You need to have an active website i.e you can either create content on regular basis or you can get new links every single week from new websites.

This will help to improve overall rankings of your website.

I hear what you are saying about the content [I do get regular links], but what is the logic behind it? If an article on, say, wikipedia hasn't been updated for ages... because all that is to be said has been said, will it then rank worse? It doesn't make sense, so I'm not very convinced.

Do have any links to relevant discussions on this topic?

if you're going to read a book on SEO, would you rather read a new one or one that was written five years ago. chances are you want the new one.
that's how the search engines look at it. your page would have to pretty good with tons of links to keep on top without any updates.

if you're going to read a book on SEO, would you rather read a new one or one that was written five years ago. chances are you want the new one.

ok, this sound quite convincing.

I'm thinking of doing just small changes, like adding/removing a link here or there, perhaps adding/removing a short paragraph on the outskirts of the page... basically doing small changes to "secondary" content, while leaving the main stuff unchanged, as I'm very happy with it.

Does this sound like a good idea, or do I need to make bigger changes?

I'm not certain about the "new book" ranking concept: I've got quite a number of pages that rank high for seasonally competitive terms which were written (and last updated) in 2005 with few inbound links. In fact, they outrank freshly made content from much larger sites.

There's something to be said about fresh content--not in that it's good for rankings for a particular document but rather that more of it will increase a site's topical relevance and reach.

I've got quite a number of pages that rank high for seasonally competitive terms which were written (and last updated) in 2005 with few inbound links. In fact, they outrank freshly made content from much larger sites.

what is your explanation for those pages to do so well?

couple of reasons:

1. the content is well written and there's lots of it
2. the site is authoritative in it's top level topic

the combination of the two create a synergy that's tough to attain/beat.

how is being authorative measured?

I don't know that there's a way to measure authority but when you notice that new content you publish on your site is indexed and well ranked within hours you know you've build a good site.

Going back to the fresh content issue... if 2 sites (pages) have same amount of incoming links (at the same rate, with same anchor text distribution and with same amount and quality of in-content links), are the same age, same PR, both have good content and both sites have done their on-site seo homework - am I then to expect "fresh content" to have zero impact on the ranking for these two competitors?

Though opinions, such as "yes I think so" or "Certainly not, are you bonkers?", are appreciated, links to relevant discussions would be even better. I've been searching around a bit and can't find much more than... just guesswork and opinions that amount to not much more than guesswork. Do you know if someone has done a test - fresh vs non-fresh?

majjk, here's a twist for you: [webmasterworld.com...]

thanks for the link... very useful.

Google always likes fresh and quality content in the website. We have to update the site regularly. Getting quality backlink to the site will also helps. There should be a regular activity in the site like adding content to site or getting more quality backlinks etc.