SEO Tycoon

**usearchme** · 05-30-2007, 02:44 PM

Hi there guys

Is it better to keep updating ur site rather than leave ur pages as they are ??

I always try my upmost to keep my pages up todate and change my content every week or so !!

I find it very frustrating that sites that have not changed their content in years are above me on the search engines some with very little content either why is this ?

Is it better to keep updating ur content or just to leave ur pages as they are ?

Woc

**yasha78** · 05-30-2007, 02:54 PM

Update your site, not the pages of your site. In other words, add new pages with new content - that's updating.

Static pages with valuable content rank high in Google because the content is well, valuable. So, you'll have the static pages that are ranking high in Google and you should be adding new pages that will increase your rank as well.

**gringo** · 05-30-2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usearchme

I find it very frustrating that sites that have not changed their content in years are above me on the search engines

The frequency of update has nothing to do with ranking. Frequently changing content might keep your visitors interested, but it won't enhance your rankings. And why should it? Rubbish content that changes regularly is still rubbish and good content that never changes is still good (providing that it doesn't become obsolete).

**BreaktheSilence** · 05-30-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gringo

Rubbish content that changes regularly is still rubbish and good content that never changes is still good (providing that it doesn't become obsolete).

All of which begs the question, how does a SE define "good?"

**mmggaa** · 05-31-2007, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gringo

The frequency of update has nothing to do with ranking. Frequently changing content might keep your visitors interested, but it won't enhance your rankings. And why should it? Rubbish content that changes regularly is still rubbish and good content that never changes is still good (providing that it doesn't become obsolete).

WRONG!

Constantly updating content does actually enhance your rankins, in google anway. Google looks at the type of responces it will be giving to someone who searches for a site and decides if it needs to be updated frequently e.g. if you search for news then it does matter how frequently the website is updated but if you search for information on cholera it may not matter so much.

Google along with other search engines im sure, try to give their users up to date information which will have content that will most likely correspond to the users search term. If they didnt they would never need to re-index websites!

**mmggaa** · 02:19 PM

Quote:

content that changes regularly is still rubbish and good content that never changes is still good (providing that it doesn't become obsolete).

I also forgot to mention that search engines take into account many different factors into the positioning of results and having rubish content that is updated frequently will not put you in a better position by itself, there are many other factors that would have to be considered. Therefore it is unlikely that a website like described above would making it into the first page.

So to answer your question, yes do update your content along with other things!

**BreaktheSilence** · 05-31-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmggaa

I also forgot to mention that search engines take into account many different factors into the positioning of results and having rubish content that is updated frequently will not put you in a better position by itself...

If I may be so bold, what would you consider to be rubbish?

**mmggaa** · 05-31-2007, 04:04 PM

I don't i was just commenting about gringo's post where he used 'rubbish content'

I was just trying to make the point that 1 thing like updating frequently would not get you a good position in google automatically. Hope its clear now

**potchie** · 06-02-2007, 02:54 AM

its better to update your site not as always,,, simple as that... make other wa,, than update your file frquently..

**ForrestCroce** · 06-02-2007, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreaktheSilence

All of which begs the question, how does a SE define "good?"

Different engine, different answer. Basically counting links recursively, applying weight to anchor text, titles, headers, and so on, and anti-spam formulas.

**BreaktheSilence** · 06-02-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Different engine, different answer. Basically counting links recursively, applying weight to anchor text, titles, headers, and so on, and anti-spam formulas.

Very good... Thanks for the heads up!

**mmggaa** · 06-02-2007, 05:27 PM

To be honest breakthesilence, you could have poor content that visitors to the website might find awful, but if its set up correctly with keywords, anchor texts and weights for content, then it may be very high up in google!

**chrishirst** · 06-03-2007, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Constantly updating content does actually enhance your rankins

No it doesn't!!

think about it logically and sensibly for a minute. If you are constantly changing your content, how on earth are you going to maintain ranking for keywords when you keep changing them ???????

**usearchme** · 06-03-2007, 09:56 AM

Hi there

Surely so long as your content is consistant and relevant to your site it would be fine, as it would have keywords init anyway, if no one ever changed their webpages the rankings would be stagnant and surely thats very bad !!

If you have kept the same homepage layout for years then how can it possibly be up todate and readable ?

Woc

**mmggaa** · 06-03-2007, 10:14 AM

Chrishirst i can see your point you are trying to make but unfortunatly you are wrong. Im not talking about changing your homepage or any other page content fully but adding new pages to your content and making changes within the news section of a website to keep users upto date with the website.

This is going to make bots search your website much more frequently to check for up to date information. However you argue it, updating information does enhanse your rankings UNLESS your content is that which does not need to change and search engines recognise that!

**chrishirst** · 06-03-2007, 10:29 AM

a member over at HR has just posted this NY Times Article

And this quote is from page 3 (bolding mine)

Quote:

Earlier this spring, he brought his squad’s findings to Mr. Manber’s weekly gathering of top search-quality engineers who review major projects. At the meeting, a dozen people sat around a large table, another dozen sprawled on red couches, and two more beamed in from New York via video conference, their images projected on a large screen. Most were men, and many were tapping away on laptops. One of the New Yorkers munched on cake.

Mr. Singhal introduced the freshness problem, explaining that simply changing formulas to display more new pages results in lower-quality searches much of the time. He then unveiled his team’s solution: a mathematical model that tries to determine when users want new information and when they don’t. (And yes, like all Google initiatives, it had a name: QDF, for “query deserves freshness.”)

