Domain Registered in 1996 - Does it help?

I think I would be more comfortable trying to rank an older name than knowing what I'm up against with a newer one....

 

Right, and I know what I have seen in the past few years. I am very surprised by some of the bad advice that has been given out in this thread. By so-called experts which makes it even worse.

 

I fail to see the reasoning behind thinking google should give preferance to an older domain registration, over a newer one? If Joe has been sitting on a domain name for 5 years, it doesn't make it a better site when Sally purchases it. Domain name does have some relevance to serps, so it's true that the better names are more likely to have already been registered.

I have a 5 year old domain "aboutwidgets.com" that escaped the sandbox (because google grandfathers domains without ownership change), but I also newly registered "allaboutwidgets.info" - which was sandboxed - and 6 months later, the new domain out-ranks the 5 year old so-called "better .com name". I believe this is solely due to content- which while unique in content and visual presentation, isn't that much different.

There is certainly benefit to older domains that have been used, because it is bound of have picked up some links. Buying an older domain with backlinks also has benefit, as even though it may be sandboxed for 3 or so months, those links will count after that.

 

NO, I believe that there are many aspects here that have been missed. And the main aspect would be the history of your domain name. All I have seen here were generalizations and assumptions of understanding what Google is doing and that was ludicrous. But I have seen that domain names that have been indexed with a good history, keep continuing to do well, while others that have been in hot waters before, seem to be treated as a brandnew domain name and sometimes worse.

That was the reason behind my first post in this thread, go on archive.org to get an overall idea of what has been going on in the past with that domain.

 

The person who started the thread clearly stated the domain had never been used, wasn't indexed, and doesn't even resolve to an address.

 

Exactly, what the poster said was:

"Some details:
Domain name that has been registered by the same owner since 1996
Never had an active site except for a few months of being parked in 2004
Currently doesn't resolve to an active site.

Would starting a site with this domain name give me an advantage over a name I registered in 2004?"

A direct answer is no. You can make up all kinds of exceptions, but the answer to him/her is no. Just old age makes no difference. There has to be some substance behind the history of an older site. Being parked might defeat the sandbox but little else.

 

OK, then here is my follow-up question:

A lot of domain names had a certain type of content and been indexed for years. Not only do new pages start out stronger than on other domain names, but also the subdomain names do. If there are no incoming backlinks to those subdomain names other than a few new ones, why is that?

 

Once again you are searching for exceptions. It sounds like in this case the domain was registered and just sat since 1996. In case you missed it... There is nothing there... there is only a name. The answer remains to be: no it will not help you in this instance.

 

Right, got it ... but you guys have mentioned backlinks being the reason for old domains to rank. And I know for a fact that brandnew subdomain names on established domains do rank well and high with few new BLs. Those never had IBLs before. They are brandnew sites if you will, but since they are built on a long time established domain name, they get preferential treatment due to the domain name.

 

A site with no backlinks doesn't get indexed by google. I hope you know that google doesn't show all backlinks, and just because google says there aren't any, there are. I'll bet if you show an indexed example - not a hypothetical, I can find a backlink. What is the purpose of a subdomain if the main site doesn't even point to it? Are you saying the main site doesn't even point to the sub-domain? That's a backlink.

I guess you would have to define "start off stronger" - without any backlinks - but again, google grandfathers older sites that don't have an ownership change- so old & new links will count faster. There is the main varible of content. You might think a subdomain is doing better, but how can you say it isn't the content? If it's identical, then the newer site is probably getting a penalty for duplicate content.

Giving an example of a site with no backlinks - and talking about the sandbox - isn't relevant. The sandbox is all about backlinks.

 

That's your answer.

 

I am saying: building a subdomain on a domain that has been indexed for years. e.g.: build a submdomain such as http://sitetutor.digitalpoint.com and you will have a major advantage right away because of the weight of digitalpoint.com

Even though the url would be new and never have had any old IBLs pointing to it.

 

You also are grasping at straws. Google goes by when it indexes, not when a site is registered. If a site sits for X years with zero activity... Google does not not know it even exists until its first Gbot crawl. No crawl = it does not exist. This, even if it was registered in 1996.

 

You don't register a sub-domain, do you? So there would be no ownership change.

 

ok, so change of ownership is the key here?
Sorry, but I am getting conflicting answers: I've pointed out EGOL's post stating that ownership has nothing to do with it and SEO_AM suddenly agrees.
Then it all becomes about backlinks.

Now after my last post regarding no old backlinks being the case for brandnew subdomain names it's all back about ownership.

So which is it?

 

Google does not apply the sandbox to established sites.

Google does not apply the sandbox to older domain names PROVIDED there is no change in ownership.

A sub-domain is part of the main site, which in the case of digitalpoint, is established and has a high PR. While google considers a sub-domain a separate site, there is no ownership change to trigger the sandbox filer. Any link to the new sub-domain escapes the sandbox- thus allowing it to get immediate benefit of any link pointing to it. In the case of digitalpoint, it will be passing high PR to the sub-domain with every link.

So sub-domains escape the sandbox penalty- which a new site would likely get. You get at least a three month jump on a new, sandboxed site. You also immediately pass PR from the main site with any link - so in theory, it should rank better because of this.

The thread started off about a domain name only that was going to change ownership. There is no benefit, SERP wise, to buying an older domain name only- unless the name itself would provide a serp advantage (which has nothing to do with the name being old or new) because google has gotten wise to people buying old domains, expiring domains, etc. Reading the google patent information sheds some light on this- although it doesn't get into weight of various methods.

 

You are bringing subdomains into it. Go back to the posters original post and answer his question... not all the "but what if" smoke that has been blown at the question.

He wants to know if a site that has been registered in 1996 that has had ZERO acitivity, thereby never indexed by Google, is more valuable than a site registered today. The answer remains to be: no it has no greater value just because it was registered earlier. If the 1996 site and 2005 site are indexed on the same day for the first time by Google, as far as Google is concerned they were both born on the same day.

I guess I should go back over to SEO Chat and leave you guys alone.

 

Sorry that I don't agree with you, seo_am but your first post

was wrong. Reread your posts afterwards and see the contradictions. maybe you should go back to seochat where people will agree with you no matter what.

But if you cannot clarify your own contradictions, then you obviously don't have anything more to add in here other than "Yes I agree with EGOL, and I am a moderator there as well" sort of answers.

Have a nice day!

 

Here is what we know from experience:

If a site has been up and running since 1999 and has not expired then you will get a lot of extra benefits.

If the site expires Google resets the domain including the backlinks.:

If it's just a domain and no site on the domain, then there is no benefit. Google records the first time in was indexed and uses that date.

As far as subdomains I know about six months back if you added a sub it was not held back and could show up in the SERPS depending on your site. I'm not sure if this has changed in the last few months or not.

 

I know how it has started out. And I also know what I have been experiencing. And I am not sure if a domain name that has never been used will be held higher or not. I believe it might be but am not sure.

One thing I cannot do is rely on answers other than from people who I trust tell me something they actually know about, but not all of them know everything that I'd like to. pretending to know something and then generalizing is hogwash.

Mike