Comments on: Site “Age” in Rankings – The New Toolbar PageRank (in a bad way) http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/ ...a loser among losers Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:59:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Darren http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-7058 Darren Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:37:03 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-7058 You make some interesting points in this article, but in my experience, it's not only the links that provide the ranking weight. The age of the site itself does play a role. I recently optimized one site that was registered in 1998 and had a long history of website changes over the years. When we started this campaign, they had zero backlinks. After optimizing the titles, tags and content and using our usual method of link building, we had this site in the #1 position for some very competitive search terms within 3 weeks. In contrast, we just finished a campaign for a client with a brand new website and domain. We programmed the site from the ground up with SEO as our top priority. After the same link building strategies that were applied to the older site, this new site is not getting past page 4 of Google's results and it has been 4 weeks so far. Comparing the backlinks from both sites, they are almost identical. The older site is ranking much better for much more competitive one and two word phrases localized on a global scale (eg: 'productname' & 'sale productname'), whereas the newer site is going after 3 word search phrases localized to a specific city (eg: 'cityname servicedescriptor service'). So, since these two sites have almost identical backlinks, it can't be because "It’s because your site hasn’t doesn’t have enough—or good enough—links yet." As we have experienced in these specific case studies, there is something to be said about a site's age alone. You make some interesting points in this article, but in my experience, it’s not only the links that provide the ranking weight. The age of the site itself does play a role.

I recently optimized one site that was registered in 1998 and had a long history of website changes over the years. When we started this campaign, they had zero backlinks. After optimizing the titles, tags and content and using our usual method of link building, we had this site in the #1 position for some very competitive search terms within 3 weeks.

In contrast, we just finished a campaign for a client with a brand new website and domain. We programmed the site from the ground up with SEO as our top priority. After the same link building strategies that were applied to the older site, this new site is not getting past page 4 of Google’s results and it has been 4 weeks so far. Comparing the backlinks from both sites, they are almost identical.

The older site is ranking much better for much more competitive one and two word phrases localized on a global scale (eg: ‘productname’ & ’sale productname’), whereas the newer site is going after 3 word search phrases localized to a specific city (eg: ‘cityname servicedescriptor service’).

So, since these two sites have almost identical backlinks, it can’t be because “It’s because your site hasn’t doesn’t have enough—or good enough—links yet.” As we have experienced in these specific case studies, there is something to be said about a site’s age alone.

]]> By: axmu http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-6243 axmu Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:08:39 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-6243 I guess the real test would be to have a brand new website and a 3 year old (which had no content on it so no natural back-linking over time would occur) all of a sudden have the same amount of backlinks from high-ranking site to it and similar content. I guess the real test would be to have a brand new website and a 3 year old (which had no content on it so no natural back-linking over time would occur) all of a sudden have the same amount of backlinks from high-ranking site to it and similar content.

]]> By: itispals http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-3078 itispals Wed, 04 Jul 2007 05:35:42 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-3078 Age definitely may not be the determining factor, but age is also a factor to be considered. Also incases like a new product launch, let us say, iPhone, you cannot get a site aged 5 years old that was meant for iPhone, but, Google would value an article or review from a site that has been 5 years old and is also popular.So when it is popular logically the links come into place. I would also wish to add one more point, having a domain which is just old, necessarily need not be an advantage. Assume you have been there for 5 years and you haven't attracted the kind of traffic you should or you haven't attracted the backlinks, then you would be in a disadvantage against a guy who is just 5 months old and yet drawing much of traffic & links. But one advantage with being "OLD" is that you put across to the world that you are experienced & you are there on net for some serious purposes and more importantly you would have the early starters advantage. Since there are no authorative guide books, it is all just the experience that i am sharing here...... thanks, itispals Age definitely may not be the determining factor, but age is also a factor to be considered. Also incases like a new product launch, let us say, iPhone, you cannot get a site aged 5 years old that was meant for iPhone, but, Google would value an article or review from a site that has been 5 years old and is also popular.So when it is popular logically the links come into place.
I would also wish to add one more point, having a domain which is just old, necessarily need not be an advantage. Assume you have been there for 5 years and you haven’t attracted the kind of traffic you should or you haven’t attracted the backlinks, then you would be in a disadvantage against a guy who is just 5 months old and yet drawing much of traffic & links. But one advantage with being “OLD” is that you put across to the world that you are experienced & you are there on net for some serious purposes and more importantly you would have the early starters advantage.

