Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Is there a formula or strategy for determining how often one should update their static content
What does that really mean? The home page ranks lower for a specific keyword after a new URL is added somewhere in the site?
I've heard through the grapevine that ranking can be cyclical due to the current content becoming stale (yes, even with historical data - which one wouldn't expect to change over time). And there might be ways to bring a slipping page back up to its previous higher rankings by adding / modifying the info on the page.
The scoring of changes . . . will be based on the "perceived importance of the portions" that have been changed. The score will also take into account the changes as compared to the weighting(s) of each of the different pages of the site - i.e. if important pages change, it will have a different impact than if unimportant pages changed. My guess is that importance is mostly determined by links (both internal and external) that point to a given page. So if your contact page changes, it's not a big deal, but if your home page changes, that's a bigger deal. Source: [seomoz.org...]
Disclaimer: We don't know how much of the patent was adopted.
Since the post-Panda guidelines from Google include a new focus on grammar and spelling, they must assume webmasters will be busy tweaking their pages, and hopefully reward these changes, too. So there could be a lot of similar changes going on by your competitors which cancel any advantage you might otherwise get.
I don't recall freshness per se coming up in the new guidelines, and don't remember Cutts saying much about it in the past, except for one comment last year [webpronews.com...]
Freshness seems to be overrated. I know I've overrated it in the past. While I should have been getting or adding new links, I was creating new content that never got decent rankings.
We were actually taking about this a couple of months ago: Is it the age/freshness of the content -- or of the links to the content?