Forum Moderators: open
When I first started out, I asked for linktext like:
"Furry Widgets and Black Wodgets at MacDaddy Store"
Then once I had lots of links for that and was ranking well for "furry widgets" and "black wodgets" I asked my new link partners to link to me with linktext:
"Red Widgets and Cool Wodgets at MacDaddy Store"
.... etc. and I did that for a variety of phrases, and had all the backlinks.
Now in this "update" (if you can call it that).. I've noticed that the oldest ones (furry widgets, black wodgets) don't rank as well as the newest ones. In fact, the newest ones are doing extremely well and the old ones very poorly, even though I have more inbound anchor text links with the first set.
This leads me to hypothesize that perhaps google is taking into consideration the age or decay of the "voting" of PR/anchor text. This would kind of make sense with link farms, etc... that are just sitting there with lots of PR distributing to other sites and no one really updates them. Anyone else notice this? Or maybe Google just gives bonuses for "fresh" anchor text?
This would kind of make sense with link farms, etc... that are just sitting there with lots of PR distributing to other sites and no one really updates them.
Possible, but that would also penalise a whole load of sites that don't really need to be updated regularly to continue to be excellent resources.
It doesn't really make sense to me that google would credit a site as being more authoritative just because it was new. In fact, generally, I would say the opposite is true.
TJ
Right. It makes more sense to me to consider doing the reverse: giving greater weight to old, established links. This tends to be the case when one authoratative site links to another.
It recieved 2 links from sites that would have high PR if the toolbar wasn't broken and has done well in rankings generally for keywords that simply appear in the page.
My theroy is that the first pages that link you "stick", and the difference in rankings from google finding you via a "good" ( in google's eyes - probally more than just PR ) and via some other site, would be large.
I don't think that's the intention of this boost or penalty if you can call it that.
It's like a "fresh" vote for PR/link text counts for more than an old one. The site is not penalized at all. You just get extra bonus points for link text that come from "fresh" sources.
Think of it like this. 10,000 sites link to various musician's websites as "best rap artist" over the course of 10 years. Someone searching for "best rap artist" is more likely to agree with the people who linked to said sites in the past year than they are with the people who linked 10 years ago. Ice Cube and MC Hammer are no longer "in" and their 10 year old votes shouldn't count as much. Their websites themselves are not penalized for anything. Does that make sense?
That is a great point and makes sense in some cases.
However, in reality, it is often the same content that is already out there being rewarded by freshbot, for no other reason than it being a new page, with great ranking without merit.
[edited by: mfishy at 4:26 pm (utc) on June 12, 2003]