Since there are no authorative guide books, it is all just the experience that i am sharing here……

thanks,
itispals

]]> By: brazz http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-1815 brazz Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:08:29 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-1815 What (just a question) if Google takes into account not the age, but some factors which grow only with age? For example (a very simple one), G migh give points to your site in accordance to the number of people who search for words which appear on your site (and apply some king of inverted frequency correction, so that words which appear on many sites don't count for much and vice-versa)? The more time passes, the more points you gain. The more your pages answer search queries, the more you gain. The more your content is unique (fewer other pages with the same topic), the more you gain. There are other factors which G could use in the algo which can only grow with time. Just my thoughts. What (just a question) if Google takes into account not the age, but some factors which grow only with age?

For example (a very simple one), G migh give points to your site in accordance to the number of people who search for words which appear on your site (and apply some king of inverted frequency correction, so that words which appear on many sites don’t count for much and vice-versa)?
The more time passes, the more points you gain. The more your pages answer search queries, the more you gain. The more your content is unique (fewer other pages with the same topic), the more you gain.

There are other factors which G could use in the algo which can only grow with time.

Just my thoughts.

]]> By: NPDC http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-1106 NPDC Sun, 06 May 2007 20:38:36 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-1106 I run a group of non-profit websites, I created a new product directory (not for selling products, just for information purposes for the non-profit audience) and made it a subdirectory of the main site (10 years old), it did pretty well, ~1300 visitors per day with only a handfull of backlinks to the subdirectory. It has a lot of content, but is a dynamic site (php) But had trouble getting more backlinks from other non-profits, government to the subdirectory, as they already had links to the main domain. And wanted further growth, so took a brand new new domain (no previous owner). And started building quality backlinks, 301 the old directory. Backlinks are doing well and recently got a PR5 for the home page (its only 4 weeks old). But although all of the pages are indexed most are now supplemental. So now at 300 visitors per day, but all from links from other websites, nothing from google SERPs. It only appear if I use very particular keywords, basically all keywords appearing in the domain name The domain is about 2 months old now, my question is, I feel that I have done the right thing, and how long will it take to start appearing in SERPs? NPDC I run a group of non-profit websites, I created a new product directory (not for selling products, just for information purposes for the non-profit audience) and made it a subdirectory of the main site (10 years old), it did pretty well, ~1300 visitors per day with only a handfull of backlinks to the subdirectory. It has a lot of content, but is a dynamic site (php)

But had trouble getting more backlinks from other non-profits, government to the subdirectory, as they already had links to the main domain. And wanted further growth, so took a brand new new domain (no previous owner). And started building quality backlinks, 301 the old directory. Backlinks are doing well and recently got a PR5 for the home page (its only 4 weeks old). But although all of the pages are indexed most are now supplemental. So now at 300 visitors per day, but all from links from other websites, nothing from google SERPs. It only appear if I use very particular keywords, basically all keywords appearing in the domain name

The domain is about 2 months old now, my question is, I feel that I have done the right thing, and how long will it take to start appearing in SERPs?

NPDC

]]> By: Darrell Long http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-241 Darrell Long Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:57:45 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-241 I would have to totally agree with you on this one. I think that the way an aged site would benefit you if by having that time to acquire relevant links. A site that was created in 2001 but is not active would have the same chance as one created in 2006. Really what should be said is not that the age of your domain plays a big factor but how long your site has been active plays a big factor. I really liked your take on this topic, you should just over to my site www.redhandstudios.com and check out some of the topics I have written on lately. Darrell I would have to totally agree with you on this one. I think that the way an aged site would benefit you if by having that time to acquire relevant links. A site that was created in 2001 but is not active would have the same chance as one created in 2006. Really what should be said is not that the age of your domain plays a big factor but how long your site has been active plays a big factor.

