Test says Google likes old sites

I did a simple test to see whether old sites rank better for competitive keywords on Google. I did the same test on Yahoo and MSN. MSN and Yahoo actually like new sites better. Google does like older sites. The search term used is "Search Engine Optimization".

I use linear regression to come up with some simple formula:

Google Ranking = -.38 * M + 77 (M<= 200)
MSN Ranking = 0.29 * M + 39
Yahoo Ranking = 0.40 * M + 37

M = # of months a site has been online.

I knew it's not scientific to test just one factor and premature to draw conclusion from one test. Think this as entertainment only again.
Test design and test details is at: http://www.4th-media.com/test/site_age_test.php

 

I could have told ya google likes older sites. Looking at the sites in the real estate industry that is what you find mostly at the top of the serps for primary key phrases. When you check you see nothing but sites that are 2 years or older for the most part.

I do believe though with this last update google has loosen the filters for this as well though at least for real estate sites. Most major cities when checked the top 10 is ranked almost per sites age to about 85%. There are a few sites that are a year old but around 85% of them are 2 years or more.

 

Are you testing the age of the whole site or the age of individual pages? For instance, what would Google / MSN / Yahoo think of a brand new page on a 5 year old site? I've always worked on the assumption that Google ranks pages, not sites.

I seriously doubt that any of the engines care about how old the site is. My conclusion from your test would be that Google gives more value to incoming links than the other two. And naturally, the older a site is the more likely it is to have a lot of incoming links.

 

I agree. Old websites work better in google. Yahoo and MSN are easy to play with. But I have so many old websites to play with, it's fun

 

I test the age of a site, not on individual page. Google can easily figure out that.

A little more explanation for the math formula:

Google Ranking = -.38 * M + 77 (M<= 200)

This says that

1) your site is online more than 200 months, you have the potential to rank #1 if you do everything esle right:

1 = -0.38 * 200 + 77

2) If you have a new site (m = 0), no mater what you do (spend millions of dollars), the best rank you could have on Google is #77:

77 = -0.38 * 0 + 77.

We can do the same math for the formulas for Yahoo and MSN.
New sites could rank #1 on Yahoo and MSN.

Of course, seach engines are complex than those formula. This is part of the test. I plan to test about 10 factors on a few selected keywords. By the time I complete all tests, the formula will have some real value for SEO.

 

So what? You think it's not possible to be no.1 unless you're 20+ months old.. surely not?

And yes, it is quite possible to be no.1 in less than a month, depending on the search term you're targeting, how well optimised your page is and how many links you can build in that time.

To me it seems that this whole test is based on the false assumption that Google likes older sites.

 

IM sure age of site plays some factor in the algo, but its a fluid factor, meaning it can be overcome if other factors are positive.

 

I am of the opinion that "Age of Page" [I like the way that sounds, kind of catchy. ] does factor into Google's algorithm.

 

How can you be so sure?

For instance, you could compare this theory to a similar theory that you have to be old to be a CEO.

Sure, if you did a statistic you'd probably find that there weren't many 18 yo CEOs out there. But drawing the conclusion that the age is the problem is simplistic. It is more likely due to experience and contacts (it helps to know someone on the board after all). So maybe someone with the right contacts could be a CEO at 18.

And I think those same two variables are equally relevenat in the search engines. Experience to have learnt how to SEO their site and contacts with other sites in the form of links.

only my 2c of course; maybe age does matter.

 

First, based on the test, your site has to be 200 month old to rank #1 for competitive search term ("search engine optimiztion") if Google ranks pages purely based on the site age. Of course, that's not how Google rank pages.

For less competitive search terms, new site can rank #1.

This is from a test of one factor. It won't tell much. Think it as entertainment only.
I'll do more tests on other factors.

 

Well ok, let's say Google ranked their results by age and ONLY by age. Say a new product was invented, something the world couldn't live without; let's call them 'Ximmicks'. Before you knew it, EVERYONE was selling Ximmicks and EVERYONE wanted a Ximmick of their own. In the first month of the new product, Google manages to crawl 100 million brand spanking new sites about Ximmicks. By your algo, who would be no.1 for Ximmicks ?? * It would seem that no-one would be at the first spot.

