See your sandboxed site's rank if it weren't sandboxed

US Netizen over on seo guy forum started a thread today that is a good morning wake-up read. He says, "Just add -sdfsdfq -ddsf -dsfsqdf -dqdfqsdf -dqfsdfqsd -sqdfqsd -sdfsdqfqsdf -sqdfqsdfqs -qsdfqsdf -sdfsqdfqsdf -sqfqsdfqsd -sdfqsdfsq -sdfqsdfsdf -qsdfqsdf to your keywords and - poof - no more sandbox."

Sure enough, my poor poor pitiful sandboxed site, shows up as #1 for its term when doing this. Talk about mixed emotions - pure joy at seeing its non-sandboxed status as #1, and pure agony at knowing its not really there.

Adding the -nonsensewords is nothing new - this was how we all saw the results of the Florida update. But the reasons may or may not be different.

Ok, so everyone with a sandboxed site - go out there and look at your results with the nonsense filter words.

Then let's all get together and see what we can discover.

Maybe its just the age thing...maybe its something else.

P.S. It seems to require at least 13 instances of the -nonsenseword before the filter is turned off.

I popped to number 3 instead of position 280 that I am currently at. I wish I knew how this could help me, but what is interesting is that positions 1 and 2 are reversed.

thats funny, see how long before they hide that

after florida update it took them a minute

Actually, ferret, after Florida it took them a few weeks I think. But they might be quicker on the draw this time around.

DD - I think he got the idea from over here... There were a couple of new reports about it.
Thanks for that info. I tried it yesterday, but saw nothing. But when I copied USN's string (and added one extra), it put my older site on page one for my new keyword. So that explains it.

Judging from my own result, I'd say it's about "sandboxed" keywords, not pages. I'm on a comfortable #1 spot for my main (albeit easy) phrase. But the one-worder I recently started to optimise for is helped a lot by this method.

That said: my site just jumped from around #150 to around #75 for that phrase, so there's been a considerable serps change as well.

It may have come from here - I don't get a chance to read everything on every forum. In any case, we may have a window of time to analyze the situation...if we hurry. Too bad this is the weekend - a lot less people show up at the forums then.

Nice find, I read this on Seo Guy, but it didn't work for me before.

Now it does work and I am #1 and #2 for many of my main keywords.

This does prove that the sandbox is a completely intentional filter. What is interesting is the fact that this using these gibberish queries doesn't hurt or drastically alter serps; It just lets out sandboxed sites.

It is not a simple filter for low quality sites.

yeah i have 3 sites that come up to #1 and #2

all 3 sites are pr5, launched may 2004, a few high pr links, quite a few directory links.

LOL - thanks....

It's also not an allinanchor clone...

I tried to replicate the "anti-Hilltop" serps (for keyword1, with the -whatever terms added) using methods like:

allinanchor:keyword1
keyword1 inanchor:keyword1
inanchor:keyword1 intitle:keyword1
"keyword1" inanchor:"keyword1"
~keyword1 inanchor:~keyword1

...but to no avail. If anyone can deduct a good regular-Google-options equivalent for this, please post now

wheres the scroogle guy , he should get a kick out of this

ohhhhh boy, I am finally showing up. The update on the one DC where they temporarily ranked sandboxed sites yielded nothing do to a page jacking, this is much better. Come on google, get your act together, drop the sandbox.

hehe, drop the sandbox and the Dec17th botch up

In my opinion it just shows that two (or more) different algorithms are in place.

One of which is never used except in the instance of -asdf -asdf ...

I've also noticed that removing this sandbox filter doesn't allow penalized sites back into their previous serps.

This filter is just for NEW sites. Whats so bad about being new???!!!!