Google Slower to Trust New Pages than One Year Ago?
-
It seems to me that Google is slower to trust (and rank) new pages today than in the past.
I used to be able to put up a new page and it would go right to the top of a competitive SERP.
For about the past year when I launch a new page it starts deep in the SERPs, sits there for a few weeks, then starts slowly moving up. These pages still eventually rank on the first page of Google - often at #1 or #2 after wikipedia or another strong site - but it can take a few months to get there, several months in a competitive SERP.
These are not "hot news" topics where freshness is an important factor. Instead they are product pages or general information articles.
Anybody else seeing this?
[ Just stabbing in the dark here... I am wondering if Google is relying more on visitor behavior these days and the delay is while they collect data?... Just stabbing in the dark.]
-
Thanks for the report, Jesse.
-
Thanks for the analysis. Your description makes a lot of sense. Maybe that is what Google is doing. Assessing to see if all of the boxes are checked.
-
The keywords that the articles target have a Moz KW Difficulty of about 50%. All of this is being done without any linkbuilding or other promotion. Just the ranking power of unique, substantive content on an authority domain.
A year ago these pages would have gone to the first page of Google within 24 hours. Now they still go to the first page but it might take 24 weeks.
-
Is it weird that I like this way better? It's making me work harder, but I think it's much more "fair."
-
Nice work on getting those quick rankings.
These types of results are becoming hard to get.
-
...in the past you'd see them have a big jump quickly and then start to fade back down...
Right... in the past a good page on a strong site would bust right to the top and Google would play "whack a mole". Now the good pages on a strong site will start deep in the SERPs and without promotion, they will climb slowly to the spot that you would have initially expected them to rank.
Instead of "whack a mole" google is saying... "prove the you deserve it". At least, that's what it looks like to me.
-
So I just 404'd an old page and changed it's URL and re-launched it last Tuesday. Today it has been indexed and is on page 3 for a fairly competitive keyword. That was much quicker than I expected.
Granted, I built a few links for this one last week and didn't let it just go without but I still find this relevant.
Also, I still feel like a few months back this would have happened by Thursday/Friday of last week.
Anyway that's my latest findings.
-
I'd agree. I think the reason is because there are so many boxes to tick nowadays if you want to have good rankings in the SERPs. Google is looking deeper into every website now (after Penguin 2.0) and this is clearly having an affect on how quickly websites are ranking for keywords on deeper pages.
On the flip side, whereas rankings would jump around quite a lot in the past, as Google as delved deeper into a website, hopefully once a new website has its rankings, there shouldn't be too much fluctuation which is great as you can put some budgets, strategies and plans in place.
-
It must depend on the keyword because in the past few weeks, I've had a couple of brand new domains hit the first page of Google very quickly. It's not for ultra competitive keywords, but it isn't for bad keywords that people aren't searching for either.
I've got well over 1,000 website that I do testing with, I'll add another 50+ this week to do some testing on.
Any particular keywords you guys want me to test? Give me something that is middle or the road, nothing too hard or easy, that way we should get some pretty quick results.
-
Good chance either some or all of these things happened:
a.) your competitors had built links through black-hat seo firms
b.) you are a victim/beneficiary of the Google Honeymoon (keep building links/content and don't be sad if you disappear in a few days back down the SERPs. You can gain it back quickly!)
c.) your content was stronger and your keyword/on-site SEO work was done proper
-
Social media plays a big part in getting noticed, crawled and indexed faster by Google, Bing and Yahoo. When launching a new website, try registering the main social networking channels (Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, YouTube, LinkedIn) and complete user profiles, including the URL of your new website. If you regularly update each social media channel, connect with other users, and post relevant content, you may find that your new site gets indexed faster.
-
I launched a dental website a couple of months ago and within a month, we had incredible keyword rankings ahead of many of the competitors in the same town. We had a brand new url, brand new content and everything. So in this case, we seemed to rank well in a short amount of time. Our content was nothing special, but unique of course. I am still scratching my head to figure this one out!
-
ABSOLUTELY!
I'm so glad I'm not the only one. Lately I've re-launched a few penguined pages with new URLs so the 404 would rid the black-hat action. The keywords have slowly regenerated whereas in the past you'd see them have a big jump quickly and then start to fade back down (if your SEM campaign didn't keep up of course.)
Anyway I definitely have been seeing this lately. Good topic. Makes me feel better.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Updating Content - Make changes to current URL or create a new one?
I'm working with a content team on a job search guide for 2019. We already have a job search guide for 2018. Should we just edit the content of the job search guide for 2018 to make it current for 2019, which means the job search guide for 2018 would not exist anymore or should we keep the 2018 guide and just create a new web page for the 2019 guide that way both exist. We currently rank very well for the 2018 job search guide.
Content Development | | Olivia9541 -
Reviving a (very) old blog - is it worth shifting the content onto a new blog?
I look after a few ecommerce sites, one of them doesn't currently have a blog, we are setting up a wordpress blog now for the site. Going way back in time the site did have a blog which was on a separate Typepad domain. What I'm wondering is whether it is worth redirecting this whole blog to the new blog section of the site and copying some of the content over to the new blog as historical posts? I don't think it will be possible to redirect each individual post to a new one so it will just be a straight redirect of the old blog domain to the new one with the same (most of anyway) content. Do you think it is worth doing this for the value of this content which is relevant but dated (many of the links are now expired)? Doing this will take some time to do so it's not 'free' content we'd be getting We have a lot of new content planned out so we won't be short of content, just would be nice to have some historical content on there too Thanks
Content Development | | PeterLeatherland0 -
Starting a brand new blog today - Is it still Wordpress?
Hi I started a blog in 2006 on Blogspot, then everyone moved onto Tumblr and Wordpress, but in August (just) 2013, what should I be starting my brand new blog on? I dont want to have to migrate in a matter on months.
Content Development | | xoffie0 -
Google+ Authorship Penalties for Past Posts?
Our blog has recently been updated to allocate past posts from 2011 and on to link to one of our recent writers who just came on board in 2013. Our writer set up a new Google+ profile for our blog last month, and has tagged all of the past posts with his Google+ authorship code. Is there a possibility that this could actually hurt our writer's authorship authority and our blog's authority, since the blog posts and the Google+ profile activation dates will not match up?
Content Development | | eugeneku0 -
How to optimize content pages with ecommerce?
Some content pages act as buyers guides for certain products for example Used Paddle Boards for Sale - http://www.islesurfboards.com/used-paddle-boards-for-sale.aspx this is a content page that gets huge amount of traffic and is pure content with no products on the page, but we also have a ecommerce section of the site that is Used Paddle Boards for Sale -http://www.islesurfboards.com/buy-used-paddle-boards-for-sale.aspx however this page just has a small paragraph and all the ecommerce product related to this section on the page. The content only page above gets all the traffic and rank and then they click over to the actual ecomm section wiht the products from a link on that page. Should i merge these two together so its just one page and put the content on the ecom page? If i do all the content with push the ecommerce products down which is not good so what does anyone recommend as a best practice? Also will this mess up the content pages rank is i merge them assuming i redirect? or Keep them seperate like i have with a content page regarding "used paddle boards for sale" and an ecommerce page that sells acutal "used paddle boards for sale"
Content Development | | isle_surf0 -
Simular product pages
I have 27000 products on my website, showed one by one on a separated webpage. Google index them almost all (+- 25000). But the SEOmoz report shows them as duplicated content. Indeed, most of the page is identical, only changing description and price of the product which is indeed not more than 2% of the total content of the page. On the bottom of the product page are shown the alternatives for this product, mainly other colors. So, within the same family of products that can have 50 products, the site creates 50 webpages showing the product and it's family. That's why nearly everything on the page is identical within this family of products. My guess is, as Google indexed them all, I should not worry about duplicated content. Is my guess correct? Thanks for a soon answer. Rik
Content Development | | noordhout0 -
Duplicate Page Content & Rel-Canonicals
The SEO Moz duplicate page content tool lists the following URL's as having duplicate content: http://www.savvyboater.com/1988-newer-8-tooth-15-hp-honda-outboard-props.aspx http://www.savvyboater.com/1988-newer-8-tooth-15-hp-honda-outboard-props.aspx?sort=PriceAsc&pi=2 The second URL is the price sorter/second page of the category and contains the following rel-canonical: | http://www.savvyboater.com/1988-newer-8-tooth-15-hp-honda-outboard-props.aspx"> Are we using the rel-canonical correctly in this case? If so, why does it continue to show up as duplicate content in our SEO Moz report? There are over 1,000 URLS listed in the report with the exact same issue. |
Content Development | | ironpac0 -
I have a page where you can download a PDF of the material - should I exclude the PDF from the search engines?
In my niche, there is a controversial research article that is very popular. I am writing a rebuttal to this article and giving another point of view. My article has the potential to be really good link bait for my site. The original article is often printed out to be shown to professionals in my niche. My hope is that people will do the same with mine. So, I plan to have a PDF version of my article available on my page. The article that is visible on my site (i.e. non PDF) will be a graphic rich article that is easy for the reader to go through. I plan to have the PDF have all of the same text, but it won't have as many graphics - it will look more like a scientific research article. So, should I exclude the pdf from search engines so that it isn't duplicate content? Or does that even matter seeing as it is a duplicate of my own content? I want people to link to the main article, not the pdf. Any tips would be greatly appreciated!
Content Development | | MarieHaynes1