Domain Age - Does The Oldest Always Get Top Search Position?

[digicam]

Hi, I have just done a couple of keyword searches with a tool which displays the domain age.

In the top 10 sites for the two different keyword topics I selected every site is Older than 2001, at least 5 years old, the second search was dominated by pre 1999 sites.

Before anything else that fact alone explains how sites rank in Google, a good old one will always outrank a good new one.

The question of course is what to do about it?

Apart from buying an old domain I am stumped.

Opinions please?

[fjpapaleo]

Good question, if you find the answer please let us know. But seriously, buying an old domain won't do the trick. It's the age of the links, not the domain.

[AndyA]

This statement does not apply to one of my sites. Been online and indexed in Google since 2000, very little advertising, in fact most of the pages in the site have no ads of any kind. So that kills the thin affiliate theory.

I don't know what to do with it, but I'm seeing newer sites rank much higher.

[hutcheson]

Age is perhaps the only site attribute that can't be faked. It stands to reason, then, that in a world where everything including sincerity can be (and is) professionally faked, age is one of the best "idiot measures" of site quality. (Of course, a computer only DOES "idiot measures." But then, so do a lot of people.)

There are an awful lot of people who will try something for six weeks or six months, then abandon it if it hasn't started paying off. Site age weeds them all out.

There are an awful lot of people who will throw up commercial doorways about any current topic attracting a lot of attention. Site age picks out the people who were posting on the topic before the journalists discovered it.

But I doubt if Google is deliberately doing this -- I suspect their tweak-tests keep telling them to notch up the importance of the age factor.

[Jordo needs a drink]

All things being equal, age probably wins. But all things are rarely equal.

[Jambo_ME]

That has been the case with me. I was riding great on a pre-Google domain. But since late summer I've seen new domains pop into page one rankings and stay. Even "doorway domains".

Just last month I snagged a page 1 listing with a new domain informational site. Just linked to it from my old site, and another newer one. Doesn't even have a directory listing yet.

The fact that new, zero PR SPAM domains have become a threat is why I am back reading SEO forums after years just taking care of business.

[Beachboy]

Seems to me the primary advantage of age is that an old site has had more opportunity to acquire inbound links, and thus rise in importance (and in ranking). Age alone, I think, would not be a major factor. After all, are there not old sites that don't deserve a high rank in the SERPs?

[decaff]

It's not just the "age of the links" ... it's the age of the "relationships" and this extends further then just one click in either direction...Google looks at extended connections and how long they have been working along with the age of a site (and all the historical data Google has going back as far as Google has been collecting data on that site...)

You can't fake age and the age of the working relationships (call them links..sure...but that oversimplifies the complexity of this important variable)

[rytis]

Hutcheson: "Age is perhaps the only site attribute that can't be faked."

Literally yes, but in real world, one can fake site age attribute by buying little old site and creating 1000s of MFA pages on various subjects.

What is in play (if at all) is age of IBLs to individual pages, Google I would also tie this algo element to 'age of anchor text' ;)

R

[trinorthlighting]

I would say age is one of the hundred or so factors, but I do not think its the key. Good ranking depends on a mix of all the factors.

[rj87uk]

Should be thinking of "per site" basis? I don't think so.

Think about the age of links, age of specific pages and so on.

My thinking is along the lines of a "site" with age will rank better because it has old links and the home page will have old internal links going to specific pages.

Maybe im not making sense but in my head it sort of does.

[rj87uk]

PS.

I don't think the TBPR has anything to do with age, however I think it should. I think that older links should pass more PR...

Anyone have any ideas / tests done about this too?

[Lorel]

I have noticed age being a prominent ranking factor and where an older site doesn't rank #1 I suspect it the quality of inbound links--which is very hard to access.

[tedster]

I agree that age of the domain name is but one of many "historical" factors that Google may use. In this are, I think Google's analysis is pretty advanced right now, although there are still some loopholes that allow old domain names to be re-purposed by a new owner.

To get some idea about all the "historical and age data" that Google can use, I recommend studying this thread from March 2005:

New Google Patent Details Many Google Techniques [webmasterworld.com]

At that time, many people felt the patent application was a lot of FUD and was not really going to be implemented. Looking back 18 months later, it seems clear to me that many (if not all) of the 63 methods detailed in this patent are actually working in the Google algo today. All of that historical record keeping and complex processing could well be a partial reason for the new Big Daddy infrastructure earlier this year.

The title of this thread asks the question "Domain Age - Does The Oldest Always Get Top Search Position?" From the patent, it should be clear that many factors come into play. That includes domain age, but a new URL can still triumph if it's really got the goods.