Three Types of Content in Google

I have a conception how it might work - what do you think?

[Wizard]

I just read the discussion about Bourbon, and the patent. People say it's complicated that sometimes fresh content is better, while in other cases (other queries) stable content means good, definitive information. It occured to me, that Google might rank them both simultanously on the same page.

Imagine a typical page of a good, informational site - an ideal site that deserves top ranking in Google. There will be three types of content likely to be found on most pages.

1. Steady content - the title and everything that defines the subject of the page, and a bit of definitive content describing the properties of the subject. For example, if it were official page about OpenOffice project, it would be the description of this software, independent of any news related to its development.

2. Fresh content - some recent informations about the subject, updated as frequently as possible, in the example of OpenOffice, it would be information about current stable and testing versions and about latest bugs found in the software.

3. A bit of duplicate content, obviously - every normal site has a bit of repeating elements, and so it would be unnatural to have completely no duplicate content.

My idea is, that it would be reasonable to measure amounts of all three types of content on a page, and rank higher these pages which have these amounts in certain ranges. I assume that most natural informational sites has simultanously all these types, so why wouldn't Google use it in ranking?

I start this thread to see your opinions and if you have noticed some facts that could confirm this hypothesis.

[treeline]

It's a possibility. There's lots of possibilities. Have you seen any evidence to support the idea? Would finding an appropriate ratio really tell you anything?

Thinking about it, it seems that lots of good and bad sites use a similar layout this way. You are sort of saying that some stable page structure with some changing page structure holds the key, but good and bad sites often have a stable template and pages that never change, and pages that always change. I can't think of which is worse. On an encyclopedia site I don't want my history changing much, but on a news site I'm very impatient.

[Wizard]

That's not exactly what I say. Stable and duplicate layout is one thing. Stable part of non-duplicate text content is another. And my idea is that good site (in meaning of Google) would have at least certain amount of stable non-duplicate content, with proper keywords and on-topic outbounds, and also certain amount of fresh content, but I intended to emphasize that I think a stable part of unique content is essential.

My ideas were not bases on experiments, and it's clear that it's difficult to reverse-engineer the algo, because you can hardly change selected parameters without changing others, but I try to figure out what factors indicating page quality can be easily measured by Google. I can split my hypothesis to simple assumptions, and we can discuss which are proven true or false, and which are unknown.

If Google did it the way I stated above, we would see the following facts:

- too much duplicate content hurts ranking (TRUE)

- too little duplicate content is meant unnatural and also hurts ranking (DON'T KNOW)

- too little amount of steady non-duplicate content hurts ranking (PERHAPS TRUE - if you change title and h1 and description and first paragraph completely every day, the page will rank worse than in the case these parts were not changing for months)

- too little amount of fresh content hurts ranking (SAID TO BE TRUE - most people agree that it's better to have a certain amount of fresh content than everything steady)

If all four statements above were true, my hypothesis would be proven. And one more thing - I don't believe there is one best ratio of fresh content to steady content - because there were such thing, and someone build a site with all pages following it precisely, Google would be able to identify it as spam and penalize it, what means, that such practice would not be beneficial.

But if this ideas were true, the best way to make a page ranking well in Google would be to put steady title, descr, h1 and first paragraph with definitive content, some on-topic outbounds, and constantly add revievs and news below this. And we know that this kind of pages often rank well indeed.