Age of a site

[Nick0r]

More and more frequently, sites that are ranked #1 aren't particularly amazingly optimised, they're there because they have been slightly optimised and are old sites. If they've been around 4 years or so they get better rankings than a site that's been around 6 months, correct?

[jocelyn]

Well it obvisouly helps. In 6 years a site should have more natural and exchanged links... than one that is 6 months old.

[Nick0r]

Well the site i'm using as an example has about 1 paragraph of text on its main page. It is top for a HUGELY competitive keyphrase. It doesn't even have many links.

[jocelyn]

[QUOTE=Nick0r]Well the site i'm using as an example has about 1 paragraph of text on its main page. It is top for a HUGELY competitive keyphrase. It doesn't even have many links.[/QUOTE]
Well text amount is not really a factor since it falls in the onpage stuff.
What is not many links ? 10 , 50 , 200 ?
What is the PR of the page ?

[rizla]

maybe they are hiding/framing text and/or links, but jocelyn Q is important- how many backlinks do they have?

[Nick0r]

PR4 jocelyn

[SEO_AM]

I have an authority site that places higher than other higher PR sites. There are also authority sites that place higher than us where they have a lower page rank and lower BLs. IMO, I think an authority site (older sites), almost regardless of PR or BLs, will place higher than a newer or non-authority site as long as they are the index page or internal page of what Google considers an authority site.

[callmeshoe]

[QUOTE=Nick0r]Well the site i'm using as an example has about 1 paragraph of text on its main page. It is top for a HUGELY competitive keyphrase. It doesn't even have many links.[/QUOTE]

can you post the site your are referencing and the kw you are checking? just put spaces between characters so you don't give them a link. thanks!

[Nick0r]

unitedhosting.co.uk keyword "uk webhosting"

[SPARKO]

I reckon thats a pretty decent site, Pagerank 5 with decent links ...not especialy themed though but hey thats another thread....nice and light n friendly. I quite like it.

I know what you mean though I see loads which have crap dated sites, sometimes even unrelated getting good results ....

[I, Brian]

United Hosting have a great reputation in the hosting industry - they don't need full SEO, as they have a ton of low PR backlinks - usually in context with "UK webhosting" - from various webmastering forums, and not least various threads in WebHostingTalk.com.

Overall, though, I do quite agree that Google "democracy of the web" allows too much influence for older sites - for example, since Florida, Google has consistently ranked Altavista first for "search engine". But altavista lost out in the search engine wars in 2001 - when Google stamped it's foot down hard in an industry that has never looked back.

Point being, Google has inadvertently given weight to older linkage and sites with it, even though this may mean the sites listed are less relevant now. The links may be on topic - but it doesn't mean to say they are any more relevant than other links elsewhere.

The whole effect is bit like the 2005 German elections having to include all the ballot papers from 1932. Obviously, that's not going to be a relevant result. But it's the way google works - for the time-being at least.

[Nick0r]

I couldn't exactly remember where I found this forum from, it may have been from one of your old sigs on WHT ;)

[I, Brian]

And that "2and2" branding play is just a little dangerous - for a start, 1&1 may not be too impressed. Secondly, 1&1 don't have a great reputation in the industry, anyway!

[Nick0r]

It's all handled, don't worry :)