Google has always been search industry’s innovator and that’s just what Google’s aging delay symbolizes, evolution of search innovation… yet another significant step forward for Google.
Google’s success as a search engine can undeniably be attributed to its ability to consistently return most relevant search engine results. That’s what kept search giant on top of pack and leading multi-billion dollar search industry & that’s what’s going to keep them there!
Now that said, is it any wonder why Google incorporated infamous aging delay into their ranking criterion? The simple truth is, Google’s aging delay is a full frontal assault on artificial link inflation.
With induction of multiple clever off-page reciprocal-linking strategies engineered to artificially inflate link popularity and PageRank, Googles aging delay wasn’t only necessary and long overdue; it was next logical step in evolution of search.
The confusion and misunderstanding of aging delay among site owners is nothing short of amazing. Many of my clients are confounded because their new sites are well positioned in Yahoo, MSN & other large search engines while they’re site is no where to be found in Google’s search engine result’s pages (SERPs)… except for perhaps on most obscure search terms.
Current and unconfirmed speculation has been misplacing blame on Google’s ‘sandbox’ effect. While this is a possibility I believe it’s also highly improbable.
The sandbox holding period is typically anywhere between 90 to 120 days, aging delay appears to be much longer. I’ve seen new sites delayed for up to 6-8 months.
The premise of sandbox delay theory suggests that new sites are being penalized for gaining too many links too fast. To date I haven’t seen a scrap of evidence to support that claim.
The sandbox theory is further disproved by fact that newer sites engaged in procuring relevant links experience same delay in climbing Google's SERPs as other new sites utilizing scores of purchased text links. This lends credibility to my thought that new sites are not being penalized on premise of acquisition or quantity of inbound links and; supports my theory that it’s reciprocated links that are being delayed by an aging filter.
It just doesn’t seem ‘reasonable’ for Google to penalize sites for acquiring legitimate directory listings & building an optimized reciprocal link based network. In my opinion, mainstream SEOs are confusing existing sandbox effect, with Google’s new ‘aging filter’ that arrived on search scene earlier this year.
It seems more likely that Google’s aging filter is weighing ‘maturity’ of inbound links and not new site itself. Meaning that in addition to traditional ranking criterion, age of a sites inbound links are also now considered.
My own theory is that newly acquired inbound links are placed on a ‘probationary’ status until they’ve ‘matured’ before they’re considered. For example, a new and relevant inbound PR 6 link would not be given same weight or consideration as a ‘grandfathered’ PR 6 link until aging delay expired.
By placing newly acquired links on a probationary period and delaying ranking of newer sites Google has effectively offset instant free ride to top of their SERPs. Purchasing volumes of brokered links to that end is now a moot point. After all, your site will still be delayed regardless of amount of links you purchase and you won’t see any return on investment (ROI) for at least 6 - 8 months.
Existing Site owners interested in immediate (ROI) are now strongly motivated to build new pages or expand existing sites in order to avoid Googles lengthy aging delay. With ‘all-the-rage’ mini-network strategy shifting to more of a long-term commitment it seems likely that’s exactly what will happen!
Whether by clever design or not, only alternative to riding out aging delay that produces immediate results in Googles SERPs is to advertise through Google’s AdWords Program. So it seems that Google’s solution vis-à-vis aging delay has turned out to be an excellent vehicle to promote Googles own AdWords Program as well. Hmm…