There has been a good deal written about the Google 'sandbox' effect, as it's known. It has been taking up a lot of forum and article space over the last few months. I can't help wonder why most of the comment I've been seeing is negative or at least ambivalent about the concept (if of course, it really exists, as is the case with much about SEs that we don't truly know).

I'm sure most are very familiar with the concept of the 'sandbox' but for those who aren't and at the risk of boring everyone else, here is a very brief rundown:

Google, it is said, have decided that newly listed websites should have their listing (and PR etc) placed on hold for an 'unknown' period (the consensus seems to be around 90 -120 days) in order to make sure that they firstly, stick around for more than the specified period, and probably also continue to rank in the same way as they 'initially' do. The concept has been likened to 'sending them off to play in the sandbox with all the other kiddies' until they mature and can be judged by the same criteria as the rest.

Frankly, I can't see any problem with the idea at all. I have websites that have been online some time and other, newer ones that would be included in this 'sandbox' category, so I'm not saying this as someone who has only established sites that wishes to make it as difficult as possible for new competition to 'get established'.

Over the last few years, I've seen so many people decide (often on a whim and as often again with much planning) to try their hand at one form of Internet business or another, only to give up after a very short time. Certainly not long enough to see themselves out of the 'sandbox' (if it exists).

I'm not sure of the exact count, but Google have around 8.2 billion web pages indexed and in my opinion, that's far too many websites in almost every category on every topic. It's also true that the vast majority are idle and contributing nothing to the average Internet user. Speaking strictly about the Home Based Business area, I'm sure no one could possibly disagree that any kind of idea or system, which requires a website to first prove itself as a positive contribution and demonstrate it will be online for more than a few months, is surely welcome.

After all, anybody who has had any degree of success in an Internet Home Business will tell you that it takes work, time and perseverance to get to the point where it is remotely worth your while (except for a few limited exceptions). So why would anyone who is serious about it be opposed to a relatively short 'trial' period, where their commitment needs to be examined and established? If anyone really thinks that they are going to see any great benefit from an Internet business website in the first 90 -120 days, then they really need to re-evaluate their reason for doing it (even though so many 'gurus' guarantee success in far less time...)

As for websites of an educational, information or entertainment nature, I feel the same should apply. If something like the 'sandbox' had been around a lot earlier and was implemented by all the SEs, there certainly wouldn't be as many dead links and inactive websites as there are.

In most cases and in most places, there is no licensing or certification whatsoever needed to begin a website about anything at all (even in the guise of a so called 'expert' or 'guru'). So anything in the form of a trial or cooling down period (even though the 'sandbox' doesn't fill the bill to any great degree) is a step in the right direction towards controlling the number of completely useless and pointless websites that exist, for a short time, purely on a whim or search for a quick buck.

Just to qualify my comments a little, I know there are a number of 'personal' websites and 'Journals' etc. These, of course, are a means of personal expression and everyone has the right to tell the world about themselves and to discuss whatever their fancy. I don't believe that these types of websites are in any way unwanted. Obviously, such sites would not be included in the vast majority of meaningful searches, purely by virtue of their very nature and such, are not contributing to the abundance of 'dead' or 'idle' websites.