So I have always heard that the one thing you can not affect in SEO is time. So a site that is 7 months old will have a very hard time out ranking for a competitive term against a site that is 6 years old. So my theory is that age may matter but only a tad bit (matt cutts has never spoken on the youtube blog about this so somebody should ask). Link building should be a slow and steady process and an aged website has had time to build and age their links where a new site can catch up but building a lot of quality links takes time and thus that may be why age is seen as a factor and if a new site got all those links right away they may be penalized. thoughts?
Age can be pretty important, but building quality links can over-throw the "AGE" factor. I don't think age matters as much as people think, you just need to have enough links.
I think age matters a lot. Well thats my thought since I've seen sites with lower pr and a little less optimized for a keyword that outrank those which are optimized solely for that reason.
I don't think age is a major factor in determining rankings. Age is an important factor in how aggressive you can build backlinks without being flagged by the SE as a link spammer.
Natural link building is always best, google does know how many links you gain in a period - if its too many to be natural your url is flagged for artificial backlinking.
Hi coopersPick, Actually he has: http://www.youtube.com/user/GoogleWebmasterHelp#p/u/222/Y1_1NQWQJ2Q Hope that helps. Shawn
There are certain limitations, Google likes a site .. in fact loves a site when the site provides Google with one in-link everyday. Maybe its called machine faith, but yes age does matter when competition is considered. Patience is the key to achievement.
I have ranked websites on the first page within the first week or two of starting it up. I agree with Belgian with what he said. With an aged domain there is less chance of being flagged by google but i believe there is essentially no effect.