If you had to choose between the two, would it be front list or back list articles? FYI, front list is current day news which tends to be irrelevant a month or so out. Back list is content that is more timeless and can be referenced months even years out. Credit is given to sites that generate content frequently, say 4-5 times per week from search engines. Even if they are front list. Back list, is more valuable in the long run, but it's nearly impossible to create 4 - 5 quality back list articles. Which one is more important for rankings? Traffic?
Both, equally. You need new info for rankings, and you need an archive to keep your readers coming back, in addition to ranking. But why the question??? You have to have both anyway.... Just curious?
Fresh content, if properly set will ping the search engines and optional social sites of choice, upon appearing. This means, fresh indexing, plus the value of content. However the content must be relevant to your site to hold Google value. This is where many blogs fail, in just grabbing any info. If you are using an archive system, make your first static, making sure your keyword concepts for your site are projected first. Using an article section is effective in that it then makes another doorway page of each article's content for visitors. Look at a strong website, you will see some article pages ranked. Do you see archived pages ranked? Using a "blog" style article post is fine, but only post a strong keyword headline, and a snippet of info. This way the new posts do not over power your carefully prepared static post. The info can be found by searching, and your site intention is never marred. Same reason for people with an article section. They post one article per page, and rarely five. Everyone but P, should understand this. So you can do it correct, as it does matter. Your concept is correct, your questions ARE logical. Just maximize the benefit. It is easy to not overly date material. On many websites, a setting can be made to always show the current date.
This is the same answer Perry gave me when I asked him why he had a under-sized hat on top of his over sized cap.
@perry, i believe getting fresh content, having a writer do quick research and post on current market interest rates are easy. but having someone write a comprehensive breakdown of interest rates, how they're priced, and the influential factors takes a much higher quality writer. that said, it's much more costly to have a the latter writer and you have to screen those before you can find them. cost ratio, i'd say the quality back listed writer gets paid 5x more or so. @dyadvisor, does it matter in wordpress whether you create an article page vs. blog page? either way you can control the slug text which gives control over url.com/article-keyword. pardon my ignorance, but both seem pretty static to me and blog articles to rank as well - at least mine have. in general, the article page ranks better because they tend to be of higher importance and therefore garner more internal links. let me know if my thinking is off...
*laughing at parsibagan* OUCH! That hurt! lol You got picked on a lot in school, didn't ya? Kid, don't start pouting in other's threads. I mean, it's funny, but it ruins their threads. I agree, chinesechess, but the things is, what one reader may think is irrelevant, another may think that it is relevant. To keep a site more active, you need both groups, snip its and more in-depth articles.
Again Perry is wrong. A snippet (not snip it), does not mean that a whole article does not exist. It refers to only where the first couple lines and headlines show. The rest of the article is continued... Often the location of the remainder is archived. For even minor skill, the article page is typically going to rank better. If you ran a site on cats, fish, and dogs named P for example, you start confusing Google then if you throw in an article about leash laws the confusion widens. Now if you have a separate page, with an article, "Dogs named P, are hardest to housebreak," clarification occurs. Your word usage shows Google that your intended theme is about Dogs hardest to housebreak. Your secondary point (usually two per article page) is concerned with dogs named p. Which will explain why the dog named p is often held in dislike. This page could gets its own separate Page Rank. Currently 97% of Google readers enter by way of your front page. Google has been at least credited in writing to express a closer view at ranking individual pages within the website. It has its own url (using keywords) and is viewed entirely on its own merit, and not collectively. It is internally linked to the home, not by "continue or click", by the keywords -- more power. Google also tolerates more topic flexibility on article pages. The hottest pages are those showing actual facts, figures, and examples obtained by actual research analysis. This pages often outdraw others, because Google, with Google news, know how easy a rephrase of current events is. Do not take the "fresh content" to mean more than, are you still alive? A RSS feed alone can do that. An edit of one word, will have the same effect. The advantage of a blog is more simple that most realize, it pings the search engine. There are WordPress ways to do this also to an article page. People think blogs rule, because they are pinged more often. That is a fallacy. On my article directory it is set that each new entry of an article pings, search engines, some major blogs, and 32 social networks. Multiply that by over 800 new article entries daily and you see how often spiders are crawling, just not the new ones but the old. While each article may be in any of over 200 categories, the search engine is first focusing on the article creating the ping. Since words, unlike pictures, and video, eat up so little space, is an archive even needed? I see the trend turning, first websites, then blogs, now bog static on top of a couple minor blog post spots below, and a grouping of a child page linking to the grandchild articles. Since the internet 100% of calls were a result of articles, those on the site. Windows, Unix, WP, etc., treating the majority of the main page like an article is correct.
Every time you post, you make a fool out of yourself, which gives me a giggle. It's a "play on words," Fool. lol Ever heard of that term? Probably not, there, wizard. That alone made me laugh so hard, I almost dropped my drink. Amazing...you still continue to be in your oooooooown little world, seeing things that only you want to see. Ya don't mind of I use more than one "o" on the word "own," do ya, fool? As for the rest of your ramblings...again, just about all of it is comical BS. (The "97%" was funnier than Jeff Foxworthy's lines.) And, much of it has nothing to do with the subject anyway. lol Hell, some of it doesn't even make sense! ... As usual. Are you off your meds again? Your ramblings can pretty much be flushed down the toilet, with last night's dinner. "Front page"??? lol Ok, wizard.
Do you know if Google has qualifiers to check whether this is a research article - either by way of tables, keywords like (research, stats, etc.), numbers ,etc? These reference-type content is highly valuable and highly time consuming, perhaps you can get the impression that it is similar to a research article. This sounds like a really good way to get exposure for your articles. Do you mind sharing?