I really liked your take on this topic, you should just over to my site www.redhandstudios.com and check out some of the topics I have written on lately.

Darrell

]]> By: SEOLoser http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-197 SEOLoser Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:16:14 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-197 Good info, but keep in mind (you probably already know this) patents are just patents. Filing a patent doesn't mean you have to use the technology described... in fact, patents can even be used to mislead competitors, or, god forbid, SEOs :) Good info, but keep in mind (you probably already know this) patents are just patents. Filing a patent doesn’t mean you have to use the technology described… in fact, patents can even be used to mislead competitors, or, god forbid, SEOs :)

]]> By: Halfdeck http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-196 Halfdeck Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:00:49 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-196 According to "Information Retrieval Based on Historical Data", Google might be doing some kind of scoring based on a document's "inception date" and using those dates to calculate the average age of the documents for a particular domain. Then documents are score based on the "difference between the ages of the documents and the average age." The patent lists several ways to determine an inception date, including registration date and the date a search engine (Google) first learns of a url. But what are these "inception date" scores used for? They might be useful when flagging spam, or deciding the depth of crawl. But I don't see how a url with an older inception date should rank higher than a url with a brand new inception date. According to “Information Retrieval Based on Historical Data”, Google might be doing some kind of scoring based on a document’s “inception date” and using those dates to calculate the average age of the documents for a particular domain. Then documents are score based on the “difference between the ages of the documents and the average age.”

The patent lists several ways to determine an inception date, including registration date and the date a search engine (Google) first learns of a url.

But what are these “inception date” scores used for? They might be useful when flagging spam, or deciding the depth of crawl. But I don’t see how a url with an older inception date should rank higher than a url with a brand new inception date.

]]> By: Graywolf http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-194 Graywolf Sat, 20 Jan 2007 13:37:17 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-194 >Well yeah, old men on average have probably met more people because they’ve been around longer and had more time to do so. That's a perfect analogy! >Well yeah, old men on average have probably met more people because they’ve been around longer and had more time to do so.

That’s a perfect analogy!

]]> By: SEOLoser http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-192 SEOLoser Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:34:34 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/01/17/site-%e2%80%9cage%e2%80%9d-in-rankings-%e2%80%93-the-new-toolbar-pagerank-in-a-bad-way/#comment-192 Domain age doesn't actually correspond to PageRank. The two are often correlated but neither factor affects the other directly. The ONLY factor affecting a page's pagerank is links (aside from perhaps a manual BAN, but this wouldn't be algorithmic). It's like saying that "Old men have met more people than younger men." (sorry it's the best I could come up with :) ) Well yeah, old men on average have probably met more people because they've been around longer and had more time to do so. It's not that the fact that they're old makes them meet more people in and of itself. Plus, the statement isn't always true--some old people are really shy or antisocial (translation to SEO: don't actively build links) and some young people are really outgoing (translation: a site building lots of links), which results in some cases where the assumption fails. Okay maybe that's not the best analogy but I tried ;). Domain age doesn’t actually correspond to PageRank. The two are often correlated but neither factor affects the other directly. The ONLY factor affecting a page’s pagerank is links (aside from perhaps a manual BAN, but this wouldn’t be algorithmic).

It’s like saying that “Old men have met more people than younger men.” (sorry it’s the best I could come up with :) )

Well yeah, old men on average have probably met more people because they’ve been around longer and had more time to do so. It’s not that the fact that they’re old makes them meet more people in and of itself. Plus, the statement isn’t always true–some old people are really shy or antisocial (translation to SEO: don’t actively build links) and some young people are really outgoing (translation: a site building lots of links), which results in some cases where the assumption fails. Okay maybe that’s not the best analogy but I tried ;).

]]>