Age: More than just a number?

[Blackicicle]

Does anyone know or thinks that the age of a site is a major factor when it comes to ranking?

Well I think so, but please correct me if I wrong. The reason for this is that I did a search for a very competitive keyword "Professional web design" and went to archive.org to see what the ages are for the top 15 sites in the serp's, and it seems that all those pages are from 1996-2000(2001).

Does google add more weight to older sites? Of course this is keeping in mind that older sites would theorethically have more links to it, but do you think that a sites age itself is a factor?

[cbp]

As far as I know age is not a factor. HOWEVER, older sites are more likely to have more links to them and rank better becauseof that.

CBP

[keywordguru]

as much as I would have to agree, I personally think that age actually does have a few factors in the algorithm. I too have found similar situations where some of the most competitive markets are sometimes dominated by older domains.
To make it more confusing I have seens sites with far less backlinks and still rank well.

So the question is basically dead ended. Google is the only one to say if it is so:)
KG

[scisoft]

The age, or rather the implicated stability as well as the theming focused over the time, should be a factor.

[jawn_tech]

This would be a good study, because after thinking about it, I could see why they might consider adding that factor into an algorithm. Sites come and go, but ones that stay around longer may seem more relevant. As everyone said above, older sites naturally have more backlinks. One would need to compare a slew of older sites with new ones, and the first set would need the same number of backlinks as their counterparts for a fair study.

On the other hand, I know googlebot comes around more often to sites that update more frequently, even adding newer pages. So even if the theory is true, the old timer needs to still have a pulse.

[urknighterrent]

I'm fairly certain that age does play a factor, at least with Google. I don't as a rule, optimize my sites at all. I don't do link strategy. I don't even submit them. SEO is a special request thing I charge extra for, and I don't pretend to be an expert. If you're looking for hardcore optimization you need an expert. I tell my clients to dig down deep and cough up at least 6G a year to do the job right.

Still, some of my older sites are starting to appear for no discernable reason at all. If people are linking to them I don't know about it, and they don't come up on a link check.

[sudhani]

Its not the "age of a site" but the "age of a link" that might be playing a bigger role. And this could only be for a short period. This is what we've been discussing as "Google SandBox Effect"

If Google starts giving us the results from older websites, how can its results be up-to-date?

[BGump]

I would think that age would play a minor part in a sites ranking but that the algo would not rely to heavily on it.

If you think about it there are thousands - no, Millions of sites out there that are simply spammy and created for the sole purpose of promoting a main site.

If a site is old, say 8 years, chances are its legit, and not simply a doorway.

Also, for sites that have been around since the early days, its likely a safe bet that they do hold some level of authority on the topic.

- Really when it comes down to it, I doubt there is much weight on this at all, but I would not be surprised if there was at least some.

[Blackicicle]

I have seens sites with far less backlinks and still rank well

I have actually seen the same thing in the past also.

Thanks all for your views on this matter, you all brough out some fine points to consider.

[rlrouse]

I have seens sites with far less backlinks and still rank well.

It all depends on anchor text and the quality of those links, not just the quantity. Yahoo.com has hundreds of thousands of backlinks yet my sites outrank them for literally thousands of search terms.

A page with 1000 backlinks all with a cryptic URL as the anchor text will rank lower than a page with 10 high quality backlinks with the search term in the anchor text.

[jawn_tech]

This is true, that the age can benefit the quality of links. As the site that links to you gets older, it may aquire more backlinks as well. So the PR 4 site that began linking to you years ago could now be a PR 8.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by rlrouse

It all depends on anchor text and the quality of those links, not just the quantity. Yahoo.com has hundreds of thousands of backlinks yet my sites outrank them for literally thousands of search terms.

A page with 1000 backlinks all with a cryptic URL as the anchor text will rank lower than a page with 10 high quality backlinks with the search term in the anchor text.

