15 replies to this topic

[Mark S]

My site has recently got its first PR which is 3 but I am no where near the top for my targeted search terms which I believe I should be atleast top3.

Now, because I have a PR I have assumed I am out of the aging delay but then why would my site be terrible on the SERPS. And I must point out that my site went online early July and we are in November.

Does anyone if I'm still in the aging delay or not?

EDIT: I just did a Google search using most of my title and I can't find my website, so I'm guessing that suggests somehow I am still under Google's evil aging delay?

Edited by Mark S, 30 October 2005 - 09:36 PM.

[Jill]

PR has nothing to do with the aging delay. You could be a PR9 and still be aging.

How old is your site?

[Mark S]

Thanks Jill, that is what I wanted to know. I assumed PR mean't Google finally recognised my site properly but I'm glad to find out that's not the case otherwise I would of been worried about the SERPS.

Oh and my site has only been up for about 3 months so I guess I'll be waiting another 3 at least.

[Jill]

Most likely another 6 months...

[Michael Martinez]

Thanks Jill, that is what I wanted to know. I assumed PR mean't Google finally recognised my site properly but I'm glad to find out that's not the case otherwise I would of been worried about the SERPS.

PR means absolutely nothing.

If you can encourage a large number of natural inbound links (such as people give without your asking them to provide), you can get out of the sandbox early.

If you are relying on link building, Jill's estimate is as good as any.

Focus on building good content and achieving visibility through non-linking means.

[Mark S]

Erm, so Google can tell the difference between natural links and link building?

Sorry, I'm not queit sure what you are saying here. I thought anything that suggests you can get out of the aging delay early is most likely a myth, is there any evidence towards what you said?

[Michael Martinez]

Erm, so Google can tell the difference between natural links and link building?

To a limited degree, yes. However, what my advice implies is something a little more substantial. Link building tends to focus on certain activities. One staple of link-building is to submit to directories.

Well, everyone submits to the same directories. If you believe that this will help build your PageRank, you have to understand that as more people submit to those directories, they will confer less and less PageRank to each outbound link.

A lot of people are looking to blogs for link building. Well, if you believe this will help your PageRank, you have to understand that as more people submit their links to those blogs, they will confer less and less PageRank to each outbound link.

Many people exchange links with other sites. Well, if you believe this will help your PageRank, you have to understand that as each site exchanges links with more sites, it will confer less and less PageRank to each link.

A lot of people now write articles and press releases for distribution through automated content services. Well, if you believe this helps your PageRank, you have to understand that as each service absorbs more artificial content, it will confer less and less PageRank to its content providers.

Do you see the pattern here? The link-building principle is self-defeating because there are only a handful of conventional methods of building links. Everyone uses those methods. Many people swarm over link-friendly sites. It's like a drug addiction. The more you do it, the less benefit you get from it, so you have to do it more.

This is what I call "hyperoptimization".

On the other hand, if you create content that a lot of people will link to naturally, odds are pretty good that you'll get a better, faster boost in rankings and importance because many of the sites linking to you don't play the link game.

Natural is always better than artificial.

Yes, it is VERY difficult to achieve that kind of popularity. But you will never achieve it through link building.

Not ever.

Link building is a vital and necessary part of joining the Web community (and therefore is important to fundamental search engine optimization).

However, link building has become, and probably will remain for a long time now, the least efficient means of adjusting your visibility and rankings in the SERPs. The SEO community is only just now beginning to recognize the problem, and there are many people who remain unconvinced, some of whom are simply too dense to understand that it's not all about links to begin with (all they do is preach link building).

[Mark S]

Thanks for your advice there, very interesting.

However, back to the last bit of my post, can you reallly get out of the aging delay early by the method you mentioned?

[mark_88_turbo]

I don’t think you can. It’s just a waiting game. My website is about a 10 months old now and has just been released from the aging delay. The website was partially released in April, with a PR3 too, however had a very poor #221 under 2 keywords. Yesterday I was released from this and when I last checked made number 11, which is ok.
I've spent much time getting quality links from related website, and ensuring they use my keywords in their link.

Edited by mark_88_turbo, 31 October 2005 - 12:37 PM.

[RyanBlank]

can you reallly get out of the aging delay early by the method you mentioned?

nobody can give you a 100% positive answer on any of this.. that being said, some of us have seen examples of sites where the aging delay just doesn't seem to apply. a common denominator, that i've noticed, is that these sites experience some type of 'buzz marketing' that sends mass amounts of traffic (and incoming links) to the site being mentioned in a short period of time.

this is not common by any means though, so it should not be seen as a technique to 'beat' the aging delay. it's just something that happens if you have content people want and can not get elsewhere. the thing is though, if you can raise that amount of interest in what you've got, the aging delay isn't going to be a hinderance to you anyway..

[Michael Martinez]

Thanks for your advice there, very interesting.

However, back to the last bit of my post, can you reallly get out of the aging delay early by the method you mentioned?

Matt Cutts did it, and despite what people say about Google favoring their own I see nothing but clear, strong, irrefutable evidence for the power of natural linkage to an immensely popular site.

Not everyone can be Matt Cutts. But the point stands: natural linkage will do quickly what inflated, artificial linkage cannot.

[hooperman]

... as more people submit to those directories, they will confer less and less PageRank to each outbound link.

This is a good point that I finally get! The more outbound links a site has, the less 'pagerank' they confer to the linked site. So if the influence of pagerank on your ranking is negligible, and the chances of increasing pagerank through linkbuilding campaigns is slim.... I don't think I'll bother.

[CTPhil]

So if the influence of pagerank on your ranking is negligible, and the chances of increasing pagerank through linkbuilding campaigns is slim....

I don't think that's entirely true, you can still increase PR by linkbuilding, but with ever diminishing results as more people do it. It just won't get you anywhere in the serps is my understanding.

[Michael Martinez]

This is a good point that I finally get! The more outbound links a site has, the less 'pagerank' they confer to the linked site. So if the influence of pagerank on your ranking is negligible, and the chances of increasing pagerank through linkbuilding campaigns is slim.... I don't think I'll bother.

Technically, PageRank is determined on a page-by-page basis. So, the decline in PageRank conferred occurs as each linking page acquires more links.

There are plenty of people who will tell you they increased their PageRank through linking campaigns. Don't get the wrong impression from what I'm saying. Link campaigns work. They just don't work as well today as they used to, and in a year they won't work as well as they do today.

That is a broad, sweeping generalization. It is a comment on the aggregate, not on specific applications of the link campaign paradigm. I am quite sure there are some people out there who have discovered great resources that they don't share openly, because they want to keep them as usable as possible for their new sites and their client sites.

But in general, you have to understand that link building campaigns, like all aspects of typical SEO, will peak (or may already have peaked) in their usefulness to the general community, and then their usefulness will decline. That is the nature of the industry. It consumes every tactic and technique. Fundamental HTML design is about the only stable area in SEO, and the W3.org is doing its best to screw that up, too.

[Michael Martinez]

I don't think that's entirely true, you can still increase PR by linkbuilding, but with ever diminishing results as more people do it.  It just won't get you anywhere in the serps is my understanding.

Link building can get you very good placement in search results. Despite the law of diminishing returns kicking in, there are some power link builders out there who can still jury-rig their rankings.

Most people cannot compete on that level, and that is why I have been such a wet blanket on link building for so long. As more and more people gear up for link building, the situation gradually worsens.

Fortunately, there are other aspects of SEO which help people. And, also fortunately, most sites are not yet competing for hyperoptimized search expressions.