The 'New Site' Factor

[NinjaStory]

In my day job, I typically come up against old, large commercial web sites. However, a personal project I've undertaken has taken me somewhat back to my SEO roots. My site is brand new (Set officially live 16th March '08), and despite a well optimised site with lots of content (4,000+ strongly themed, unique pages - see my sig for clarification) and a good selection of quality natural links I am presently nowhere to be seen for the BIG, volume generic terms.

To give an example, here's a quick snapshot of my linking pattern against the two sites at the top for the highest volume, generic term in my niche (data taken from Yahoo! SE using SEO Spyglass):

My Site

Homepage PR: 4 (as of today)

Total Links: 193

PR 7 Links: 1
PR 6 Links: 4
PR 5 Links: 10
PR 4 Links: 15
PR 3 Links: 8
PR 2 Links: 6
PR 1 Links: 4

Largest Linking Site Contribution: 11% - 22 links from this one site (this is a CSS gallery - my site is featured in several categories)

Competitor 'A' - Ranks pos. 1

Homepage PR: 4

Total Links:2,045

PR 7 Links: 0
PR 6 Links: 0
PR 5 Links: 1
PR 4 Links: 3
PR 3 Links: 17
PR 2 Links: 41
PR 1 Links: 4

Largest Linking Site Contribution: 87.5% - 871 links from this one site (this is clearly a paid for, footer link)

Competitor 'B' - Ranks pos. 2

Homepage PR: 4

Total Links: 1,012

PR 7 Links: 0
PR 6 Links: 0
PR 5 Links: 2
PR 4 Links: 5
PR 3 Links: 18
PR 2 Links: 8
PR 1 Links: 10

Largest Linking Site Contribution: 81% - 812 links from one site - another paid for, footer link

---

Conclusion

I believe that my site is superior in terms of on-page optimisation / content levels, and is matched in the homepage Page Rank stakes. In terms of link quality, I have a lot of links at the business end of the PR scale whereas my competitors have comparitively little. Despite all this, I am a million miles behind in the rankings.

There are only two obvious areas where I fall behind:


Site Age
Link Volume (Purely to their very crude, low budget but highly effective link buying)


So what do I do?


Option 1: Wait patiently for the next couple of months - rankings will come in time once my site gets out of any apparent 'sandbox' or whatever the fashionable term is in this day and age.


Option 2: Follow the suit and buy a load of low quality, largely irrelevent site-wide links.


For me, only option 1 is worth considering because option 2 goes against all of my professional beliefs. However, option 2 has clearly worked well for my competitors. Based on the above, will my site rise like a phoenix in the next few months?

Your thoughts would be appreciated. :)

[domainer_10]

Your site is way too new in the search engines. Give it a few more months before you analyze to that degree.

[kg_lew]

I think you should give it some time... but that does not mean you shouldn't continue to build natural links... :)

[NinjaStory]

As an additional piece of info, long-tail terms have been incredibly lucrative for me. It's much more the generic terms that I'm struggling with.

[chris265]

Time is figured in and so is how long domain is registered for

[NinjaStory]

Time is figured in and so is how long domain is registered for

What's the general consensus on time? Weeks? Months? My general understanding that such a time frame can be 'sped up' through obtaining quality links - can anyone confirm through personal experience?

[angilina]

I suggest you wait for some time. Plus you can build back links for free. For example, via article submission.

Try to increase your backlinks + wait :)

[longcall911]

Your site is only 6 week old so you can not draw any conclusions. Link age is a major factor. I believe it can take 6 months for a link to count fully. PR has almost nothing to do with position in results pages. Paid links do work, but the house of cards can come crashing down at any time. It is best to build on a quality foundation.

/*tom*/

[domainer_10]

I still can't believe you are asking for a site only 6 weeks old. Do you really believe Google is going to let some guy buy his way to the top in short amount of time. Most sites need 6 months to 3 years(if the keywords are worth really anything)!

[jmac]

Its true that time is very important but so is natural growth. What do you think the search engine would say when it finds a site like that out of the blue? Its all about trust. If this has happened naturally then that's great but too much too quick can hurt you. It happened to me when I got a bunch of links in a matter of a few weeks - bang - traffic dives and so does trust.

I suppose there's an optimum rate for building a site and not become suspicious but few people know it! I would just wait and keep your content fresh and your links building naturally. It will come - particularly if your competitors are not so sharp.

[zingo]

6 week old is nothing to google, try about 6m-1yr or more.