Recently, I made a rather bold statement to an online discussion group about the mythical Google sandbox. Why "mythical"? The Google sandbox is a figment of many search engine optimization (SEO) professionals' imagination. It's a term created by self-proclaimed experts to explain why their methodologies don't work.

The feedback has been quite interesting, so I thought I'd present the debate to ClickZ readers.

The Google Sandbox Effect

According to many SEO experts, Web sites with newly registered or newly purchased domains are placed in a holding area on Google until the site is deemed acceptable enough to appear in Google's main search results. I often describe the sandbox effect as a probationary period, albeit a mythical one.

Other SEO experts have more detailed definitions than that, but this one should suffice for this column.

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

Every SEO firm has its own methodologies. Many firms, particularly black-hat ones, follow cat-and-mouse methodologies. They claim to reverse-engineer search engine algorithms, find errors in the algorithm, then exploit the errors to their and their clients' benefit. When their reactionary methodologies don't work, the firms claim the sites have been placed in the Google sandbox. It couldn't possibly be the black-hat firms' fault a site doesn't get qualified search engine traffic.

I shouldn't pick on only black-hat SEO firms. Many white-hat SEO firms claim to have experienced the sandbox effect as well, particularly on new sites.

What I find troubling about this whole sandbox mythology is it helps firms avoid responsibility. When any SEO firm doesn't want to take responsibility for its methodologies, ethical or not, it's awfully convenient to label the problem the Google sandbox.

SEO Principles Vs. the Cat-and-Mouse Game

I prefer not to exploit the search engines because, quite frankly, without their existence my information science career would be considerably different. I like developing search-friendly interfaces. It's one of my great career passions. I learn something new with every usability test.

My methodologies are very much based on user-centered design (UCD) and search principles. As I stated in my initial discussion group post, a search-friendly Web site is built on a solid foundation of keyword-focused text and giving search engine spiders a means of accessing that text. Then, objective third parties should basically confirm what you say about your content.

Sure, my methodologies evolve a bit with each iteration of a Web site design, but the principles remain unchanged. Without this strong foundation, many Web site owners either purchase search engine advertising for qualified search engine traffic or resort to playing the cat-and-mouse SEO game.

Sites that have a strong SEO and UCD foundation never experience this sandbox effect, which makes me believe the Google sandbox really doesn't exist.

Evolving SEO Knowledge

Search engine indices are constantly evolving. URLs are added and removed from the Web all the time. Some URL content is regularly updated. Positioning and traffic fluctuations are perfectly normal.

Likewise, all search engines modify their algorithms. All the commercial Web search engines actively strive to make their search results more accurate. Some algorithm changes are very noticeable; some aren't. Two searchers often experience different algorithms at the same time because they are querying different data centers.

Search engine algorithms evolve. Browsers evolve. HTML code and CSS (define) evolve. So why don't many SEO professionals evolve? Since SEO skills are part art and part science, I'm quite adamant that to be considered a SEO expert, one must have technical skills. In fact, that's something my black-hat colleagues constantly criticize about white-hat optimization.

Eventually, all optimizers should evolve to the point where they understand how search engines work. This sandbox effect? It's no different than any other side effect that normally occurs with information retrieval systems.

If SEO professionals truly understood how information retrieval systems work, they wouldn't have to make excuses for their methodologies. Heck, I'd love it if just one SEO firm would publicly admit, "We spammed. We got caught. That's why the site isn't ranking."

Conclusion

A long time ago, I admitted I needed to learn more about how search engines work. I returned to graduate school. Granted, this choice isn't for everyone. It's my choice, and one I don't regret. I optimize a million times better than I did a year ago. And I have a better appreciation of the challenges the Web search engines face on a daily basis.

I've seen where some of my conclusions were a bit off base and where some were 100 percent accurate. The bottom line is I choose to evolve my search knowledge so I could build better Web sites and databases for my clients. I've never resorted to a sandbox excuse, and I doubt I ever will.