Why are old domains having advantages at Google?

[Jojo]

I thought the last days a little about the "age" factor at Google. Mostly I am thinking it is not only because they have many natural links, but they have many old natural links. I am wondering if the pure age of a domain is a factor in Google ranking, too. Wouldn´t it be making sense, if a domain stays for years in the index without making trouble to give it a bonus? How about natural link growth over a long time period?

So, I am wondering which factors are important in reviewing old domains?

[randfish]

Old domains have a bunch of advantages in terms of both linking and trust:

1. Google found them prior to their fancy spam detection and manipulation detection algos (pre-sandbox)

2. Their links oftentimes come from sites that have lots of weight with Google, but from whom no one can obtain a link anymore simply because the sites are not maintained. In link building and emailing/calling/writing letters, I've often found this to be the case.

3. Old links from old trusted links are the best links around - Google treats them like pure gold.

So... yeah... old sites with old links can rank for a lot of hypercompetitive terms.

[bigdoug]

If we think about it, old links were given freely in an unselfish environment. They were true markers of trust and credibility. With the modern advent of Google anchor and PR, newer links have to earn trust over time.


D

[grasshopper]

as rand and doug mentioned, the age of the domain and the links to the domain are very important.

to your question, Jojo, of "which factors are important in reviewing old domains", there's no shortage of other things to look at. some of the following may seem pretty self-evident, but i've found this to be a good short list to start with, especially when you're reviewing a large number of domains.

- quality characteristics of existing links irrespective of age (total number of links, from different class C IPs, number of .gov & .edu's, good anchor text, good position on the page)
- title tags: have they been done properly, or are they spammy, repeated across all pages, use the dreaded "Untitled", etc
- depth and quality of site's content
- "freshness" of content: has it been untouched for a long time, or updated somewhat regularly
- site architecture: will you have to invest a significant amount to make the site more crawlable

[MyGoRealty]

I am personally looking to test this theory. I have recently purchased an old real estate domain here in Las Vegas. With a new site that I have and the age of this other domain ( Which is 5 years old ) I am going to add links to them at the same rate and keep the density, relevance and other seo factors identical on both sites to see which one ranks first in google.

I believe I already know what the outcome will be, as I do already feel that age is a very strong factor in googles algo. I do not believe that the age of the link is as important but more so the sites age verses the links.

Some factors that I am basing this off of is that the top site for Las Vegas which is around 5 years old participates in a link farm that is always adding new members and links to the site. Most of these links are not very aged. Yet we all know googles opinion on link farms and google has chosen to ignore this site for the last year.

There are also other Las Vegas sites below this one that have more content, more links and better optimized yet they can not take over that number 1 spot.

To conclude I feel that age is one of the most important factors second to links in googles algo.

[mugshot]

While I agree that aged links from older domains is like cultured fine wine...the only bone I have to pick is with rand's comment #2. :)


2. Their links oftentimes come from sites that have lots of weight with Google, but from whom no one can obtain a link anymore simply because the sites are not maintained. In link building and emailing/calling/writing letters, I've often found this to be the case.

For the sites that are not maintained anymore, wouldn't it be considered "dead" by Google therefore no fresh content - meaning visitied gradually less over time? If that's the case, then the links coming from those sites would eventually fade in weight too wouldn't they?

You can't really put a number of the "age" of a link - there is no WHOIS service that computes the age of links. Therefore, the age of the domain is the only one thing that cannot be manipulated...yet :)

[bigdoug]

As long as the site stays live Google will respect it as an historical archive of its cached database. Old pages were there before manipulation of content was ever considered. They carry credibility in a manipulative world. Fresh Content is for fresh links.


D

[seo-ireland]

I often wonder whether having old links from old sites will be, for the linked-to sites, a case of "the rich getting richer". How can a site possibly catch up on an older domain? Some ways I can think of a newer site surpassing an older domain of similar quality:

- Old links are lost due to the old sites not being maintained and their pages 404-ing
- Old sites get penalised for some reason
- Newer site earning a significant number of newer quality links, so much so that the power of the old links to other old sites are surpassed

I think its beneficial to discuss how to possibly surpass older sites. Any other suggestions?

[grasshopper]

mike grehan's "filthy linking rich" article has been mentioned innumerable times elsewhere, but merits mention again here:

www.e-marketing-news.co.uk/Oct04/RichLinking.html

given that i believe mike's position is accurate, then, seo-ireland, your question does become quite interesting. how can a newer site get better rankings than older sites that have the inherent advantage of age, and the links that age brings with it, going for them?

this is going to sound like old hat, but i believe it's true - at this point, the only way to out-weigh the age bias that's prevalent in google is by improving your site's quality. if your site doesn't merit one-way links, obtained either through spontaneous linking or through good old-fashioned prospecting, your new site is going to have some rough sledding ahead of it.

if my new site is so conspicuously excellent in its area that a university professor would have no problem linking to it on a resource page for his course syllabus, then i'm in good shape. if not, then i would do well to reconsider the ROI model i built around the site.

[etech-racheal]

Yep, age of site matters. Old sites get more advantage.

If a site is old then it is clear that it is from a long time listed in search engine.

Old sites created their brand, so it helps in getting advantage.

[fire_lady]

It age of the site is big factor but we should always take note that if we are planning to buy an old domain, choose those who has a good reputation or not banned.

[wowman]

Age is an important factor, also if a domain is new and expires in a year it will carry less weight then a domain that expires in say 5 years. Don’t renew domains year to year. Purchase them for as long as your pocket will allow.

[EGOL]

I often wonder whether having old links from old sites will be, for the linked-to sites, a case of "the rich getting richer". How can a site possibly catch up on an older domain? Some ways I can think of a newer site surpassing an older domain of similar quality:
This is the key. If you start a new site you are playing catch up. And in that race the important factor is acceleration. To overtake the guy at the top you must be gaining linkpower at a faster rate than he gains it. Not an easy thing to do because your only gain is that tiny increment above what he is currently gaining, and to overtake him that tiny gain must amount to enough that it defeats all of his previous work. If you are playing catch up you can't piss around.