Page 2 of 2 First 12
  • Jump to page:
    #16
  1. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    14,897
    Rep Power
    1754
    Originally Posted by realityhack
    Fathom,

    1. How did we go from server age (OP) which almost certainly makes no difference, to link age?
    Following the natural theme of the thread... we started with server age and that was debunked immediately... there is no need to debunk debunking if you agree with the original debunk.

    But that opened up a domain age question... and I debunked that.

    But that opened up a link age question... and I debunked that.

    Originally Posted by realityhack
    2. In your test did it actually take Googlebot 4 months to crawl the links? or is it possible that it didn't give your site full credit for a little while, maybe because it saw a big block of new links or whatever?
    Well just because I make changes on a few hundred domain today... does not mean Googlebot JUMPs. I didn't force Google to recrawl the page... so if a page priority was monthly... that can reasonably be almost two months before Google crawls all pages to delete and credit and then recalculating that into into results

    Originally Posted by realityhack
    Anyway we all know that age is far from the most important factor in ranking. In fact it is so low as to be something you can ignore.

    I would argue however that it is unlikely that Google would not use an easily obtainable signal in some way. It may have zero effect unless X, Y, and Z are also true, but then become a bigger factor. That tends to be how complex algorithms work. So for any normal site it doesn't matter, but it helps determine spam, or flash in the pan type sites.
    Who knows.
    You have two counter balance philosophies working against your rational.

    Businesses go out of business all the time and I eat up their "not so easily obtainable signals" and quite literally use it as easy as ****ting on your foot thus it fosters spam just as easy as fostering good wll.

    As an example: Lehman Brothers was a well established brand and their domain lehman.com is due to expire.

    I can bid on that, own it and using your philosophy to beat you to a pulp because that domain is 30 years old.

    That the first counter.

    The second counter is the laws of diminishing returns apply.

    Even if history of anything is a variable it would be a single point NOT a point for each link as the latter would provide top results only from the older servers with the oldest domains because they also have a lock on the oldest potential links and you can never beat age... thus it would be 1. so easy to see this in results and 2. foolish for Google to bait results this way as you can buy any domain for the right price and the fortune 100 companies would own them all.

    Thus the more you add to the mix the less impact it has to provide any returns for ordered ranks until the only time it is apparent is the difference between ranking #999 and #990 where you'll never get any viable returns as qualified traffic and sales conversions.
    Last edited by fathom; Feb 20th, 2013 at 08:57 AM.
  2. #17
  3. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,282
    Rep Power
    514
    Fathom I don't think we are having the same discussion. I said approximately "Google likely takes domain age (like domains under x months) into account in some tiny infinitesimal way IF xyz other factors indicate that domain age might be a valid indicator/signal.
    I have no idea how you go from that to beating my pants off because a domain is 30 years old.

    You are beating the crap out of a straw man. Doing a great job of it. But it is a straw man.
    I actually agree with what you are saying.
  4. #18
  5. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    14,897
    Rep Power
    1754
    Originally Posted by realityhack
    Fathom I don't think we are having the same discussion. I said approximately "Google likely takes domain age (like domains under x months) into account in some tiny infinitesimal way IF xyz other factors indicate that domain age might be a valid indicator/signal.
    I have no idea how you go from that to beating my pants off because a domain is 30 years old.

    You are beating the crap out of a straw man. Doing a great job of it. But it is a straw man.
    I actually agree with what you are saying.
    You're saying "every little bit helps"... and I'm saying "little bits harm because they waste your time focusing on stuff that makes little differences".

    You're saying age of server, age of domain, age of links or something to do with age period helps even if only in some tiny infinitesimal way, and I'm saying correlation does not imply causation.

    Just because a host or domain or link is old(er) does not imply it is better.

    It's a fact that if you place a link today... in 24 hours it is 1 day old... and in 15 years it is 15 years old... but that does not imply the content of the host, on the domain or linked to is now more valuable as it got more seasoned (as Matt suggested in his video the word "stale" can't always be trusted) and grew value solely because people forgot they added a link to it 15 years ago.
    Last edited by fathom; Feb 20th, 2013 at 11:17 AM.
  6. #19
  7. SEO Consultant
    SEO Chat Genius (4000 - 4499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    Posts
    4,210
    Rep Power
    978
    I think what your test showed fathom was that it took 4 months for the links to reach the same level of authority, which does suggest an aging factor. It suggests that they mature at 4 months, or rather perhaps they don't achieve their full value until they have been live for 4 months, thus giving the impression of an aging factor.

    What it definitely shows is that you can't just get a bunch of new links and have them be the same authority as an older link.

