Content Rhythm - How does Google see this idea?

[zcarman]

I'm doing some research and trying to think through a variable that would be a measure of link dilution from an increase in content publishing; I call the variable "content rhythm," and was hoping to get some real world feedback.

So, how do you guys think about link juice dilution through an increase in your content rhythm. For instance, if you're currently publishing say 10 articles per day and you go to 100 articles per day, do you think that dilutes value from your backlinks? Is this something Google focuses on -- e.g., do you think there's a ratio of links to content?

Any help would be much appreciated.

[aristotle]

In the original pagerank transfer formula, the available pagerank is divided equally among all the outgoing links from a page. Thus, the more outgoing links you create on a page, the less pagerank each link transfers.

But the situaion is actually more complex than that. For one thing, each new page you create is effectively given a small initial pagerank of its own, which gets added to the total pagerank of the site. Also, you can control the flow of pagerank within the site quite easily, given preference to some pages over others. Finally, any pagerank you transfer to a new page can be re-distributed back to the old pages again, so it isn't really lost.

[tedster]

Welcome to the forums, zcarman.

It is any interesting question how Google watches the frequency of new pages appearing on a site. I don't know whether that would be a separate factor or not. But I do think that new backlinks should soon start to appear at the new and faster rhythm, or else the quality of the articles and the whole site might be in doubt.

One of the things that the Mayday Update was trying to measure was "site quality" - and that's what I'm thinking about here. to go from 10 to 100 new quality articles a day - all unique and not automated, is a pretty big deal.

[zcarman]

Tedster -- you comment would seem to conflict with Aristotle's which would suggest that the new PR created by new pages could be transferred back to the old pages again. Do you think there's credence to the concept of transferring PR back to the old pages? Aristotle -- operationally how would one transfer back PR?

[tedster]

PageRank circulation is very real - internal linking, site architecture, etc, it all matters. So I have no differences with aristotle's post at all. It's just that Page Rank is only a part of the ranking picture, and "site quality" seems to be something Google is working hard at measuring. Some day they may even have it nailed ;)

So the idea that mere quantity of pages can do something good on its own, with no accounting for quality at all, is not a good direction to follow.

Your opening question was not talking about extreme amounts of new content, so I assume quality is on the table for you. But if internal PageRank circulation isn't supported by serious doses of PR from backlinks (and that takes quality content), any site can hit a size where there's just not enough PR to get new, deep content well ranked.

[aristotle]

Aristotle -- operationally how would one transfer back PR?

By putting internal links from the new pages to the old pages. These links will transfer PR from the new pages to the old pages.

But I don't see any conflict between what I said and what Tedster said. Maybe you can explain it more clearly.

[aristotle]

I would like to say that I agree with Tedster that you shouldn't add new content just for the sake of making your site larger. There are many small sites which haven't added any new content in years, yet still do very well in the rankings. You mentioned adding 100 articles per day, and that seems very excessive to me. On my sites I've seldom added more than one article per month. And before I write a new article, I always consider very carefully what I want to achieve with it. Usually I create a new page either to support what's already on the site with additional relevant content, and/or to attract traffic (and backlinks) on its own. If it can't do either of these, then it's likely to do more harm than good.