A few months ago, I wrote an article exploring whether or not the Google "sandbox" existed. In it, I outlined why the sandbox, as an aging filter makes zero sense and how the reality of the situation is that things are just getting more competitive over time. Thus, what we're actually seeing isn't an aging filter per say, but rather a higher barrier to entry for new sites. While many seem to have understood the point I was making here, I've also had quite a few "yeah, but why doesn't MY new site rank" questions pop up in both real life and via email.

In fact, during the Q&A of one of my sessions in San Jose I had this exact thing happen. Someone in the audience gave me an example of a site that was new and that wasn't yet ranking for what appears to be a very non-competitive phrase. They used this site as their "proof" that the sandbox MUST exist.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking. Anyone that knows anything about algorithms knows that there are hundreds, if not thousands of things that go into getting a site indexed, getting it indexed properly and having it rank for anything at all, let alone competitive phrases. For all I know, the site(s) in question have a misused robots.txt or a caching issue. In other words, just because I can't tell you, site unseen why a new site isn't ranking, doesn't mean that the sandbox exists.

I'll also note that I've never said that it isn't more difficult to get a new site ranked. Of course it's more difficult...new sites don't have age on their side. They haven't had time to build good quality links from authority sites. They haven't had time to build up lots of great content that gets eaten up by hungry spiders. There are tons of factors that could be at play here and the only point I've ever made in regards to the sandbox is that there's no such thing as a "your site is new, we won't rank it" filter.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that the sandbox MUST exist simply because they have a new site that doesn't yet rank for a phrase, I'll remind you of the dozens of sites that I've seen go live with brand, spanking new URLs that proceeded to rank in a matter of days or weeks. After all, if we're going to use anecdotal evidence for one side, it's only fair to use it for the other, right?