Surely Google determines "fresh, relevant" content according to whatever has recently been published, which this doesn't change. If anything, doesn't Google consider sites with a long history of content with tons of inbound links as more authoritative and therefore higher-ranked?
This baffles me. It baffles me why this would be successful SEO -- and assuming that it actually isn't, it baffles me why CNET thinks it would be.
Surely Google determines "fresh, relevant" content according to whatever has recently been published, which this doesn't change. If anything, doesn't Google consider sites with a long history of content with tons of inbound links as more authoritative and therefore higher-ranked?
This baffles me. It baffles me why this would be successful SEO -- and assuming that it actually isn't, it baffles me why CNET thinks it would be.