Dating Blog Posts & How Fast Google Picks up on New Pages

[ben1000]

I had until a few months ago included the original post date of a new blog post on the site. I then removed it and none of my results in Google now include the blog post date, although for some (for articles written about events) Google includes the date of the event where you would usually see the post date. Since I did this, it seems like new blog posts are taking longer to rank on Google, some results are ranking well, and others declined relative to what I would have previously expected.

What's the best thing to be doing? To include a date (considering a lot of my content is not time-relevant) or to keep it as it is now?

The second thing, is I often go through and update my articles with new information and re-post it in my rss feed etc - ie the date becomes new again. How does Google treat this?

Any ideas or comments would be great!

Thanks

[RyanKent]

Dating Blog Posts & How Fast Google Picks up on New Pages

This Q&A post shows as 4 hours old and it is already in Google search results: goo.gl/QHjXb. Google has the ability to pick up new pages in minutes for sites they deem important.

With respect to dates on articles, there are many attempts at manipulation and Google is pretty darn good at detecting them. Some examples:

• sites which offer a date on their home page or articles that always updates to the current date

• sites which recycle old articles by updating the date, or republish older articles with a new date

• sites which do not offer any date for articles in an attempt to hide the age of the information

In brief, I would recommend including the date on all published information. The date provides a critical perspective on information. An example: when I was in school I learned there was 9 planets in our solar system. If I write that "fact" down, the date of the information is important. It seems Pluto has been demoted and there are now only 8 planets in our solar system.

Google looks at some keywords as being more time sensitive and the results of searches are affected by the dates involved.

[ben1000]

Thanks. It's kind of weird what's happening because my category pages are showing up with the new content faster than the actual article.

I'm not 'manipulating' the date - I'm just not including it. The issue with 'recycling old articles' is that I am updating articles regularly with new information - to add a new article isn't good for the site because it's 90% repetition. Then, when I update them, I re-post them because what's new is important for readers, followers etc, to see. What do you think?

Thanks

[RyanKent]

I don't care for the manner in which the articles are being recycled. If the articles are 90% the same and you are just adding a snippet of new info, there is no reason to re-post them at all.

Unless you are posting fresh, new articles then it makes sense that a category page would be crawled faster if your site's navigation is structured with a drill-down style where you click on a category from the home page, then the article.

[ben1000]

I'll give you an example and you'll understand what I mean

For instance - I have articles about events which take place every year. Obviously each year there are new details, new elements, new performers etc and the article is totally relevant for the homepage and for the feeds etc again.

I have just been updating and re-posting the pages for the new year (to stop having duplicate pages on the site...)

[RyanKent]

If it was my site, there would likely be a new article each year.

4th of July Celebration!

When: July 4th, 2012

Where: Central Park, NY

Performing Artists will be: Pink, Fleetwood Mac, ....

Tickets are $20

[Insert as many relevant details about the event as possible such as: where to park, how much parking will cost, the time it starts / ends, ?jobs, ?handicap accessibility, etc]

The past year pages would likely 301 redirect to the current year's page. If you felt the need to keep the pages from prior years, then they could possibly canonical to the current year.

[ben1000]

Mm yeah maybe with a link at the top of old ones to say - this applies to 2011, see here for 4th of July 2012?

Then I'd end up with lots of pages with similar competing titles?

It is a difficult one, no?

[RyanKent]

How likely is it for users to desire to see the pages on past years?

If not at all, then remove the old pages from your site. Issue solved.

If you feel users may still want to see the old pages, you can canonicalize them to the new page. Google will then not view the old pages as duplicate content.

[ben1000]

It is unlikely but for some things possible especially when people are planning trips far in advance (before the info on this years events is available which can sometimes only be a few weeks in advance).

You mean basically copy the content, update it, and put in a redirect?

Thanks