---- Can Old Sites With Old Footprints Survive Modern Algos?
JD_Toims - 5:18 am on Nov 21, 2013 (gmt 0)
Google was telling us years before Penguin that they were on top of all that crap.
I don't remember exactly where, I think it was a tedster point, but the statement was made from "someone in the know" that Google's algos "disregard" what was "best practice" yesterday and look at "the timing of things so a 'yesterdays best practice' doesn't harm a site's rankings today", which if true [and I don't question the source I remember hearing/reading it from] the "old style of linking" so many seem to think is "the issue" really isn't a factor.
The concept of freely given links being the best type of IBL has been around since Adam was a boy.... it's not new and in most cases an old site will actually have more of these simply because it has been around that much longer to accumulate them.
It's not all about number -- What is the "acquisition of new link rate" relative to the overall number of links today and what was it previously?
Link-churn rate is something outside Penguin or Panda, afaik, and it seems to be forgotten about, but when a site doesn't attract the relative number/% of new inbound links compared to the whole of inbound links it used to, rather than the "churn rate" being a "highly positive" factor, it will change and can even turn negative, which algorithmically indicates "not as hot/popular" today as it was "yesterday".
I think there's a bit more than "age of site" and "age of links" to look at personally.