Domain Age Calculation

[scarecrow]

I was branding one of my domains as 8 years old which is currently in auction, it was first regged in 2000, then dropped and then i regged it in 2008, then what will the age of the domain be?

i dont want to make such mistakes again if any1 could clarify?

 

[HBK216]

The majority of people including myself base age on the whois creation date. So if it was dropped, the age is lost. So your name is no longer 8 years old. This rings true for search engines such as Google as well.

 

[Sameh]

Your domain is few months/days old.

Domain Age calculated from the current creation date. Even if it was first registered in 1990


Good Luck :tu:

 

[scarecrow]

thanks for the info....appreciated!
the only problem is i cant change the topic on the auction nor edit it :D

 

[Sameh]

thanks for the info....appreciated!
the only problem is i cant change the topic on the auction nor edit it :D

PM Mod/Staff to edit it.

You can also contact NP Management here

 

[scarecrow]

thanx....i will
but what then is the use of the original creation date?

 

[Sameh]

thanx....i will
but what then is the use of the original creation date?

Almost nothing.

It just indicate that it might be a developed website before and It might have old backlinks. IMO

 

[JoshuaPz]

As a software programmer, I very, VERY strongly doubt Google checks the whois of matching websites' domains in determining how to rank results. If Google DOES rank older domains higher in practice, it's only a side-effect of older domains tending to have more backlinks and usage history than newly registered ones.

I've never really understood this apparent love affair between domainers and those "Record created on ..." lines in whois entries. To date, I have found a much stronger correlation between value/resaleability and INITIAL date the domain was registered than value/resaleability and PREVIOUS date the domain was registered, and this makes sense. The more popular and well-entrenched a concept in popular psyche, the earlier it will probably have been initially registered in the form of a domain name (exceptions include time-specific fads like "JoeThePlummer" and recent tech fads like "Blogs").

THINK for a second: If you're selling to an end-user, wouldn't he/she would probably be more interested in purchasing a domain with, say, tons of usage history since 1999 but dropped in '08 -- as the name probably gets substantial traffic -- than a domain that's been continuously registered since 1996 but has hardly been used at all?

Yes, I would still modify the auction title to read "has history since date XX", because domainers like to define "age" as it's written in that lofty "Record created on..." In my opinion, however, "has history since date XX" presents a much more compelling argument for purchasing a given domain than "aged since XX".

 

[HBK216]

As a software programmer, I very, VERY strongly doubt Google checks the whois of matching websites' domains in determining how to rank results. If Google DOES rank older domains higher in practice, it's only a side-effect of older domains tending to have more backlinks and usage history than newly registered ones.

I've never really understood this apparent love affair between domainers and those "Record created on ..." lines in whois entries. To date, I have found a much stronger correlation between value/resaleability and INITIAL date the domain was registered than value/resaleability and PREVIOUS date the domain was registered, and this makes sense. The more popular and well-entrenched a concept in popular psyche, the earlier it will probably have been initially registered in the form of a domain name (exceptions include time-specific fads like "JoeThePlummer" and recent tech fads like "Blogs").

THINK for a second: If you're selling to an end-user, wouldn't he/she would probably be more interested in purchasing a domain with, say, tons of usage history since 1999 but dropped in '08 -- as the name probably gets substantial traffic -- than a domain that's been continuously registered since 1996 but has hardly been used at all?

Yes, I would still modify the auction title to read "has history since date XX", because domainers like to define "age" as it's written in that lofty "Record created on..." In my opinion, however, "has history since date XX" presents a much more compelling argument for purchasing a given domain than "aged since XX".

It is pretty well known that Google gives higher status to actual aged names that were not dropped as compared to newly registered names. Take an aged name & a newly registered one on the same topic, follow this up by doing the exact same SEO work to it. I guarantee the aged name will outperform the newer one if it was not blacklisted.

 

[JoshuaPz]

I'm sorry -- I just won't believe this until it's proven to me. Please cite me an example of a pair of domains, both of which have the same number of backlinks and degree of SEO, in which one is ranked higher than another because of its whois age. I will give you 1000 NP dollars if you can.

Google spits back search results in milliseconds. Querying whois servers directly from my computer generally takes somewhere between 0.2 and 3 seconds. Are you telling me that every time a user Googles "sex" (which happens, roughly, 200,000 times per day) and Google says there are 660,000,000 results, Google's servers fork off millions of whois queries and aggregate their outputs to help rank those 660M results, all in 0.16 seconds?

Even if you argue Google caches and archives whois data, I still wont believe you. 660M additional database accesses (plus the effort of maintaining and updating the cache) just to weigh a small factor like age into search rankings is total overkill. It makes no sense programmatically or economically.

