I see really old, irrelevant static html sites in SERPs

[Thaparian]

Hi,

In my niche, for many keyword variations, I see sites that are really old, late 90s, ranking on the first page. Never ever saw those sites before.

All of those sites have very low Alexa rank. Sites with static HTML content. Low quality content.

These old sites never really received much traffic from Google over the years, Google doesn't have any negative data attached to those sites, so they rank well. The sites that received lot of traffic from Google, those sites have negative factors attached to them, like high bounce rate, old content. Users would bounce off those low quality sites, and Google would record that, just a matter of time until those sites drop in rankings. I wonder why is Google taking so long to fix the serps.

[lucy24]

Wouldn't that depend on what you consider "negative data"? If nobody ever clicks on a search result, that in itself would be interpreted as negative. A search engine-- even g###-- won't stay in business if nobody ever clicks on its #1 result.

Sites with static HTML content. Low quality content.

Is that one description or two? That is, does "static html" = "low quality"?

These old sites never really received much traffic from Google over the years

How do you know?

I'm not trying to be hostile, honest. It just seems as if there's something more you're not saying.

[breeks]

I have a site that used to rank number 1 for a set of keywords which were very relevant to the site. Now number 1, 2 and 3 spots are all from the same site, a premium AdSense publisher with two paragraphs of text and five ad blocks. Zero content, how does such a crappy site deserve the top three listings. Bounce rate must be huge with zero content and a page full of ads. Nice work G.

[aristotle]

Just because a website is old, doesn't mean that it's low quality. I've seen plenty of old movies that are a lot better than most recent releases. Besides, if a site has managed to hang around for 15 years, that suggests to me that it probably has some value.

[Thaparian]

Is that one description or two? That is, does "static html" = "low quality"?

Two. Static sites can be of good quality as well as old sites. But in case the sites are of low quality and have less content in comparison.

These old sites never really received much traffic from Google over the years

- How do you know?

Alexa ranks. Above 1 million. Other websites in the niche have Alexa around 2000. Not a tech niche. High search volume.

The results are bad for few keywords, and I'm not just saying that cos my site lost rankings. One of the website has two 336 ad units, above the fold, and a popup ad and inline text ads as well. Keyword repetition in inner links.

[smithaa02]

We're being outranked by old static html sites...who have long since gone out of business :) Thx google for relevant results!

[Planet13]

We're being outranked by old static html sites...who have long since gone out of business :)

Just to play Devil's Advocate here;

What does it say about your SEO efforts if you are being outranked by dead sites?

Maybe a tweak to your SEO efforts is in order?

I'm just saying...

[smithaa02]

We weren't outranked before Penguin... Only 1 or 2 sites come close to offering the same amount of useful and unique information we do for this key prhase. Google is giving visitors bad results and bing is doing a much better job.