Longevity and Search Engine Positioning Revisited

By Deane Barker on July 1, 2005

Google’s Aging Delay for New Sites: A few days ago, I voiced a suspicion I had about the correlation between the amount of time a site had been on the Net, and how well it does in Google’s index.

Johnny from Blank of the Day was nice enough to drop a comment directing me to the article linked above:

I haven’t seen any brand new sites with new domains appear at the top of the search engine results pages (SERP) since early in 2004. There seems to be a delay of about 6-8 months. […]

If you are launching new sites for clients, make sure you set the expectation that it is likely to be 7-8 months before the site achieves any real results in Google.

I have a site I’m working on that’s suffering from this phenomenon. We’ve done everything we can for SEO — the code is perfect, the keywords are perfect (especially compared to its competition), it’s in DMOZ, it’s in AdWords, it has multiple inbound links — but it’s just not living up to its potential.

I suspect even more strongly now that this is the reason, and the site will take a big jump forward in five months or so.

There’s a lot more good information about this in Johnny’s comment.



  1. You know, it occurs to me that longevity could be a negative, or rather that it’s lack should not be considered vis-a-vis PageRanking. In fact, I’d almost lean towards a probationary period that leans towards an enhanced ranking. Bump the new guys up the list and pump traffic through ’em to aggressively apply the rest of the page rank protocols over, say, a week’s period.

    That way, when, for example, the newly formed National Coalition of Doohickey Danglers, whose mission as we all know is to consolidate the industry’s vast catalog of Doohickey Dangling data sheets, comes online, their site rapidly jumps ahead in the rankings, proves itself as a useful resource right off the bat and the world is once again a happy place to Dangle. Or, given its brief window to shine, it fails to do so and is tossed back down the list to gradually either prove itself or fade away.

    As I read the above mention of a sandbox [not having had the level of initiative in this instance to actually do my own research], the world would have some [internet-time] unacceptably lengthy period before it became aware of such a valuable resource. And given the number of disparate Doohickey Dangling divisions, data sheets, definitional disputes, denominational drifts, and DOD decisions, dang it, that just isn’t acceptable.

Comments are closed. If you have something you really want to say, tweet @gadgetopia.