I have worked on some sites for up to ten years. IMO, the link thing has near zero value in the age/sandbox algo which IMO, is part of a bigger "trust algo" that uses domain age, content themes over time and links& link Text. The link theories are IMO, just SEO's not seeing the forest for the trees. I do no linking and if a client insists... I fire 'em! Yet... I can show you every site I monitor that has been around for over 8 years and have only a few links... are consistently in the top 5 for their competitive terms. Why? IMO, the reasons are:
1. age of internal and external links
2. age/stability of internal link text (how often has it changed)
3. Superior content/products selection

One of the theories I've had is fresh content is neccessary and failure to do so leads to positions degrading. Lately I have come to question that because I see these sites that have done nothing for years rising. I recently updated one site and am curious about how the link text change will affect the positions it's holding presently and how well the old links do with new text or old text at a new page with no parameters. This research will tell me where to go from here.

IMO, the trust is such that the site will rise for the new term (which is currently in the 13th position) and I will not be surprised if the new page outranks the old page because on page factors like KW in title and description.

[kgun]

In my opinion age is an important ranking factor.

Number 4 according to the concenus view of the experts.

[Dubbya]

Attaboy kgun!

Straight to the point and still on-topic! Fantastic!!

Age of the site and domain are definitely factored into the algorithms. More important, are the inbound links to content and the speed at which new content and links are being generated.

Inbound links to older sites help establish them as "Authority Sites" in their niche. If an older site can maintain older links while still acquiring search traffic and if the site continues to post new, relevant content that generates new links, they're pretty tough to beat.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by kgun

In my opinion age is an important ranking factor.

Number 4 according to the concenus view of the experts.

I'm surprised to see it that high considering the source.

Yeah, why do links seem to carry so much more weight... hmmm... 7 out of top 10? if you have watched these guys and I know some of the experts personally... then you know many are a little biased on the link side and don't give much credit to how HTML elements/site IA, and languistic semantics are possibly used in ranking and links. The consensus "opinion" was heavily skewed to SEO by link development and controlling incoming link text. IMO, Age as a factor is hidden by the trees in the forest ie:most Seo's pre-occupation with links.

Age could easily influence all or most of the top 10 factors listed there. IMO, llike many things experts tout.... take it with a grain of salt and do what fits your skill set. Personally, the link stuff is given waaaaaaaaaaay more credit then it's due!

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Dubbya

if the site continues to post new, relevant content that generates new links, they're pretty tough to beat.

I used to agree with that but, IMO, the new content has to "mature" and accumulate links so it takes longer for that content to really contribute in a big way. It will/can get found in the long tail but seldom does it stay in the top positions for really competitive terms. That will come with age or it becomes an indented result.

[kgun]

I thought everybody at WPW knew my opinion on stable semantic IBL's with foccused anchor text.

There may be written much nonsense on old as well as on new sites and some are able to manipulate the SE's.

[Portucuenta]

I strongly believe it does affect, I have been trying to beat a site since two years ago, they don't have any seo work at all, even my visible page rank is much better, I have more indexed pages, yet I can't be first because of them, I am second

[Terry Van Horne]

IMO, if you were to look at a site I SEO'd it wouldn't look like there was SEO being done because I don't chase links because IBLs are not really a part of my strategy, getting targeted buyers is my strategy, I think 301's are overused, uninspired webmasters use robots.txt to protect anything from spiders and Robot meta tags are useless for anything except manipulating PR because the SEs haven't supported them uniformly and documentation has been at best a feeble effort.

The SEO Big 3:
Title
KW rich copy and IA
Link worthy content (Do not call this linkbait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

If you have to beg people to link to it, the content probably isn't link worthy content! A few contacts with the right people gets the ball rolling nicely. Seek to influence those the audience are listening to and you don't do that by opening the relationship with an invite to a link scheme.

[kgun]

My first three:

1. Domain name.
2. (Old) Stable semantic IBL's with a relevant anchor text.
3. Title tag.

[Terry Van Horne]

Kgun, I'd be interested in your reasons for domain over title for #1. Domain IMO, is no stronger than using the Keywords anywhere in the Information architecture ie folders and filenames. I've never seen anything that convinced me that keyword rich domains were better thatn keyword rich IA. That is to believe they weight the domain name heavier. That could like that because of age keeping in mind that the most of the KW rich domains were gobbled up years ago because registrars claimed these were weighted heavier. That could make that another deceptive affect of aging of a site.

[kgun]

My above ranking is based on intuition and not facts.

Question:
What is easiest to spam do-main-na-me or title ... tag?