I still can't find a single good reason to believe that age plays even the smallest part in Google's algo.

* DP will of course be no.1 for Ximmicks until they are invented

 

if the website of a company that invented Ximmicks was new. If won't be ranked well in Google. But a report about Ximmicks on cnn, abc or cbs websites will rank well.

The test is a test, that's all. I don't like and don't think site age should be a factor in SERPs. Unfortunately, that's the case for competitive keywords in google.

This doesn't mean Google actually use site age as part of its algo. What it tells is that the results of the algo ranks old sites better for competitive keywords.

 

if the website of a company that invented Ximmicks was new. If won't be ranked well in Google. But a report about Ximmicks on cnn, abc or cbs websites will rank well. [/quote]

I'm surprised you can say this with such certainty.

Yes, but you're drawing some very absolute conclusions from it - if you don't watch out, people might actually believe this unsubstantiated myth.

With all due respect, I don't see that it tells us that at all. As I stated before, it could just as easily be telling us that Google likes ibl's more than Yahoo or MSN OR that sites that have been around longer have learned how to manipulate the search engines better. That's if looking at 10 sites is enough data to draw any conclusion from at all.

 

Could you just give me one example that a new site (2004 and 2005) rank top 10 for competitive keywords in Google? I'm more than happy to see the example and to see my test is wrong.

most people think it's easier to SEO on msn and yahoo than on Google.

 

You misunderstand me; I'm not saying that old sites don't rank well. I'm saying that AGE is not the reason they rank well.

I found a couple of sites (#3 and #10) in the top 10 for "Travel Insurance" that didn't even have an 'online since' in Alexa. That's really the only phrase I bothered to check.

Let me ask you another question then. Show me one site that is in the top 10 for a competitive keyphrase that is OLDER than 2004 that doesn't ALSO have a good allinanchor: ranking for that keyphrase. Unless of course, you think that the allinanchor: rankings also take age into account.

Hmm, I don't. But anyway, I'm not sure what that has to do with the point of this thread :-?

Ok, I checked some more phrases from Google Zeitgeist (I guess you'd agree those are competitive.).

Numa Numa (no.6 in zeitgeist last week) - the no.1 site has NO wayback machine entries and the front page redirects to another site.

American Idol (no.10 in zeitgeist last week) - The no.2 site first came online just over a year ago. The no.1 site came online in 2002 (that's max 36 months ago - a long way from 200). no.s 8 and 9 came online after that as well.

 

we have very different ways of defining competition. Here's my list:

1) PR of top ten 10 is PR6 or above;
2) # of unique backlink sites (not # of backlinks) is 100 or above;
3) the # of daily search times the average bid price (top 3 bids) is greater than 2000. (e.g. if the daily search is 2000 and bid price is $1, or daily search of 400 and the bid price is $4.)

key popularity isn't keywork competition. if a keyword is competitive, it has high value and lot of people are working on (or competing for) it.

 

So, the most searched for phrases in Google aren't competitive?

And Travel Insurance isn't a high value phrase? darn, yes we do have different definitions.

Not only that, but by your own admission, the sites HAVE to have a lot of backlinks to consider the phrase competitive. Well, I don't think it comes as a great surprise to anyone that newer sites to the game have less backlinks.

So, you want me to find a PR6 or higher site with over 100 unique backlinks that is less than one year old that ranks well for a competitive term? I'm sorry, but that's dumb and about as scientific as a flat earth.

 

come on, you can easily have a PR6 and 100 or backlinks in google in two months, but google would devalue your links.

 

I recently tested 60 keywords at random. Most were but not limited to "city name" (ie Las Vegas) , "city name hotels", "city name lawyers" and then I tested a couple perscription drugs and some sex industry terms. I found NO domains in the top 20 for ANY of the terms selected. That was before the last update.

 

Sorry, can you clarify? Do you mean there weren't any NEW domains?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that old sites don't rank well.

I'm saying that the REASON old sites rank well is NOT their age, it's the quality of their links and the quality of their SEO.

And I believe new sites can rank well also, it's just a LOT harder as there's years of catching up to do!

Either way, none of these tests prove anything about the reason old sites rank well.