25 replies to this topic

[Randy]

It's not the competitiveness, or lack thereof, of the entire field Cornbread.

It's the relative competitiveness of the specific phrases for which you're trying to rank well.

As an example, trying to get a new site to rank for the more general and probably more competitive phrase "NFL Draft" would be one that gets thrown in the Aging Delay pile. Whereas trying to rank well for something like "NFL Draft 2007 Oakland Raiders Quarterback" would be considerably less competitive even though the 2nd phrase contains the first one. This second phrase may be one you could target to slip by the aging delay filter.

[Cornbread]

What a great example LOL.....yes that makes total sense and is completely accurate. I have learned so much on this forum and you guys have been dead-on with everything you have said. The bottom line is, if you start a new domain, be patient because new web sites can't vault to the top over night in Google and Yahoo. I think Jill said 6-9 months didn't she? So back to my last question. Yahoo, it seems they have a very harsh aging delay, even stronger than Google, because my new 2 month old domain does horrible in Yahoo, even though I have a $300 Yahoo Directory listing.

[Randy]

I've not seen any evidence of any sort of across the board aging delay filter with Yahoo. Or at least not anything like what Google does with new sites.

However Yahoo! has traditionally be a little slower on the uptake than Google, MSN and even Ask. So it may simply be a case where they've not yet had sufficient time to both spider and score all of the various pages properly yet. Also, though I've not looked it it closely at all for the past several months, some time ago Yahoo! seemed to be a bit more reluctant to recognize any link popularity you may be thinking you should get from incoming links. Especially if a site hasn't yet fully gained their trust, which of course would fit with a new site.

[Cornbread]

Thanks Randy, but isn't trust the same thing as aging delay in a sense? trust can be gained by getting trusted sources to link to you and with age, I have the former, not the latter, so wouldn't that mean that Yahoo penalizes heavy for age.

[Randy]

Similar Cornbread. Certainly the quality and age of links can be a contributing factor to Trust. However I've not seen anything that resembles an aging delay in the way Google uses it with Yahoo! My sense is that they're simply not as quick on the uptake, especially with brand new sites.

This of course assumes the new site has totally unique content. They've been known to be pretty critical of affiliate sites and others where the content is basically a duplicate of 40 other pages out there.

[Lakshmi Narsimhan]

It's not a "punishment", It's a system that stops people getting to be top in 90 days

Hello Chrishirst, did you see the "Virginia Tech massacre" topic in Wikipedia is listed probably on top of SERPs in Google for that term. What do you think might be the reason for not placing it in Sandbox filter?

[chrishirst]

'cos it's not on a new domain

[Cornbread]

Similar Cornbread. Certainly the quality and age of links can be a contributing factor to Trust. However I've not seen anything that resembles an aging delay in the way Google uses it with Yahoo! My sense is that they're simply not as quick on the uptake, especially with brand new sites.

This of course assumes the new site has totally unique content. They've been known to be pretty critical of affiliate sites and others where the content is basically a duplicate of 40 other pages out there.

My content is all unique, I was in the 50s in Yahoo before I submitted to the Yahoo Directory and they changed my snippet and then bam, I went down into the 300s. I know you can't always relate cause with effect, but this or a strict aging penalty seems like the only explanation.

Look life is good, I rank decently in Google and excellent in MSN (top 10), traffic is way up. I am just curious why Yahoo hates my web site so much. They have some real crappy, non-relevant crap ranked ahead of me.

[Randy]

Have you tried using the noydir in a meta robots tag to see if anything happens?

Not that I think anything will happen, but it might be interesting to see if flipping the directory description off and on would make a difference in Y! rankings.

[Lakshmi Narsimhan]

Thanks chrishirst, also the queries that remain same but have New Meanings over time, Google calculates whether the "information relating to queries" remains the same or changes and scores documents based on this.

For example, prior to September 11, the phrase 9-11 would not be related with terrorism, afterwards, it would be. Google will score documents based on the changes in the results for a given query to keep up with the times.

[chrishirst]

also the queries that remain same but have New Meanings over time, Google calculates whether the "information relating to queries" remains the same or changes and scores documents based on this.

Nope, the document "scoring" remains exactly the same

For example, prior to September 11, the phrase 9-11 would not be related with terrorism, afterwards, it would be. Google will score documents based on the changes in the results for a given query to keep up with the times.

You have this totally the wrong way around.
The web changes constantly. New pages appear that document the global and local news, global and local changes, worldwide and local events and occurences.
Then new pages appear that are linking to the documents that document the changes and the Internet search engines results change to reflect these new influences.

The scoring methods, indexing methods, retrieval and ranking methods did not change at all, only the elements that influence the results from those methods changed.

It is NOT the search engines that change, but simply the world around them changes.