Avoid the Mother FxxKing Google Sandbox like an SEO Ninja
Posted on 31 July 2007 by DeanHunt
Anyone who has created a website in a competitive niche will at some point have experienced the effects of the dreaded Google Sandbox.
“But Dean, there is no such thing as the Sandbox, it is merely a series of filters and trust rank algos that affect sites that have failed to build up enough trust.”
Shut up! Bloody nerd!
It doesn’t matter what we call it, the fact remains that it is as annoying as those tunes the customer service hotlines play whilst you are waiting.
In the giant battle of webmasters vs Google, the Sandbox is their nuclear missile.
However, today I am going to show you how to become an SEO ninja. I will show you the techniques that will make you invisible to Google’s nuclear radar. You will be sneaking your way up the “Buy Viagra Online” rankings before you can say Matt Cutts is a noob.
Are you ready?
Let’s go SEO ninja style.
Ok, so here is my technique to avoid the Google Sandbox: Act Natural!
Wait… is that it????
Yes, kinda.
Have you ever tried sneaking through airport security with 2,000 cigarettes in your suitcase? What is the key to not getting spotted? Act Natural.
Same applies to Google.
We don’t want Google stealing all our smokes, so we have to act natural, and in the world of SEO their are many ways to do this. So to explain things a little more easier, let’s presume that we have some sort of Sandbox fetish, and we WANT to get sandboxed onto page 60,000 for a crappy keyword.
Here is how to get sandboxed faster than Superman on Crack:
1) Build links from hundreds of directories: Well done genius, you may have gotten a few hundred worthless links, but you now have been sentenced to 9-12 months in the dark place. Building links from hundreds of directories is a clear signal to Google that your site sucks ass.
2) Build links with identical anchor text: So you want to be number one in Google for the keyword “Japanese Foot Fetishes?”, Don’t we all! But using “Japanese Foot Fetishes” for every back link will smell a little fishy. Think about it… if your article was randomly discussed by 1000 sites, would they all use the EXACT same link text? Of course not!
Some would link with just the www, others http://, others would add an “/” to the end of the url, others would not, they would use numerous different link texts, and numerous techniques. That is how things happen in the real world, so mix things up a little and learn how to FAKE being natural.
3) Over-use paid links: So you bought 100 links. Good for you. Do you not think Google is going to find it strange that 100% of your links are in people’s sidebars surrounded by other links, which then magically vanish at the end of each month?
Trust me, the staff at Google are deadly serious people:
They will kick your butt! So don’t go crying to Yahoo when they sandbox you.
Anyway, where was I?
Ah yes…
4) Overuse Article Submissions: do you think Google won’t find it weird that all of your links are coming from footer sections with identical content on each page? if you must use article submission sites then at least try to vary your footer bio.
5) Over using link trades: I appreciate it can be hard building links to a new site, so sending hundreds of emails to potential link partners may seem the only option… remember, act naturally. If 100% of your links are link trades then Google will smell your fear and will roundhouse kick you like Chuck Norris. My advice is to aim to do a max of 1 link trades per day. Don’t forget to mix up your anchor text either.
6) Use loads of duplicate content: I am not going to get into the duplicate content debate right now, but using blog posts from other people’s sites to make your blog seem more popular is not cool man. As well as possibly getting you shut down, it could be the fast track to the dreaded Sandbox.
7) Don’t treat the Sandbox with respect: When you hear the name “Sandbox” you think children, playing, buckets and spades. Google probably did this on purpose to lead you into a false sense of security.
This is your typical sandbox:
See that dog? That is Google’s filters. It all looks harmless enough…
But when the kid stops acting naturally, this is how Google looks:
Trust me, you don’t want to mess with that!
Summary: Acting natural is the key to avoiding the Google Sandbox, but I also believe it will help you with trust rank and your search engine rankings in general. So go ninja style and together we can avoid that mother fxxking Google Sandbox.
