|Old domain with no link backs, or new domain.|
Which one to use?
| 12:00 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm starting a new web site and I have some old domains that a couple of years ago had a good PR and some links back.
Today these domains have 0 PR and no link back.
Is an old domain with 0 PR and 0 links back worth something just for being old? Or should I go and buy a new domain?
Of course it is not a matter of money. Domains are cheap.
Just for the records, none of these old domains were used for spamming and none of them were banned from adsense.
| 1:04 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If they fit, use them. Age can be a factor.
| 2:07 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
My view is that pulling rank will forever be a cat and mouse game. The "cure du jour" for rising in the ranks is to build based upon an aged domain/website, with hopefully some aged links. This puts Google in the position of now having to watch for its algo being gamed by those who would exploit the cure du jour. In other words, G/Y/M will next need to grind the ranking grist a bit more finely to look for signals that any aged sites are showing signs of being tweaked to rank by virtue of the age advantage. Wish I could say the same thing about the benefits of the age factor in my life, as I hurtle along towards 52. ;-P
Enjoy the ranking cure du jour. Be subtle and clever. Do all the right things and maybe Google will love you for a day, a week, a month or forever.
Or maybe just approach the whole business as if Google doesn't exist and therefore you have to get your traffic by all other available means. Funny thing is, in my best irrational assessment, such an approach should be a winning formula if "the algo" ever works in a way that actually rewards the virtuous webmaster versus the FUD factors actually ruling the SERPs to this day.
Buy cheap viagra online anyone?
Darn! What are all those colleges and universities doing selling Viagra? Times must be tough if they have to raise money to pay the professors and maintenance staff by selling drugs online. ;-P
[edited by: Webwork at 2:11 am (utc) on June 1, 2007]
| 2:16 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
webwork, I fully agree with you.
Anyway, I guess I didn't explain myself correctly.
I only mentioned PR 0 just as one factor for the domain value. But I don't care about the PR because this domain is parked and it has no website. So thinking in terms of PR here is not an option.
I guess that the PR is only important as a pricing factor when selling links or a web site.
I was wondering, as jbinbpt said, if the age factor of a domain with no links back and no PR has any advantage so as to consider using it, instead of buying a new, and perhaps better, domain name.
| 11:50 am on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Methinks that aged trusted authority links would be the most rational basis for assigning +++ signs. Mere domain age would be a very very very small signal in the larger orchestration of ranking. Domain age may correspond with aged trustworthy links, but to me, as a search engineer, it's the links that matter in a link-intelligent system.
| 1:04 pm on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
That's a very reasonable statement. I guess it is a smarter decision to buy a new, and better, domain, that to rely on an old, and not so good, domain just for the sake of a minor (and not proven) advantage.
| 1:12 pm on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Don't be too impressed. I could be dead wrong in my analysis of what should - ultimately - matter or Google could rewrite their ranking algo tomorrow to make domain age matter far more than it might today. ;)
Chances are no matter what I say Google will rewrite their ranking algo tomorrow any way. Either that or the search engineers will have to find a new job. :0/
I think there's a business model in pursuing the algo as a consultant but as a business person I think one knows no peace until one resolves to think of search engines as a sort of "Oh . . that's nice" sort of encounter. If one approaches the issue of search engines from the opposite end of the spectrum - and if search engines are to remain relevant - then in due course they will have to find their way to people who don't give a frack about search engines but otherwise care a great deal about their business and their customer.
Still, props are due to those who do play the hunt-and-capture-the-algo game, it's an interesting game, they hunters are very talented and more than a few manage to make good coin bagging big algo game.
Chose your path and enjoy the hike. :)
[edited by: Webwork at 1:18 pm (utc) on June 1, 2007]
| 2:44 pm on Jun 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Domain age is one of those "might help, won't hurt" factors that may convey a small advantage but not enough to outweigh other factors that make for a quality domain name.
Make your domain decision based on values you know will be permanent, such as being easy to spell, easy to remember, a logical name for the subject matter, etc.
| 4:10 am on Jun 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think you answered your own question when you mentioned "better" and "not so good". The only problem with new is the potential sandbox effect if it still exists.
| 9:56 am on Jun 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
No, I don't believe in sandbox. Two months ago I launched a web site, got a couple of good links (nothing outstanding, but good links) and in three days the site was crawled by google and in a week I started receiving traffic from Google.
Two months after that, traffic from Google is increasing.
Thanks everybody. I will go with the new domain.