Mr. Manber’s group questioned QDF’s formula and how it could be deployed. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Singhal said he expected to begin testing it on Google users in one of the company’s data centers within two weeks. An engineer wondered whether that was too ambitious.

“What do you take us for, slackers?” Mr. Singhal responded with a rebellious smile.

THE QDF solution revolves around determining whether a topic is “hot.” If news sites or blog posts are actively writing about a topic, the model figures that it is one for which users are more likely to want current information. The model also examines Google’s own stream of billions of search queries, which Mr. Singhal believes is an even better monitor of global enthusiasm about a particular subject.

I would suggest that for "new" you could read "updated" as well.

Quote:

If you have kept the same homepage layout for years then how can it possibly be up todate and readable ?

Why would it not be?????

If the topic of your website deals with historical data then it will never need to change.
Blanket statements such as this are pointless.
If your content / information needs to change, then change it. If it doesn't then leave it well alone, swapping a few words around for the sake of it will NOT make it any more relevant.

If the site you are running deals with current events / news / technology progression etc, then of course you should be updating. BUT you should be adding new pages not shuffling things around purely for some mistaken belief that altering pages will improve your pages SERP position.

It becomes another case of forgetting why your pages exist and attempting to do something for search engines rather than real people.

**mmggaa** · 06-03-2007, 10:53 AM

Quote:

swapping a few words

Thats not updating data, thats editing it for no reason. The same weight will be given to the words, it doesnt matter what order they are in.

If you actually read the report that was made on google by the owners while developing it, changing data frequently on websites does actually increase your search engine position, however with 100 different thing that your position in google is calculated on, having updated information will not always bring you hihger than everyone else, BUT IT HELPS!

To answer your question as to why competitors have higher ranking even though they dont update data is becuase they probably have better search engine optimisation than you regarding to keywords, links, anchor links, size of text (bold and actual size) and good links into the website!

Hope this helps

**chrishirst** · 06-03-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usearchme

I find it very frustrating that sites that have not changed their content in years are above me on the search engines some with very little content either why is this ?
Is it better to keep updating ur content or just to leave ur pages as they are ?

Surely, this is self-explanatory. Your "competitors" don't change content every day/week/month and rank highly. So why are you asking if it's better to change content?? Doesn't the evidence in front of you show that it isn't???????

Quote:

To answer your question as to why competitors have higher ranking even though they dont update data is becuase they probably have better search engine optimisation than you regarding to keywords, links, anchor links, size of text (bold and actual size) and good links into the website!

Or very likely they don't care about SEO or search engines in general and have simply built a site that is good for users.

Quote:

If you actually read the report that was made on google by the owners while developing it, changing data frequently on websites does actually increase your search engine position

I have read it many times. It was written 12 years ago and Google has had many many major changes since then.
The Google engineers are obviously not unaware of the fact that many new and updated pages are done merely for them. So just because a page has been added or changed recently is NOT make it the most relevant.
Did you miss this

Quote:

display more new pages results in lower-quality searches much of the time

from the article I quoted?
Why on earth should they (Google) choose to reduce the quality of their results just to something that is more recent, rather than a document that has "served it's time"

**mmggaa** · 06-03-2007, 01:24 PM

This is quite a good debate coming up here! Now for my next peice!

Firstly

Quote:

Surely, this is self-explanatory. Your "competitors" don't change content every day/week/month and rank highly. So why are you asking if it's better to change content?? Doesn't the evidence in front of you show that it isn't???????

That isnt self explanitory as i said above, its because the website is optimised well for search engines!

Quote:

Or very likely they don't care about SEO or search engines in general and have simply built a site that is good for users.

I very much doubt that they wouldnt care about google but may not have such emphasis on search engines. It could just be conisidence that the website is search engine friendly and they may have just like you said bult the site that is good for users.

However!!!!, for every 1 person like that who gets good rankings in search engines just trying to make the website for users, there will be 200 that dont get good ranking this way! So actually it doesnt help just to make websites for users.

And you want proof? Look around at this forum!

If it was such a great idea then this place probably wouldnt be here and everyone would just get great google rankings for making a website users like!

This just cant happen becuase search engines arent people and cant look at websites and see if its good for users, so they try and see if its good for users my picking keywords, giving weights to words, anchor texts etc etc and by the frequency of updates (dependent apon the subject if updates are needed!)

Quote:

I have read it many times. It was written 12 years ago and Google has had many many major changes since then.

Yes that is true that google has had many changes and has diversified a huge amount, despite this they have kept the basic same principles for the search engine + some very new ones. Therefore i belive that i can be relyed upon but only to some extent and that point i made is something that i belive is a must in any search engine and therefore i belive its the same as it was then but a more improved system to calculate what websites should need updating and not.

Rep added for a great debate!

**BreaktheSilence** · 06-03-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmggaa

To be honest breakthesilence, you could have poor content that visitors to the website might find awful, but if its set up correctly with keywords, anchor texts and weights for content, then it may be very high up in google!

Right, so I guess the key is to try and strike a balance between the two...

Either way it sure would be nice, (in a perfect world), if Google decided to invest even a fraction of their billions into hiring human editors. That way we could all focus on quality content, instead of stuffing pages with keywords.

Call me crazy, but I can dream can't I?