Age Of Links Options

[Binti]

How do SE look at the age of links? I have a site that offers great educational content. I recently been posting links to wikipedia not for back links but to drive traffic to the site, especially since it s a new site and we do offer content on the subject matter. The links stay on Wikipedia for about a week or two (or less) and Yahoo & MSN considers it a back link. Few days later these links get removed, and the back link from Yahoo and MSN also dissapers when the wiki page is spidered.

If links keep getting cached and dropped, is this hurting SEO for a new site, that has not build credibility or trust with a SE?

Any advice would be helpful.

[St0n3y]

SE's look at how long a link has been in place. Links that come and go don't count for much while links that stay in place longer the better. Basically, when the SEs find the link that would be considered day 1. If that link is still there on repeated crawls six months or a year later then that link has earned some trust points with the algorithm.

Temporary links won't hurt SEO efforts, but they won't help whole lot either.

[Michael Martinez]

Instead of spamming Wikipedia, you might consider using some more reliable, acceptable methods of building visibility. People will form a negative impression of your site (and you) if they see your links are continually being removed.

[Binti]

SE's look at how long a link has been in place. Links that come and go don't count for much while links that stay in place longer the better. Basically, when the SEs find the link that would be considered day 1. If that link is still there on repeated crawls six months or a year later then that link has earned some trust points with the algorithm.

Temporary links won't hurt SEO efforts, but they won't help whole lot either.

That makes sense, but many of the wikipedia pages get spidered daily, so if a link is up for a month and then its removed, wouldn't SE consider this as not a trust point? Basically do SE see links that get added and dropped weekly or motnhlly. Or is it just how long the link has been up in general.

I would think that if a site keeps droping a link, SE might think the site does not have link worthy info, but there is no truth to knowing this.

[St0n3y]

I don't think that links being up for a short while and being pulled would indicate a lack of trust, but I don't have a lot of experience with wikipedia so I can't speak to that. Google put in the link aging factor for this reason, long-term links get more trust over short-term links. I have not heard of it working in reverse, where short-term links actually LOSE trust.

[Binti]

Google put in the link aging factor for this reason, long-term links get more trust over short-term links. I have not heard of it working in reverse, where short-term links actually LOSE trust.

I'm with you on this, thats why I brought this up becasue tehre is a reason Google has the again delay factor. I guess unless someone has expereinced this will know better. I agree with you that long-term links gets more trust, but i guess they might not be lookign at short-term links then.

[Jill]

Why are the links getting deleted in Wikipedia?

[projectphp]

Because they likely aren't relevant.

Wikipedia links are my bugbear. I hate the idea that Wikipedia is going to be ruined by my profession, because I love wikipedia, and spend a lot of my research time using it (as it usually gets me well started, and the stuff i am truly interested in is usually quite well done).

Seriously, chasing links on Wikipedia is a bit of a waste of time, not to mention that Google probably don't give external links much weight, and is really an annoyance to the rest of us.

[Debra]

I agree with you that long-term links gets more trust, but i guess they might not be lookign at short-term links then.

Bold mine.

I think it would be pretty hard to prove short term links lose trust as there are so many variables to take into account, but I think it's equally hard to say long term links get more trust just based on their longevity.

It's the page that does the work - (anchor, page freshness, content relevance, continued link accumulation etc), - not the link.

[St0n3y]

but I think it's equally hard to say long term links get more trust just based on their longevity.

I don't think it's that hard. Google patents clearly indicate that they are (or want to do this and it makes sense a great deal that the longer a link is in place the more authoritative power it should be given. Now you're absolutely right about the page doing the work as well, all of that plays into the value of a link, but all things equal, how long a links been in place is significant.

1) purchased links are less likely to stay in place for a loooooong time
2) untrusted links are less likely to stay in place (unless it's a blog)

[EricWard-LinkMen...]

Long term links do help, but there's another factor separate from the the longevity of the link. The longevity of the site itself where the link appeared. For example, a site that has been around a while and has already gained SE trust will have a positive effect for any site that is able to obtain a link on that site, whether it was three years ago or today that the link appeared. Put more simply, a new link on an old trusted site is better than an old link on a site with no trust.

Where this can backfire is going after high value links on old sites in a way that appears unnatural, i.e., buying them (assuming they can be bought), getting them too quickly ( a dumb measure but does cause a flag), or even using identical anchor text that never had been used before.

It's absolutely amazing how much the engines can detect about your link building habits and history. I'm not in 100% agreement with the things the SEs consider flagworthy, but it pays to at least be aware of the potential triggers...

Eric

[Debra]

I don't think it's that hard. Google patents clearly indicate that they are (or want to do this and it makes sense a great deal that the longer a link is in place the more authoritative power it should be given.

Understand - but I don't think you can make a blanket statement about long term links passing more "authoritative power" just because they're aged. The link itself isn't the only factor in determing the power it passes. It's the all the other things I mentioned before. The "should be given" part is based on an assumption the site/page will continue to evolve.

I don't know which of the Google patents you're referencing but if it's this one -

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser...&RS=20050071741

All/most of what's written centers around the "freshness" and "staleness" of pages and how that associates with links. Not the link itself.

Put more simply, a new link on an old trusted site is better than an old link on a site with no trust.

Bingo!

[St0n3y]

but I don't think you can make a blanket statement about long term links passing more "authoritative power" just because they're aged.

Point taken. SEOs often talk in terms as if they seem to be making blanket statements, but that's only because one doesnt have the time to add in all the qualifiers to that. But I think we pretty much agree.

[Debra]

But I think we pretty much agree

Good! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I appreciate your cordial debate.