The longer you are in the index, higher the position?

[whats up skip]

I have recently completed a detailed analysis of the top 16 pages for a key word.

There seems to be a pattern of some sites with lower PR, lower key word densities & no DMOZ listing, holding positions higher than others simply because they have been in the index longer.

Also these pages have not changed recently compared to others, so the fresh is best does not always hold either.

I have seen this pattern occur for other key words.
Any thoughts on this?

[deejay]

I think you're chasing shadows with this one :) I don't think 'age' plays a part in and of itself. Age might contribute to a page having more links, which would be reflected in PR, but aside from that I don't think it helps.

I tend to view DMOZ as just another link - some will tell you it's worth more than another link of equal PR... I just don't think so.

PR, while a major part of the algo, is just PART of the algo, and can be outweighed by other factors.

Keyword density... this is essential. People tend to get carried away talking about 'higher' density being better. Wrong wrong wrong :) The only thing that matters with keyword density is getting as close as possible to the density that Google has decided is 'ideal' in their algo. I'm guessin that sits around 8-10% at the moment. If it sits at 8%, all else being equal, the page with 7% density will do better than the site with 10% density, which in turn will do better than the site with 15% density.

The 15% might not look at all spammy to us, but Google has decided that's not what they're looking for.

Of course that holds true with all factors - we tend to get carried away with 'more' and forget that the ultimate 'more' pages are pure spam by anyone's definition.

"More" is not better - "closer to Google's ideal" is better.

[fathom]

Agree with deejay... adding off page factors contribtue to this process as well.

10,000 PR1 - 3 links do not contribute much to PR, and in Google (if this was where your intial investigation started) you wouldn't see them at all.

But the link anchor will most certainly add weight to a #1 ranked page.

Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's not there. ;)

[Beachboy]

I have never seen any evidence to support the idea of time-in-the-index, all by itself, is a ranking factor. Not on Google, anyway. ;)

[crobb305]

whats up skip

You raise some points that I have wondered about myself. My rankings have steadily increased every month for the past year to the point where I am now in the top 10 for major keywords in my industry. However, the number of incoming links to my site has not changed significantly AND I do not change the content of my main page or tweak my title. It seems to me that Google MAY like sites with consistent titles/content and that have been in the index for a while. I think Google may look unfavorably on sites whose title is constantly being tweaked for keyword optimization. Of course, many other factors play into the equation, but like I said, my PR/incoming links have not changed much.

Just some thoughts.

C