Forum Moderators: martinibuster
My approach to the entire SEO process combines a strong dose of skepticism (refusing to believe that a particular strategy or tactic works just b/c it is commonplace) with an unwavering emphasis on the end-user-experience. Right or wrong, it seems to me that this approach will be the only one to hold up in the long-run in an industry where rules/standards aren’t explicitly stated, and often times livelihoods are gambled on interpreting a small set of vague Google webmaster guidelines.
I include this bit because it actually does have some relevance to the issue I would like to discuss with all of you - the issue of a website's age and its impact on link power and popularity. So I am a relative newbie (read: young site) in this forum/industry and there is obviously an abundance of elder statesmen out there in the (insert high volume keyword here) niche. Now, I am clearly interested in overtaking these older sites in the SE rankings, and I have a big disadvantage in the simple fact that they have been around longer than I have. Granted.
Of these older sites, there are bound to be both quality players as well as the more spammy competitors. Recognizing the glaring fact here that while age is important, it is but one of the many factors governing the SE's algo's, I am trying to figure out exactly how important it is in the big picture.
Given the following situation, I am trying to ascertain whether or not it is even possible to enter a particular niche market given the inherent age advantages of the more established sites. Assuming this particular niche is reasonably saturated such that the barriers to entry are no bigger/smaller than in any other industry opportunity, do I even have a chance in SEO-ing my site to compete with the quality competitors who have significant age? Might I divert my attention to some younger, more accessible niche?
The reason I ask is because age is clearly a SERP variable of a different species than, say, the number of in-bound links. A site accrues age beginning with its inception and there is no ceiling to this progression. Whereas one site's manager might engage in link development until a new, higher-priority opportunity presented itself (and the amount of in-links would taper off), another younger competitor could gain an advantage in the SERP's in terms of in-bound link popularity and diversity by continuing to obtain quality links.
Clearly, the same younger webmaster cannot possibly make up for the difference in age of the 2 sites. Now, I would imagine that the SE's algo's account for this in some way - possibly attributing an age advantage logarithmically so that the further out both sites get from "birth," the less the age difference matters - I don't know. Either way, the site with more age has the advantage for the duration of its lifespan.
Also, (and again, correct me if I'm wrong), the SE's place an emphasis on link duration/continuity, the length of time that an in-bound link from another page has effectively and noticeably been pointing to the “case site.” It looks like this is but another area in which age beats inexperience.
So if another quality site has been around longer than my new site (just as the "senior members" have been collaborating far longer than the mere "new users"), the odds seem to be so skewed in the elder's favor that I have but a small chance of out-ranking him in the SERP's and a similar lack of hope in adapting to the constant changes in SE behavior.
My point is (I'm sure you were wondering by now), site age appears to be more entrenched in the various factors of SEO than most will concede. And that includes link development/maintenance.
-Kantro
Ps: I am sure the more veteran webmasters among you have been reading this with a tint of (understandably) incredulous disdain, but I would ask you to please understand my own “lack of age” and view this as objectively as possible. Thanks again.
All else being equal, the older site will always outrank the younger site, correct?
And because you cannot really control your site's age (it is what it is), your link development strategy will really be important in trying to outrank that older site (obviously). But since a quality older site will have already established a good collection of inbound links, am I wasting my time trying to go after many of the same ones, because even if I am able to amass those in-bound links, the older site will have had them pointing to it for much longer giving it yet more advantage in the SERP's. So it seems obvious that as a younger site I would need to really be innovative in my link development and go above and beyond merely obtaining the same solid collection of industry inbound links that the quality older sites have already done. The age factor gives these competitors a big advantage, and I am trying to figure out how big of a factor this should really be when analyzing whether or not obtaining solid rankings for a given topic/niche is even possible. If the current first-page sites are 4 years old, how much more should I factor this into my decision than if they are 10 years old (and my site is less than a year old)?
Also, is there a way to determine how long these other sites' inbounds have been pointing to them? And how much weight should I put on that inbound link duration?
Thanks,
Kantro
So it seems obvious that as a younger site I would need to really be innovative in my link development and go above and beyond merely obtaining the same solid collection of industry inbound links that the quality older sites have already done.
Right. And I think only you can tell (by knowing your capabilities and your competition's) if you can get more and better links, at a faster pace, than the competitors.
Can you provide information that they don't? Or information that is more updated or accurate than theirs? Can you spend more efforts in link building than them? Can you do it for a prolongued period of time? Depending on the niche, answering Yes may be difficult.
One thing you can do to gauge how fierce the competition is before entering a new niche is observe the new sites which are moving up.
Check out periodically the first 50 or so SERPs for a few months; see who is consistenly moving up; see how much content they are adding (and the quality of it); see where they are getting links (how many, how good, how much $$); see how fast they are moving.
If you think that you can get more content and more links than them, then you will know I stand a chance.
Also, another comment: if you think long term, what today is a disadvantage (your site being younger than your competitors) will become an advantage in the future.
In a few years from now, the age gap between you and your competitors will have diminished, and you will have gained a good lead over potential new competitors. Then, it will be their problem to beat you.
I guess I'm just going to have to live with being on the bottom of the food chain for a certain amount of time until I get some good age, and the rest will work itself out.
