"Don't need to update site, just need good keywords"

[NJ]

Here is part of a recent communication I received, "But that is very specific to making sure the right keywords (content) are going in, moreso than a function of frequent updating. For some key word combinations there is little competition. We mostly need to make sure that program people are getting in the text on the site the combinations of words which would facilitate their audience finding them. IE we more need the right word combinations than a site that has great "gravitas" in the Googlesphere."

I have been lobbying for regular updates and new content as part of having a quality website. I would love to hear your comments, especially if they are backed up with references to quantified information.

Thanks!

[weegillis]

People who don't want to go through the trouble or embarrassment of creating new content for their sites will invariably look for ways to play the SERPs. It's a losing battle whether a high PR site or a low PR, IMHO. The PR will always have a tendency downwards on a static site as links drop off over time. On an old site, it's probable that inbound links have been disappearing as sites get revamped, and about all that's left is search. Do we play with the SEO? I would say not without some significant revamp of the site and/or its content. So it's a catch-22.

[Noble123]

Yes, the contents of the site should be impressive and in accordance with the expectations of the targeted visitors. The SERP or the unique contents not always matter but the simplicity and clarity for understating is a big factor that can help in engaging your visitors with your site and also make them think to come again.

[LD]

the unique contents not always matter but the simplicity and clarity for understating is a big factor that can help in engaging your visitors with your site and also make them think to come again.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Every situation is different and keeping things simple is a motto I follow regularly, but I don't go for "understating" at all, and disagree with it being a "big factor" in terms of engagement or returning visitors. Visitors have to "get" what they came for and if they like it (what they came for, that is) and if the content is changeable and engaging, they'll come back again and again. Keeping things simple is one thing. Understating, is another.

I'm wondering now if you meant "understanding"?

[weegillis]

Then there are cases where the information on a site is largely static, such as the reproduction of a book. The content never changes, which is the beauty of it as it can be referred to over and over again. I work with a lot of this kind of site. Apart from screw tightening the odd year, very little ever changes. In my experience, search hasn't ignored these pages, as most traffic is delivered from SERPs, not links. Of course, few people are searching for the terms that appear on the pages. It's usually a family or place name or something related to the featured history.

If these were revenue targeted pages, income would be dismal. I venture that a revenue site cannot afford to sit for long on one feature, and must compound their content as insurance against diminishing returns.