Dean
July 31st, 2007 at 6:45 am
Cheers Dean
I wondered why we are still in the sandbox - we’re doing everything wrong! I think I’m just gonna chill.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:49 am
Cheers Dean. Now it all makes sense - we’re doing everything wrong!
July 31st, 2007 at 7:16 am
Matt,
Good to hear from you again.
yes, it can be frustrating. There is light at the end of the tunnel though. Just a shame the tunnel smells of shxt
Dean
July 31st, 2007 at 7:39 am
Nice post, and i like your sarcasm and all the “descriptive” images
it makes it clear even to the dumbest. To wrap all in one what you said “If you want to be well done, do it yourself”. The thinking natural idea is pretty common use to those that understand how things work with Google, so this post is A++ for newbies.
Cheers.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:05 am
Sxxt, I just did a little bit from everything, but just a little, so I have never been in the sandbox. I thing one can get away with a little bit of everything and do just fine, never meet the horrible sandbox in the last picture.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:26 am
Dean,
Good post. I agree 100%. Actually I didn’t even realize it before I read the post but the one thing I’ve been guilty of is using the same anchor text. That small adjustment might make a big difference.
As far as article submissions, you can use a tool like Artemis Pro to get around using duplicate content and bio boxes. It randomizes the article and bio boxes for you so each article submitted is unique.
Robert
July 31st, 2007 at 8:44 am
I do all the “don’t do” things and never have a problem, but it helps if you actually have a clue.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:25 am
SEO - Good for you! Maybe your niche doesn’t warrant the sandbox
Just joking.
Regardless of the sandbox, you may be tripping smaller filters and are hindering your rankings without even knowing.
No decent SEO would do anything on that list in large quantities anyway, so you should be fine. That is the key point of the article… I am not saying you SHOULDN’T do any of that stuff, just do them naturally and in moderation.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Excellent points there underneath the reminders that we’re never as smart as we think we are!
I’ve heard it helps to bow to the west and chant “Google knows all… Fear the wrath of Google… Good Google… May your stock keep rising… There’s nothing to see here… Move along… and P.S. - Keep sending traffic”
Do that five times a day and you’ll have absolutely nothing to worry about besides being mistaken for an Al-Qaeda operative by Homeland Security.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:29 pm
As I understand it from connections with solid empirical experience, a stack of inbound (one-way) links (from reasonable neighbourhoods) is highly correlated with good SEO rewards and anything else is equally highly correlated with wishful thinking BS.
There are refinements to this broad brush - like relevant anchor text and page-titles, and good LSI content arouund the LZ - but these are mere reinements, dear boy…..
Google do play the propaganda game to perfection - to plug the gaps their algorithms are not human enough to catch. Like our parents and teachers did when we were kids - mine told me with straight faces that they had eyes in the backs of their heads.
Truth was that my own moronic behaviour did not require very smart radar to suss. And that’s the germ of gold (hows that for a shaken but not stirred metaphor) in Dean’s article.
The problem we face that although computers and most softwares ARE moronic - and Google is competent but not Superman - WE are capable of truly spectacular self-destructive ploys that often snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
My own extended experiences in the solitary (sandbox) - and the quite generous rehabilitaton G extended when I started to clean up my act - lead me to the view that Google is no more omniscient, sinister or omnipotent than any other normal, everyday, average, bloated oligopolist.
At least G still tries to make useful, well-engineered products usable by ordinary mortals. Can you imagine their products, prices and service if Gates was at the helm?
Keep it coming Dean - your “Attila H” prose style brightens up many a dull day.
Steve - http://YourFashionCareer.com
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:59 am
Steve - Interesting theory.
Regarding relevant quality links being the most important aspect. I agree 100%, ref Google using a touch of propaganda, I agree 100%.
However, your theory has a few leaks.
You say that all you have to do is get quality links, and nothing else matters. So I can use duplicate content? Thanks Steve! Can I also link to banned domains? Keyword stuff? Place invisible text etc?
Of course not!
Your main point is correct, but there is more to it than that.
FYI - my advice comes from solid experience in some cut throat industries.
Thanks for your feedback.