    And my all things being equal comment was more of a hypothetical used to evaluate a condition. I appreciate that reality (practice) and theory are not always the same.
  8. #20
  9. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,282
    Rep Power
    514
    Originally Posted by fathom
    You're saying "every little bit helps"... and I'm saying "little bits harm because they waste your time focusing on stuff that makes little differences".
    I understand your confusion but that is not what I was saying either.
    I 100% agree that in practice you go after factors you know will help regardless, starting with the biggest impact easiest to do ones. And you would never get to the point of worrying about the age of a domain or server.

    I was simply speculating from an academic perspective that it is likely that some part of the algorithm looks at X piece of data even if it won't make a difference 99.9999999% of the time. Completely accademic and in no way related to what you should work on. As I said in my original post "Basically NO".

    I really do agree with what you are saying in practical terms.
  10. #21
  11. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,282
    Rep Power
    514
    Originally Posted by tstolber
    ...which does suggest an aging factor...
    It is quite possible that there is such a factor, or that there is such a factor when under a certain volume of new links, etc.
    Very old links might be discounted depending upon wither the domain the are on stays static the entire time. Who knows.

    Like any complex algorithm, neural net, or fuzzy logic system we can expect the google algorithm to (under limited circumstances) exhibit highly non-linear behavior, and show emerging or aberrant behavior that nobody predicted. (see the problem with impossible searches)

    The key is to stick to pushing variables we know almost always work in a certain way rather than chasing one aberrant set of criteria. This also makes you reasonably 'update proof' as what always works is what looks (or is) the most natural.
  12. #22
  13. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    14,897
    Rep Power
    1754
    Originally Posted by tstolber
    I think what your test showed fathom was that it took 4 months for the links to reach the same level of authority, which does suggest an aging factor. It suggests that they mature at 4 months, or rather perhaps they don't achieve their full value until they have been live for 4 months, thus giving the impression of an aging factor.
    Hmmm... but all other websites didn't delete their links so in reverse links older than 4 months must lose power then. How can older links not keep me at bey if older ones are more powerful?

    You can't have it both ways... Either older links have more power thus I shouldn't have ranked again because clearly all other domains had older links than I or older links stop gaining power at some point or your theory does not hold water and age is immaterial.

    What it definitely shows is that you can't just get a bunch of new links and have them be the same authority as an older link.
    I've pretty positive it doesn't show that.

    I think it likely only shows if you delete links you lose ranks and if you add links you gain ranks and age just happens to come along for the run and isn't a factor (at least one you can prove, that is).

    And my all things being equal comment was more of a hypothetical used to evaluate a condition. I appreciate that reality (practice) and theory are not always the same.
    I'm not always right... but I worked with 50 servers, thousand of domains and millions of links and can say with significant experience that is a worthless attribute especially in a PENGUIN world.
  14. #23
  15. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,282
    Rep Power
    514
    Sure you can have it both ways. Link power goes from 1% to 100% over X months. Then levels out. 4 year old links are the same as X month old links but better than 2 week old links.
    Not saying this happens but it could.
    You could even have them fade after Y years to 80% or something. All very easy to do.

    Your definately correct that your test didn't prove anything especially without logging when googlebot picked up the new links.
  16. #24
  17. rod@missionop.com
    SEO Chat Mastermind (5000+ posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Palm Beach Gardens FL 33410
    Posts
    14,897
    Rep Power
    1754
    Originally Posted by realityhack
    Sure you can have it both ways. Link power goes from 1% to 100% over X months. Then levels out. 4 year old links are the same as X month old links but better than 2 week old links.
    Not saying this happens but it could.
    You could even have them fade after Y years to 80% or something. All very easy to do.

    Your definately correct that your test didn't prove anything especially without logging when googlebot picked up the new links.
    Coulda woulda shoulda e.g.

    I coulda tested it but didn't.
    I woulda tested it but can't be bothered and
    I shoulda tested it because then I would have something substantial like tangible observations not mere guesses.

    For myself... if the only definitive impact from age is 4 a month dividend... it isn't worthy of consideration for SEO because all websites and their links will earn "4 months of age" (or X months) so how is that ever going to be your advantage over your competition?
    Last edited by fathom; Feb 20th, 2013 at 01:11 PM.
Page 2 of 2 First 12
  • Jump to page:

Similar Threads

  1. Do domain & server matter for SEO??
    By ucpooh2008 in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Nov 15th, 2012, 12:24 PM
  2. Does shared server matter?
    By rightfield in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Feb 13th, 2012, 05:51 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: Oct 4th, 2008, 12:35 PM
  4. Role of hosting server in ranking and website speed
    By Aami in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Apr 18th, 2007, 05:17 AM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: Sep 3rd, 2003, 09:44 PM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo