

SEO Analysis Via Aggregated Data: Importance of Domain Age - dchuk
http://serpiq.com/blog/how-important-is-domain-age-why-data-driven-seo-analysis-trumps-guru-opinions

======
storborg
> Over 93% of 1st position domains are over a year old. This not only confirms
> the fact that Google favors older domains, but heavily stresses the
> importance of seeking aged domains for your projects if possible.

No, it doesn't. Correlation != Causality.

~~~
dchuk
you're absolutely right, that's why we included this disclaimer in the post:

 _Important Note: For this data, along with every other post in this series,
we're by no means claiming that the key to ranking a site is simply to buy an
old domain, nor are we claiming that a new domain can't be ranked. What we're
trying to do is provide data that, when used holistically in your SEO
campaigns, can give a competitive edge._

We're just trying to add to the list of best practices you can follow when
trying to optimize your site for the search engines.

~~~
eli
It's good that you included that disclaimer, but that line quoted above is
simply false. The data you posted is interesting, but it does _not_ confirm
that Google favors old domains.

~~~
dchuk
We're going to edit our post to clarify that and take a step back from our
assertion because we do agree with you. Thanks for pointing this out guys.

EDIT: We've amended our post to clarify the point you guys have brought up.
Thanks again for the feedback.

------
Roedou
This seems like a poor analysis to me.

Did you control for other factors? It's likely that older domains have had
more time to build links, trust, authority, etc.

It's entirely possible that Domain Authority has a more causal relationship
with ranking position, and that domain age is unrelated.

~~~
_delirium
I'm not even sure what the baseline is. What percentage of domains with any
relevant content _at all_ are >1 yr old? For it to be surprising that 93% of
first results are from >1yo domains, it would have to be the case that >1yo
domains make up much less than 93% of the relevant population, so we can
conclude that they're actually overrepresented in the top results.

~~~
dchuk
Good point. Unfortunately, we don't have any realistic means to collect that
data so we can't really accommodate such an analysis. We're working with what
our product has collected and doing our best to share that and apply our own
SEO-based interpretation of the data.

There are a handful of unsubstantiated claims that float through the SEO world
that we're trying to provide some actual numbers for. If we could without a
doubt show you what works in SEO we'd be sipping pina coladas on an island
somewhere :). All we're saying with this series of posts is "out of all of the
keywords people have analyzed using serpIQ, this is what we make of this
specific assertion/data point/metric"

------
pbhjpbhj
SEOmoz don't appear to feature "domain age" as a specific point in their
ranking factors survey - [http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-
factors#predict...](http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-
factors#predictions).

I think the general opinion there is that excepting an initial possibility of
sandboxing for new domains the domain-age boost is merely a misreading of
incoming linkjuice.

Logically this seems right as a domain with equal content (by algorithmic
analysis) that acquires links from high authority domains, and more incoming
links generally, in a shorter time and beats down an older domain in doing
that, such a site must surely be better in some way for users? [ _run on
sentences are a speciality of mine_ ].

~~~
dchuk
We're not really referencing anyone else's surveys or reports on these ranking
factors, we're more trying to substantiate what we feel are common around the
SEO and internet marketing worlds.

One way to look at the data we posted: it's much more likely that an old
domain has built up trust, content, and links than a fresh domain, so they are
a worthwhile investment for your SEO campaigns.

------
GoodIntentions
Hypothetical situation:

Two domains with identical volume/quality of content and equally good back
links, Site A being 10 years old, Site B 1 year old. ( IE remove all
considerations other than time )

My money is on site B showing higher in the serps.

~~~
dchuk
interesting conclusion there, what makes you lean that way?

~~~
GoodIntentions
I suspect the newer domain would look more active, more current and therefore
more likely to host content useful now/of contemporary interest.

I suspect ranking 'degrades' slightly over time - don't keep adding content
and lose places in the SERP.

Having said that, it's pretty much hypothetical. A ten year old domain will
have more links and more content, and I think _that_ is why old domains rank
well. It usually takes time to develop a great quantity of useful, ranking
content and links, hence the perception that "aged domains" are more valuable.

Anyone else have thoughts / different view on this?

~~~
dchuk
I agree with you on everything but your first point. It's just as reasonable
to assume an old domain has fresh content as a new domain, there's no
connection between domain age and how fresh the content is on it/how active it
is. Look at Reddit, or for that matter HN. Older domains, fresh content every
second.

But yeah, old domains basically have had more time to accumulate
trust/links/shares/content, so they're more likely to do better in the search
engines.

------
mise
If you purchase an old domain, wouldn't Google notice the change of IP address
and whois information?

I'm only speculating that buying an expired domain, for example, would be
flagged.

~~~
dchuk
Well there's nothing inherently wrong or bad about buying old sites or dropped
domains, so it shouldn't raise too much of a red flag

