• http://www.brickmarketing.com/ Nick Stamoulis

    Older domains have that age factor in their back pocket, which is always nice to have. But old sites with poor usability aren’t going to be able to rely on that age factor alone. In my opinion, sites should be updated every few years to keep themselves relevant.

  • http://seohour.com/ Akash KB

    Providing better user experience with latest techniques is important. Somebody has rightly said – Trend is your friend !

  • http://jameshalloran.net/ James R. Halloran

    It’s all about the user experience now. Your site’s design might’ve been a good design in 2005, but the user experience has changed to include new expectations of a good site.

    A clean layout with clear directives to help the user find the information they’re looking for within 3 or 4 clicks is the goal now.

  • http://www.neverpaintagain.co.uk/ NPA Home Improvements

    For once I agree with this move! There are probably millions of abandoned sites out there, ones people have forgotten about but for some reason they are still there. He’s right, if you want to get ahead online nowadays, you at least have to make an effort and get up to date and provide a good user experience!.

    A really old site, no updates at all for 7 years, and of NO VALUE to anyone, then why not de index it? There would of course be exceptions to the rule but i wonder how google will handle that?

  • mike

    Sure are a lot yes men on this site, who agree with everything. Simple fact is , if these site are still ranking it has little or nothing to do with usability or looks . Neither of what Matt says is currently a factor in ranking …unless there is a new algorithm. As far as I know there is no metric of good looking or newer technolgy ranks better. The freshness update was a bit of a joke. So Cutlets ( Matt wannabees ) nice mimicing

  • Oleg

    I have noticed that Matt didn’t say anything about links)

  • MIchael de Valois

    On the surface what Matt says in this video makes sense. However it is completely meaningless unless he tells us exactly how he or Google define “user experience”.
    I quote Matt saying in another video that “Craigslist is a great site; but, their user experience is not great”.
    Really? I thought that user experience is what makes a site great. Is he talking about eye catching design or elaborate layouts? Then he should call it that and stop talking about user experience when what he means is trendy design and layout.
    In some sites trendy or fresh designs definitely add to the user experience. However in many other sites – usually older sites with a good streamlined structure and layout that works and has worked for years – it is totally irrelevant, if not detrimental to the user experience.

    I get the feeling that Google’s standards of what constitutes a “good user experience” may be getting a little fuzzy and superficial. We’ll just have to see. Google has done strange things in the past but in the end they usually end up doing the right thing. I just hope it doesn’t take too long this time!

  • Gareth Mailer

    I wonder if this is a “kind of” response to the private networks post by ViperChill?

  • http://www.freightlink.co.uk/ Stewart.T

    I agree. Cutts is under pressure to deliver quality search results and one of his tactics is to scare monger. Just as the algorithm cannot differentiate a legit review online from a fake one; despite Matt Cutts claiming it could.

  • Mark

    Perhaps what he was expressing was his disappointment that Craigslist wasn’t pouring money into AdWord$, which is the only thing Google really cares about.

  • http://www.petitesannonces.be/ Peters Frederic

    MC is a liar. I will show you in 6 months such websites still have millions of pages idnexed in very good position.