my question is basically this, "What constitutes fresh content on a page?"

I have a lot of static sites, although I do add pages to the domain, I am concious that each page is static.

If I put an RSS feed on the page, say the sidebar of each page, would this be read as freah content, as it would constantly change.

I also think that the outbound links to a very authoritive site will also help, as currently no outbound links except to affiliate offer.

Any comments welcome.

Thanks as always
Jason

This is just my opinion and don't really know...But I would say "fresh" content would be a new page, whereas what you describe would be an "update".

Is this in regard to Google's "cafeine" update?

A little bit about G cafeine, it does mention newer, fresher content. I have checked a few of my sites in the beta and they have all improved

Not sure if I have read somewhere or it was just my mind playing tricks, but all those static pages I have, especially the home page, and it doesnt change. Thought perhaps it had something to do with the cache of each page??

If its just adding pages then I can relax a little

Thanks
Jason

Hi Jason,

This is pure speculation and guessing on my part.

Google seems to be making a big deal about upgrading their indexing. Back in about 1999, Infoseek was the most popular SE. If you submitted a page to Infoseek, it would include that page in their index instantly.

This was great for SEOers, as you could submit a page, and if it didn't rank well, modify it and submit it again in the hopes that it would raise in rank.

I have a feeling this is what Google is trying to do, at least the instant indexing. And since Infoseek could do it 10 years ago, we do know it's possible.

And logically, if you want the freshest content, then you would want the content in your SERPs as fast as possible.

On the other hand, there's a lot more SE spam today then back then. I have a feeling that Google has a "white list" of well respected sites, and it's these sites that will be able to have instant indexing of new content and updates.

These sites will be sites like newspaper sites, Wikipedia, Discovery.com, and major, well respected blogs.

Again, this is just my "poker read" of the hand Google is holding. And like a poker read, when you put someone on a hand it isn't set in stone. As more info becomes available, a "read" can and should change.

With more info, my "read" of Google could well change. But at the moment, this is the "hand" I'm assuming Google has.

I'm back after a rather long absence from the Web.

I've managed to keep my sites up and running, well most of them anyway.

I did some testing with Google Caffeine the other day and here is what I found.

Some of my sites get hits for the most 'long tail' of long tail keyword phrases.

I did some searches on G. UK, G.com and the 'caffeine' sandbox site, for some really 'out there' search terms, that my sites have been found for, this month.

Search Term no 1

Page 2 G.UK; not in 1st 5 pages G.com; Similar result with Caffeine

No2 Page 2 G.Uk; Page 2 G.com; No where in Caffeine

No3 Page 2 G.uk; nowhere G.com, Page 1 in Caffeine.

Bear in mind that I have done absolutely no 'offsite' promotion for any of these pages, so everything that is 'ranking'(or otherwise) these pages, is completely on-site/on-page. The pages are generated 'on the fly' and have a limited lifespan, but there are massive numbers of them. Last time I checked, one of these sites had 9000 pages listed with Google and I have quite a few of these sites. LOL

There has been some speculation that quality backlinks help pages rank higher in 'Caffeine', than in the regular results. Also massive numbers of low quality backlinks seem to rank pages higher in Caffeine than in the regular results.

These are just some of the snippets of information that I've gathered about Caffeine in the last few days. How valuable the info is, is debatable but if everyone reports on their findings, it might give us all a better 'handle' as to what may be heading our way over the coming months.

Kind regards

Ian