Importance of Fresh Links

John Scott · Share | #1 (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 06:35 PM

I see a lot of older sites with awesome linkage dropping in the SERPs, and I think it it has to do with fresh links. Of my own sites, I see older sites drop in the SERPs if they don't regularly get new, fresh links.

Thoughts?

BluePoint · #2 (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 07:03 PM

Building links should be a constant process. Of course, if you stop building links for an x amount of time and your competitors keep building links, certainly they will eventually catch up.

Fresh links are usually always good, unless your link building is all about PR.

Kasparoff · #3 (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 07:54 PM

Yes, that's a good question. I think fresh links should be added on a regular basis. This is just a matter of doing online business. Once you stop spending $$$ on it, your website, no matter now cool and prominenet, will start falling.

Webfu · #4 (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 07:55 PM

In my opinion websites that aren't building new links are forgotten sites. A website that is getting new fresh links of course is one that a person is working on, keeping it updated with fresh content and currently working on. In the SE's eyes ~ a worthy website and something that the consumer/browser should check out because its updated.

webexpertz · #5 (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 08:43 PM

Theme base link building plus content update will never ranks you fall down.

Lastly Its SE there always a natural shift is rankings after some time ...so we have to keep eye on these things....

Richie_Ni · #6 (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluePoint

Building links should be a constant process. Of course, if you stop building links for an x amount of time and your competitors keep building links, certainly they will eventually catch up.
PR.

Agreed,some point at this side.

spyrochan023 · #7 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 09:17 AM

I also agree with that.

Rankenstein · #8 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 09:44 AM

I'd go 100% with that. We're seeing it on our site. I've already got three days of next week planned for doing link-related stuff.

JuggoPop · #9 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 09:52 AM

John - interesting thought.

BILZ · #10 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 12:02 PM

Hard to say for sure - most of my sites aren't very old. I would argue that fresh links are valuable to let the SE know that the site is still "current" and that the content is not out-dated. So, it makes some sense that fresh links would be a benefit.

BingoBalls · #11 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 12:14 PM

Interesting thought and I wonder if its a factor why one of my old sites went stale.

Any thoughts on how often a fresh link or two should be added a week, a month or even a quarter? Or would be one of those things that really needs to be tested on site-site basis?

WagerX · #12 (**permalink**) 08-13-2006, 10:01 PM

Probably not only new links are important, but link acceleration as well ( speculation on my part).

When I first started on WagerX.com<< I had 100-300 new links per month.. varying quality.. this got me high on MSN on my targetted keywords, and three months later I could see results on G.

After three months I stopped spending so much on links.. so my "new" links started dropping.. 6 months later my site is getting about the same as my other similair site with few stale links from 6 months ago..

I think in my case I can't stop getting new links.. Funny thing is, I'll get more incomming links spending my marketting budget on creating content, and "linkable" pages.. than buying links.. That's going to be my medium to long term strategy.. lets see if it works..

One frusterating thing is seeing so much spam on google.. undermines my time and effort..

etech-racheal · #13 (**permalink**) 08-14-2006, 01:00 AM

According to me, link building is an ongoing process. So try to get more new links. Link building helps in getting high PR. Develop new links.

bobking · #14 (**permalink**) 08-14-2006, 06:49 AM

>Disclaimer<
Remember what free advice is worth ok? If you do something based on something I say and it doesn't work, I accept no liability, BUT, if I say something and you believe it helped you, I'll gladly accept as much credit as you care to give.
*********************

The fresh links don't have to cost you anything or be from outside sources. If you simply add new, (could be called revised), content with new links to other pages within your own domain, that works as well.

My point is simply that link building and link acceleration doesn't have to be what conventional wisdom would deem it.

Bjorn Solstad · #15 (**permalink**) 08-14-2006, 03:14 PM

I sertainly agree John. You have to have a constant flow of IBL's to keep the ranking. Frequency is a harder question to have a qualified opinion about though.

Buskerdoo · #16 (**permalink**) 08-14-2006, 06:49 PM

Totally depends on how competive the keyword is and maybe the strength of the existing links.

I have a client site with a moderate competitve set of kw's that require very few links on an on-going basis because the initial campaign, over one year ago, was so "overpowering" to the competition. But, whenever the compeition gets ahead, we fire a few links back at the page needing links.

I have another client site that requires a continuos "drip" of links and occasionally a bunch of links if the other guys seo gets busy

So, I basically agree.

Buskerdoo · #17 (**permalink**) 08-14-2006, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobking

> If you simply add new, (could be called revised), content with new links to other pages within your own domain, that works as well.

My experience says both yes and no to this based on the kw you are going after. I've had sites that we added page after page on a consistent basis and have still seen rank erosion.

drewtown · #18 (**permalink**) 08-14-2006, 11:06 PM

When my metal(music) forum reached 3 in the SERP I used metal music directories at first for links and after that basically no links were pointed towards my site excpet maybe 1 a week but still maintained a great SERP. So I don't know how important it really is, just giving my experience.

Big Bill · #19 (**permalink**) 08-15-2006, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

I see a lot of older sites with awesome linkage dropping in the SERPs, and I think it it has to do with fresh links. Of my own sites, I see older sites drop in the SERPs if they don't regularly get new, fresh links.

Thoughts?

I'd like to believe this was true but so far I only ever heard of you that's seen this. An obvious problem with the Google algo is that if you were there years ago with good linkage you'll likely be there in years to come because Google respects old links. If this is changing, though I'd like to hear about it. Actually I don't as if it's true I'll have to do a lot of rewriting on my site!

BB

EricBlackwell · #20 (**permalink**) 08-15-2006, 10:49 AM

John;

I actually found an OLD page that my wife did 6-7 years ago. It was an ISP hosted site and the ISP was bought out. It has sat -UNTOUCHED- with great linkage to it over the course of time...

Still has PR4.
Still in the top Ten for relatively non competitive KW.

Oh yeah...the Title tags is (untitled).

Not sure that the theory about old links holds...maybe G! is just starting to let some younger links have relatively more weight and that is reducing the strength o' the old ones...

Just a thought

Eric