No,
not in isolation.
A
domain decade in which Google knows nothing is the same as a new domain.
A
10-year website, which is cited year after year repeatedly, shares in other
more authorized websites and reliable? This is precious.
But
this is not the age of your website address on
your own in the game as a staging factor.
A
field created by a year of websites
authority is so valuable when no more worth than a field of ten years without
links and without historical research.
Perhaps
the age of the investment can come into play when other factors are taken into account, but I think Google works at
all levels very similarly, with all ranking factors and all the classification
terms.
I
do not think it is possible to "classify factors" without checking
"conditions for classification."
Other classification
factors:
1. Age of the field; (NOT YOUR OWN)
2.
Time of domain
registration;
(I do not see much profit in IT "Also, to know" Valid domains are
often paid for several years in advance, while the input fields (illegitimate)
are rarely used for more than a year.D others that he does not want anyone else
The domain, it is not an indication that it will do something that Google
worries).
3.
Domain
registration information has been hidden / anonymous; (Perhaps, as human
criticism, if the conditions look like a spam site)
4.
Field
of the top-level location (geographical focus, for example, compared to
compared to .uk); (YES)
5.
Top-level
domain of the site (for example .com .info against); (From)
6.
Domain
secondary or root? (From)
7.
Previous
domain registrations (IP rate); (From)
8.
Previous
domain owner (the frequency at which the owner has changed) (a)
9.
Keywords
in the field; (FINALLY - EXCEPTION EXCEPTION KEY PART - although Google is much
quiet filtering performance an exact match of domains in 2016))
10.
Area
of the IP; (HÄNGT
- usually not)
11.
IP
domain neighbors; (HÄNGT - usually not)
12.
External domain names (not related) (I have no idea, in 2016)
13.
Location
targeting settings in Google Webmaster Tools (YES - of course)
No comments:
Post a Comment