homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.196.108
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / General Search Engine Marketing Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: mademetop

General Search Engine Marketing Issues Forum

    
Does fresh & updated content rank better?
Should I update my site for the sake of updating?
majjk




msg:4016582
 11:28 pm on Oct 30, 2009 (gmt 0)

I have a site that isn't doing as well as I would expect for its main key phrase. One of the few things I haven't looked into so far is frequently updated content. Does it help? My site is rarely updated, and the main page which is targetting that top spot in the search engines is perhaps updated twice a year or so.

If it does help, what would be the idea behind rewarding fresh content? I'm asking because seo/promotion nowadays is very much down to common sense, as opposed to how it was a decade ago or so... so I'd like to see the logic behind it... if there is any...

 

seo_india




msg:4016715
 10:16 am on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)

You need to have an active website i.e you can either create content on regular basis or you can get new links every single week from new websites.

This will help to improve overall rankings of your website.

majjk




msg:4016723
 10:47 am on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)

I hear what you are saying about the content [I do get regular links], but what is the logic behind it? If an article on, say, wikipedia hasn't been updated for ages... because all that is to be said has been said, will it then rank worse? It doesn't make sense, so I'm not very convinced.

Do have any links to relevant discussions on this topic?

londrum




msg:4016728
 11:04 am on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)

if you're going to read a book on SEO, would you rather read a new one or one that was written five years ago. chances are you want the new one.
that's how the search engines look at it. your page would have to pretty good with tons of links to keep on top without any updates.

majjk




msg:4016730
 11:19 am on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)

if you're going to read a book on SEO, would you rather read a new one or one that was written five years ago. chances are you want the new one.

ok, this sound quite convincing.

I'm thinking of doing just small changes, like adding/removing a link here or there, perhaps adding/removing a short paragraph on the outskirts of the page... basically doing small changes to "secondary" content, while leaving the main stuff unchanged, as I'm very happy with it.

Does this sound like a good idea, or do I need to make bigger changes?

dertyfern




msg:4016733
 11:49 am on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm not certain about the "new book" ranking concept: I've got quite a number of pages that rank high for seasonally competitive terms which were written (and last updated) in 2005 with few inbound links. In fact, they outrank freshly made content from much larger sites.

There's something to be said about fresh content--not in that it's good for rankings for a particular document but rather that more of it will increase a site's topical relevance and reach.

majjk




msg:4016747
 12:29 pm on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've got quite a number of pages that rank high for seasonally competitive terms which were written (and last updated) in 2005 with few inbound links. In fact, they outrank freshly made content from much larger sites.

what is your explanation for those pages to do so well?

dertyfern




msg:4016750
 12:40 pm on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)

couple of reasons:

1. the content is well written and there's lots of it
2. the site is authoritative in it's top level topic

the combination of the two create a synergy that's tough to attain/beat.

majjk




msg:4016771
 2:21 pm on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)

how is being authorative measured?

dertyfern




msg:4016782
 2:51 pm on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)

I don't know that there's a way to measure authority but when you notice that new content you publish on your site is indexed and well ranked within hours you know you've build a good site.

majjk




msg:4016786
 3:18 pm on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)

Going back to the fresh content issue... if 2 sites (pages) have same amount of incoming links (at the same rate, with same anchor text distribution and with same amount and quality of in-content links), are the same age, same PR, both have good content and both sites have done their on-site seo homework - am I then to expect "fresh content" to have zero impact on the ranking for these two competitors?

Though opinions, such as "yes I think so" or "Certainly not, are you bonkers?", are appreciated, links to relevant discussions would be even better. I've been searching around a bit and can't find much more than... just guesswork and opinions that amount to not much more than guesswork. Do you know if someone has done a test - fresh vs non-fresh?

dertyfern




msg:4016901
 8:46 pm on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)

majjk, here's a twist for you: [webmasterworld.com...]

majjk




msg:4016914
 9:31 pm on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)

thanks for the link... very useful.

rsrathnaraj




msg:4023530
 2:20 am on Nov 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google always likes fresh and quality content in the website. We have to update the site regularly. Getting quality backlink to the site will also helps. There should be a regular activity in the site like adding content to site or getting more quality backlinks etc.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / General Search Engine Marketing Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved