to rank for "internet marketing" I dont rank now although I have a very well established site that ranks for all my keywords that have appropriate link support. How would I fix this? I would get a thrawl of backlinks with the anchor text "internet marketing" and within 1 update they would mostly show up in my backlink check, but would I move anywhere for the keyword internet marketing? No. Why because I will not recieve any benefit from those links even if they are reported for at least another month. I guarantee without touching the onpage at all, the SERPS for "internet marketing" would show me have a HUGE jump when my links are let out of the sandbox, again I would not have touched my site, which is already established.
This is not the same phenomenon as the new site ranks, then drops then slowly climbs, please do not confuse the 2

Any new news on your theory?