4 replies to this topic

[Joshua Sciarrino]

Just have been exposed to this and wondering what the community's input on it is.

[iamlost]

Like many/most/all algo factors age appears to be a variable dependant upon n-other algo factors. It certainly does not stand or fall a site by itself.

For example (all sites same age):
* site 'A' is registered by a person without a known web history, has me-too type blog content, has a couple hundred backlinks from related sites, blogs, fora, and according to G-Analytics gets about a hundred uniques a day. It isn't doing well in a fairly competitive niche - is it age or just being comparatively blah?

* site 'B' is registered by an international company, has several hundred pages of solid copy, plus interactive web media, mucho heavy duty backlinks, lots of hype backlinks, ten thousand uniques per day. It is sitting at number 4 for a popular niche - age or trust or ?

In my opinion age is either a factor that can be over-ridden by others or that is tripped when others do not meet some minimum. And then there is the quality of the competition - remember, query results are comparative.

[Black_Knight]

Remember that age is not just the age of the site, but also the age of the links. A site that has consistently gathered links over years is a powerful thing. And not just for volume of links either. It shows consistency and longevity, quite different from the buzz of the day.

[Joshua Sciarrino]

It certainly does not stand or fall a site by itself.

Thanks for that.

Yea, I see 'aging' isn't just the website, it's individual pages, ages of links, ages of those backlinks, etc, etc.

Any other people want to share their two cents?

[A.N.Onym]

I second Iamlost and Ammon