Google aging factor in ranking results

[Kostis Panayotakis]

Hi
I would like to discuss how the google ranking algorithm involves an aging factor.

Is a specific web page expected to have deteriorated rankings, as time is passing. Does the algorithm have a freshness factor.

is inclusion in the supplementary index related to aging ?

Thanks

K

[beu]

Aging can be a factor! A good rule of thumb is the fresher the better.

[JohnW]

>how the google ranking algorithm involves an aging factor.

An old page may do much better than a new page as long as the topical theme of the page has not changed too much. There are many indicators that fresh content is helpful, within this context. There are just as many examples of pages that have not changed in years, still ranking very well.

>is inclusion in the supplementary index related to aging ?

No.

[Zohaib]

I think that Google considers age factor of a site. Older the site the better it is.

[gabs]

Site or page ? hmmm always thought about that.. me think page..

[beu]

Originally Posted by gabs

Site or page ? hmmm always thought about that.. me think page..

A new site / domain name can be an issue. Older sites may be considered more trusted sources of information but, that is not always the case either.

I was talking about page freshness in my original post.

Like John said, page theme can be an important consideration but as a genneral rule fresh content is preferred by search engines.

[JohnW]

>Site or page ? hmmm always thought about that.. me think page..

It’s both. If you compare new page on a new site, new page on old site, and old page on old site –the old page on old site is strongest, all other things being equal.

[beu]

Originally Posted by JohnW

>Site or page ? hmmm always thought about that.. me think page..

It’s both. If you compare new page on a new site, new page on old site, and old page on old site –the old page on old site is strongest, all other things being equal.

John is is also right and I think we are saying the same thing!

Here is why:
An "old" page looks like a "new" version of that page to search engines when updated because of the server timestamp and/or support of "IF MODIFIED SINCE" in the server settings. So, an "old" page which is updated (new version) at an old and trusted domain name will in most cases rank higher than a "new" URL recently updated at a new domain name.

Freshness is the factor and not "age" of the page / URL. An old page / URL with updated content is in most cases is ideal.

Point, it is possible to be old, fresh and preferred!

[Marcia]

Originally Posted by Kostis Panayotakis

Hi
I would like to discuss how the google ranking algorithm involves an aging factor.

Is a specific web page expected to have deteriorated rankings, as time is passing. Does the algorithm have a freshness factor.

I'd like to address the difference between age of a site and age of individual pages, because they're not the same thing.

First off, what's being referred to as an "aging factor" or "aging delay" by some people is to a degree because they don't like or want to use the term "sandbox" which is what the phenomenon has commonly been referred to and commonly known as since it started. It doesn't matter unless it causes confusion, which it can and often does.

The initial "sandboxing" (or "aging delay") of a SITE is caused by a set of filters that cause a site to *not* rank until certain criteria are met, but seems to sometimes be avoided if there's initially some high profile, quality linking and/or a flux of quality traffic.

However, for the most part the majority of new sites are affected, but that isn't the same issue as freshness of pages. What's often seen is that a new site will have acceptable rankings right off (like a honeymoon period) and then drop off until some time passes and certain ranking criteria are met - which can vary.

[trooperbill]

matt cutts and seobook both talk about this issue and agree that its a strange factor as google needs to balance relevancy to new information which is activeley in demand against old information about things that have already happened... they say theres a dude in google whos only job is to refine results to display new sites for new information and i read somewhere recently that google only jumps on an issue if it effects GOOGLE's ancillary sites (it was some issue with google news or something not appearing for a term)

mark

[Kostis Panayotakis]

Hi
I was thinking on the aging of individual pages

So, if I somehow update a page, it's 'new'.
What if this update is minor - i.e. title modification or a new paragraph in the text

I understand that G is trying to balance between freshness and quality

thanks for the insight
K

[Marcia]

So, if I somehow update a page, it's 'new'.
What if this update is minor - i.e. title modification or a new paragraph in the text

No, if you update a page it isn't new.

Making big, major changes across a site is one thing, but that's not at all the same as updating a page. Updating a page makes it a page that's been modified - but that does NOT make it a new page.

[beu]

The updated server timestamp tells the search engines that the page may contain new fresh and/or up to date information. (what I ment by new) This is good because, search engines are all about efficiency! They have no need to re-crawl a page that hasn't changed.

[Kostis Panayotakis]

Hi,
as a bottom line,

does one get a SEO gain, by updating-enriching existing pages ?

would it make sense to revisit the most successfull pages first ?

Thanks
K

[Marcia]

Keeping a site "fresh" is a good idea from an all-around perspective, including getting some new IBLs every so often. But that's different from major site modifications, adding a ton of new pages at once, or constant "SEO tweaking."

[DaveN]

and if you are thinking about using the Last-modified header tag without changing content get ready for a nasty surprise,,, just a heads up

DaveN

[jimbeetle]

and if you are thinking about using the Last-modified header tag without changing content get ready for a nasty surprise,,, just a heads up

Deja vu all over again. Sounds almost like a reference to the "by about how many bytes does a page have to change in order for Alta Vista to consider it fresh" questions that used to pop up so many years ago.

[Marcia]

Originally Posted by jimbeetle

Deja vu all over again. Sounds almost like a reference to the "by about how many bytes does a page have to change in order for Alta Vista to consider it fresh" questions that used to pop up so many years ago.

Something like Groundhog Day?

[Marcia]

Why are DaveN's posts always like a breath of fresh air?