Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
It seems right now far too easy for a new site to get into and on top of the serps. Things changed in June this year for us and many others here and have never been quite the same. We had age, trust and history on our side - somewhere this has been lost and I seriously think the "age" factor does not carry the weight it once did. Age / trust is the one thing a spammer can't their his hands on easily.
Google has the ability to roll in and roll out changes to the alog at will - why? Why do you need to have that level of control over something that should be about the same every time you use it?
It's taken me 4 years to build the our database of members Like many others I have paid my dues - Just a few months ago a spammer popped up with stolen content with a network of sites in our vertical. Although the grammar was clearly "outsourced" and the sites content fraudulent and stolen the design and layout was very good. Clean CSS html but clearly a spam network linking into MFA sites. I thought in a competitive area with lots of "aged" sites this guy was going to struggle to get rankings and the "age" factor would protect the good guys. Just a couple of weeks back google proved to me that I was wrong when I saw at least 5 of these sites in the top 10 results one after the other.
The only way I can think to combat this is to do the exact same thing. It's far too easy for the spammers when they don't have to build a solid trusted history.
That isn't to say age should not contribute to the trust Google may put in a site, but with age comes a natural link buildup that in itself supports older sites without having to have an arbitrary boost because it is in fact older.
Google's largest mistake, in my opinion, is the heavy weight it places on older sites in comparison to newer ones.
Spammy results is a completely different issue (and it appears you have incorectly merged that complaint with something to do with age).
Your complaint should not be that there are newer sites. Your complaint should be that there are irrelevent spammy sites. Newer sites are good.
Webmasters who work hard for years building legit sites need far better protection.
Webmasters who work hard for years building legit sites need far better protection.
"Webmasters who work hard" + "building legit sites need far better protection"
The site rankings have been in the dumper for 3 months now, and the explainations that I've received only indicate the G employees which talk to us don't know what they are talking about..... which is a funny parallel to what appears to be going on with the sites hit last week.
