[chillfire]

I have been watching and testing googles results for the last month or so, plus or moinus (had to get married and go on holiday in the middle....).

This pretty much meant posting to a couple of uk authoritive sites, and seeing what happened.... I added a 2 new pages to my site (chillfire.co.uk/geek). Posted some classified adverts, everyday for 2 weeks with the title of every advert including IT & Honest & support, in varying order. And added it to my V7n sig!

Serps: (on 01/Oct/07 15:21 BST)
Google.com
Honest IT support - No 2 / 15,100,000
Honest support - No 1 / 14,800,000

Yahoo.com/msn – no results in top 100

But the older pages are coming up in the searches in msn/yahoo and not in google and these pages have had NO content changes in months (neither has the site really).

msn.co.uk
asp.net development no 2 / 150,800
seo benchmark no 1 / 6,025
small business technology no 5 / 2,134,000

yahoo.co.uk
seo benchmark no 1 / 3,600,000


so...

Heres my killer theory;


Google has moved away from the search engine model that the other search engines use.
It now indexes more frequently the pages it knows about from authoritive sites. (this probably used to be DMOZ etc, I dont think it is anymore, aol ignores DMOZ, so it would make sense that google and theother s will follow suit)

It gives the new fresh content a link 'juice' score based which drops exponentially as time goes by (follows their ‘death date’ meta tag idea), so a ‘new’ page of an authoritive site will get indexed and pushed up the rankings and push down older pages SERPs, if these pages link to new pages they will be 'sucked up' the serps for a short period of time.

Big sites that have lots of ‘fresh’ inbound links and/or internal links will instantly be lifted up the serps but will have to keep adding new pages or updating major pages on their sites super frequently to stay there.

One of my major clients' competitor has been buying links left right and everywhere over the last few months, and they have strenghtned their google rankings, but have slid/stayed staic across the major engines.
They stopped linking a few weeks ago, and now their google rankings are slipping slowly back to what they were. It looks like they will ahve to keep the link freshness up to keep the SERPs.

New and old sites will only get returned in a search if there is a fresh link to that page some where in the index. Old pages with no new links will fall to the bottom.

Meaning its all about link freshness and quality of the linking pages, so crappy paid directories will give you a short term ‘bump’ in the SERPS, but over a long term campaign they will do no good what so ever as once they are indexed and given a some link 'juice' that 'juice' will deteriorate as time goes by, unless the content on the page that has the link is updates (or linked to from another authoritive site)
So if people pay a company to linkbuild, the short term gain could be great but long term could be a waste of money.

My theory does mean that there will no longer be 'index release' and that the google index is 99% fluid (with 1% or more for the authority sites it relies on), site rankings will change on a day to day (or very regular) basis, giving everyone the freshest and google 'best' results (not saying the big G is the best - I dont want to use this thread for which search engine gives best results).

It kinda makes sense, too much sense from what I have seen, but have I missed something?.

cheers for taking the time to read my theory which will probably (if I am right) be wrong by the time google wakes up reads it and changes it daily 'to do list' lol