Older pages in the index

[keyplyr]

I'm wondering why Google does not drop old websites that have not been updated for ages. Case in point; a site that irritates me because sometimes the SEs list it above mine.

This website posts a 'last updated' date as 1998. All the email addresses bounce, and the content is archaic (to be polite.) There is very little reference data that is of value and most of the 100+ outgoing links produce 404s. Many of it's own pages are "under construction" at the time of last update (again, 1998). Yet this site still hangs around in the top 20 listings for it's theme. The only possible explanation is that it is an .edu, and served by a university server. Guess Google gives them extended privileges.

[Powdork]

Does it still have dmoz backlinks?

[keyplyr]

No dmoz, but is still in Y! on a PR7 cat page, which might explain why the index page of this site has a PR6. It does have 103 backlinks (some inside links and from other departments in the university), not surprising since it was one of the first sites on the subject back in '98. Guess it achieved 'authority' status somehow.

[ukgimp]

I'm wondering why Google does not drop old websites that have not been updated for ages.

WHY, I know there have been some great advances in the feild of rocks and minerals shall we say but all the old stuff still stands true. Wiping out old stuff would leave us all at a loss.

:)

[Powdork]

ukgimp,
I agree with you in principle, but given two sites with all other things being equal, shouldn't the most current one get the nod? Understand when I say current, I am not necessarily referring to anything time based but rather to accuracy as suggested by keyplyr. Broken outbounds should detract from the rating significantly. It is a sure sign of neglect and easily detectable. Lack of updating is another sign. Wouldn't the Rock and Mineral site with updates on rocks and minerals in the world today be more valuable than one updated three years ago. One of the true values of the web is the near instantaneous update of information. Search engines should and do realize this, in most instances. However, all too often, designers must cowtow to the whims of SE's in order to thrive, thereby stifling creativity and usability. It will change however, as dictated by the invisible hand of economics. But it will always lag in the same way that you can never catch up to someone who is already older than you.

[curlykarl]

I'm wondering why Google does not drop old websites that have not been updated for ages. Case in point; a site that irritates me because sometimes the SEs list it above mine.

What a rather rediculous thing to say, who are you the internet fashion police :)

[John_Caius]

Depends entirely what field you're in. A site on the latest pop hits will go out of date if not updated. A site on the principles of particle physics will remain relevant for a much longer period of time.

If a site becomes less relevant to the internet community, people will gradually drop links to it and its position will fall. If your site is better, i.e. more comprehensive and more worth linking to then people will gradually take up links to it and its position will rise.

In one keyword area I'm interested in, a position 2 result in 5 million now has only the text "It has become obvious that I don't have time to maintain this page. Yahoo is an excellent starting place for information of all kinds." I mentioned this to Google but they didn't do anything about it.

[rfgdxm1]

>Depends entirely what field you're in. A site on the latest pop hits will go out of date if not updated. A site on the principles of particle physics will remain relevant for a much longer period of time.

And continuing this analogy, a site on the music of the Royal Guardsmen (anyone remember the Snoopy/Red Baron songs?) should remain relevant indefinitely. That band has been defunct for over a quarter of a century. In fact, assuming a Royal Guardsmen site created 5 years ago was well done, even if the webmaster is still around they likely wouldn't have changed anything in the last 5 years because there was nothing new. Since not everything needs updating, Google should NOT consider whether a site has been updated in rankings.

[dazzlindonna]

It seems to me that if this site is not being attended to by anyone, then it should be fairly simple to outrank it, given a little effort on your part. Optimize your site and get links to it, and my guess is this page will fall below yours eventually.

[keyplyr]

Wiping out old stuff would leave us all at a loss - ukgimp

Yes, agreed that some topics, e.g. historical or static info that by definition do not warrant updates. The internet was/is formost educational in nature, presenting a plethora of documents for reference.

However, this is not the case I am referring to. I though I was clear in explaining this - guess not.

What a rather rediculous thing to say, who are you the internet fashion police - curlykarl

This is a discussion, and if you cannot contribute to the topic in a civil tone, then it serves no purpose.