Post frequency doesn't matter in search engines?
Over the past few weeks I have been doing a lot of research on a number of things and that involves doing a lot of searches.
I've seen, when I check my site info on here, that it is rated for post frequency. It's hard to believe that matters at all with the enormous numbers of sites I've seen listed on page one of google searches, some even being the very first result, that haven't updated anything on their sites in 6 or 7 years. I've seen some as old as 10 years old. The information you get from those places is totally irrelevant to how things are done today on the internet. I've even run into Q&A places that closed the entire Q&A format years ago and just refer people to some email to send questions.
So, if post frequency or recent posts matter at all, why would these sites be anywhere near page one in the search engines? I really wish someone could explain that.
Recent Comments
13
I get so frustrated when outdated material shows up before anything relevant. I guess the google spiders don't know how to read dates. LOL
ah, but the sites have domain AGE and authority on their side. Post frequency (or more accurately, "consistency") matters for newer websites -- Google wants to see that the site is growing and being maintained. The older sites can sit on their laurels and search engines still find them as viable reference points.
Makes no sense because they are sending people to useless (dead) sights.
They certainly are not being maintained and what better way to know if a site is being maintained than noticing how recent the site was active. I can see a year or two, but 10 years and listed 2nd on the first page? Sites with dead links in them? I thought search engines frowned on dead links within sites. A lot of the links led to sites that no longer exist.
They mean to tell me no other sites have come along in the last 10 years to move onto the front page and move that one down on the list? Seriously, one search resulted in the first 2 pages being full of sites that were active no more recent than 5 years ago.
Honestly, a few of the sights I got sent to wouldn't have been very helpful at the time they were posted. The person had no idea what they were talking about. lol
Sounds to me like search engines and the way they do things are a crock.
I agree, but domain age trumps new websites by far. I didn't say they were maintaining their sites. I simply indicated that domain age plays a huge role in the search engine results pages. And, eventually, if you have a page that has better information - it can, in time, take over that slot. I've done it. But, it does take patience and some promotion.
Age vs activity makes no sense. It keeps relevant information from being found while people roam around not finding the information they really need. I guess google and bing find that helpful to people. I can't think of any business on earth that keeps out of date stuff, that no one wants, sitting around. Only search engines. lol.
It's pretty bad when I have to run down to a book store to get updated information because some search engine decided some useless, WAY out of date information should be available just cuz it's been around longer.
Fortunately, I'm not hurting for money so I pay for advertising which is really increasing traffic a lot faster than waiting around for google. My page on facebook has picked up 475 people this week alone with the ads and boosts. I run ads in a number of other places too.
On the good side, I did also find another book at the store that I really want to read.
LOL!!! Good for you! Yea, the SERPs aren't very fast. They need to get with the program!! :-)
Pj, I have never seen any statement from anybody from Google about importance of consistency and frequency. It would be good to see something if it exists.
See more comments
PjGermain is right. The older sites get credit for Domain Age. Newer sites need consistency of posting. Not necessarily daily, but consistently posting new and Relevent information. Social sharing also carries a lot of weight.
Social sharing is the route I've chosen and it's working way beyond what I expected.
After the Google Panda updates and de-ranking of many crappy sites with lots and lots of low quality backlinks, the Social sharing became even more important than it was in the past. There was also something last year about websites being mobile friendly (Responsive) or being penalized for not doing so.
Lots of things other than posting frequency affect getting on page 1... much less in the top 3 or 4...
One other thing about some of the sites on top of Google for searches... Optimizing for long tail keywords is not something new, it has been done at least since 2007.
Once Google starts indexing your website, you can climb up the list fairly rapidly if posting fairly frequently with good content without keyword stuffing.
Well, since I last responded to this about 3 hours ago I have picked up over 100 more folks on my facebook page, which has links to my website and looking at tapatalk the follower list is growing quite fast. That makes 547 I've picked up in the last 6 days. Guess I'm not too concerned about Google and their weird ways. lol