It is pretty well known that Google gives higher status to actual aged names that were not dropped as compared to newly registered names. Take an aged name & a newly registered one on the same topic, follow this up by doing the exact same SEO work to it. I guarantee the aged name will outperform the newer one if it was not blacklisted.

 

[HBK216]

I could honestly care less if you believe me or not. I especially could care less about your NP dollars as well.

An aged domain has benefits over a fresh registration. If you want to convince yourself otherwise, knock yourself out. I have more legitimate things to occupy my time with.

 

[JoshuaPz]

I'm not asking you to prove me wrong for your own benefit. I posed my challenge because I, and (I imagine) many readers of these thread are curious to know your sources backing up your claim that Google likes aged domains for age alone. Surely the contribution you could potentially make to the NP community would far outweigh the 1000 NP$ I offered.

I could honestly care less if you believe me or not. I especially could care less about your NP dollars as well.

An aged domain has benefits over a fresh registration. If you want to convince yourself otherwise, knock yourself out. I have more legitimate things to occupy my time with.

 

[weblord]

domain age is based on whois registration start
or use tools like this
http://www.webconfs.com/domain-age.php
http://www.seochat.com/seo-tools/domain-age/

 

[HBK216]

I'm not asking you to prove me wrong for your own benefit. I posed my challenge because I, and (I imagine) many readers of these thread are curious to know your sources backing up your claim that Google likes aged domains for age alone. Surely the contribution you could potentially make to the NP community would far outweigh the 1000 NP$ I offered.

Well for starters you should learn to not put words in my mouth. Show me EXACTLY where I said they liked aged domains over new registrations based on just age alone. Oh that's right, you can't do that as I never said that.

Age is not the end all be all of getting good rankings in Google. However it definitely benefits you over a new registration if everything else between the two names were exactly equal. There is a trust factor which comes into play for aged names over newer ones. Oh I forgot that can't be true since you say so regardless of what many others out there across the net have read & noticed themselves through trial & error.

Quite frankly you can take your smug attitude, meaningless NP money, & a potential "contribution" to the community & shove it.

 

[JoshuaPz]

domain age is based on whois registration start
or use tools like this
http://www.webconfs.com/domain-age.php
http://www.seochat.com/seo-tools/domain-age/

Those are reputable sites, though personally I'll still remain skeptical about Google factoring in whois registration start until I hear it directly (or even secondhand) from a Google insider. MCC.com was the third domain ever registered and, even though it points to a parked page, it doesn't even appear on Google's first page of matches for "mcc".

Well for starters you should learn to not put words in my mouth. Show me EXACTLY where I said they liked aged domains over new registrations based on just age alone. Oh that's right, you can't do that as I never said that.

I phrased that very poorly. I meant to say, prove me that age alone is a factor that -- all else being equal -- contributes to a website's higher Google ranking. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

Age is not the end all be all of getting good rankings in Google. However it definitely benefits you over a new registration if everything else between the two names were exactly equal. There is a trust factor which comes into play for aged names over newer ones. Oh I forgot that can't be true since you say so regardless of what many others out there across the net have read & noticed themselves through trial & error.

Again, I'm still curious to see hard sources on this (even if it's logical to believe aged sites are more reputable, hence better matches). If domain age being a factor has become a popular conception, this idea bubble must have formed somewhere.

Quite frankly you can take your smug attitude, meaningless NP money, & a potential "contribution" to the community & shove it.

Relax man. I just want to learn, and learning sometimes requires playing a little devil's advocate.

 

[weblord]

age of the domain is just that's it for me, however getting listed first on google has to be the owner is active in promoting the domain, getting backlinks, active seo campaign, etc. and parking the domain drains out all the traffic and se index to it.

Those are reputable sites, though personally I'll still remain skeptical about Google factoring in whois registration start until I hear it directly (or even secondhand) from a Google insider. MCC.com was the third domain ever registered and, even though it points to a parked page, it doesn't even appear on Google's first page of matches for "mcc".

 

[Dean]

I thought google takes into account how long the website has had indexed pages and not when the actual domain was registered.

 

[eFingerz]

if the do use whois records id assume they are indexed locally
and iv read on a mattcutts post that google does read whois for serp but he just mentioned the checking of the domain owner saying they penalize when you sale / transfer sites / names (when the whois owner changes)

Tho i also know / notice that google does seem to treat brand new domains with fresh sites a little nicer than a older one that you just decided to build!

 

[JoshuaPz]

I thought google takes into account how long the website has had indexed pages and not when the actual domain was registered.

This makes much more sense.

A friend of one of my friends works for Google. I'll try to drop him a line this week as see whether he'd be willing to disclose the answer.

 

[Dean]

This makes much more sense.

A friend of one of my friends works for Google. I'll try to drop him a line this week as see whether he'd be willing to disclose the answer.

Make sure to let us know, if you can