homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.91.250
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics Forum

  posting off  
what is the site match editorial process?
simondev2




msg:28100
 5:20 am on Mar 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

I submitted 2 sites on the same day to sitematch and one of them was spidered after a week. The 2nd one still has the "pending" checkmark. It's been 2 weeks now and in the meanwhile I submitted a 3rd site. After sending overture an email to ask what is going on, they replied a few days later saying that a human editor completed the cycle for my sites - however they went ahead and spidered the 3rd site not the 2nd one!

Does anyone know exactly what the editorial process involves?

Do they look for "over opimization"? and can/will you be penalized?

Any tricks/tips to speed up the process?

It just doesn't seem very efficient to me.

Thanks

 

panic




msg:28101
 7:39 pm on Mar 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Do they look for "over opimization"? and can/will you be penalized?

Keyword stuffing, cloaking, redirecting, etc is grounds for an editorial action.

Considering you mentioned "over optimization", it's probably an issue with either keyword stuffing or the use of a doorway page.

And yes... they will penalize you if they find that you're breaking their TOS [help.yahoo.com].

Any tricks/tips to speed up the process?

Don't spam and the process should go fairly quickly.

It just doesn't seem very efficient to me.

It is. It keeps the index (fairly) spam-free. If having a clean index isn't efficient, I don't know what is.

Chndru




msg:28102
 12:58 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

>> It keeps the index (fairly) spam-free.
Does DMOZ sounds a ring?

simondev2




msg:28103
 2:44 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

the keyword density is at about 15% - is that considered keyword stuffing?

The thing that I would like to see is more feedback from the editors. All I see is the "pending" icon next to the URL but there really isn't any particular way to know what is wrong with the pages. On the old inktomi, if you had an error, you could see the line numbers that caused the errors.

panic




msg:28104
 4:44 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Does DMOZ sounds a ring?

Actually, it doesn't.

the keyword density is at about 15% - is that considered keyword stuffing?

The keyword density is irrelevant. If there's excessive use of a keyword for the sole purpose of optimization, that's keyword stuffing.

If you've just got a ton of keywords in one document, that's also keyword stuffing.

On the old inktomi, if you had an error, you could see the line numbers that caused the errors.

It showed HTTP error codes. Why would it show an HTTP error code when it has absolutely nothing to do with the retrieval of data via HTTP?

channel1




msg:28105
 2:45 pm on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yes, there is basically no feedback once your site has gone through editorial..

Might be an idea to have a Section in the Forum just for Site Match as there seem to be various threads addressing it in some way in various sections of the forum...

panic




msg:28106
 4:16 pm on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yes, there is basically no feedback once your site has gone through editorial..

Yes there is. Wether this "feedback" is accessable by the end user or not is a completely different story.

simondev3




msg:28107
 8:00 pm on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

How is it "feedback" if it doesn't get back to the user? I have a bunch of sites on sitematch and some sit in "pending" status for weeks others go right through. I've emailed overture a few times about it and they don't really have a solid response. In terms of editorial feedback, haven't gotten any recomnmendations/suggestions or anything either. No more personal interaction than inktomi, just slower.

channel1




msg:28108
 1:28 pm on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

"How is it "feedback" if it doesn't get back to the user?"

Exactly!

If the pages are manually being reviewed there must be a record of why sites are being rejected for internal records at PT or OV.

From Overtures point of view though..I guess that by not clarifying why sites are not being included fuels the "grey area" in terms of what is and is not acceptable in terms of SEO strategy .

panic




msg:28109
 4:30 pm on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

How is it "feedback" if it doesn't get back to the user?

It's not feedback, hence, the reason I put it in quotation marks. It's an editorial action, period.

In terms of editorial feedback, haven't gotten any recomnmendations/suggestions or anything either.

This particular division of Overture isn't a consulting firm. If reccomendations/suggestions is what you're looking for, there are plenty of search engine marketing firms that will do consulting for you.

No more personal interaction than inktomi, just slower.

Speak for yourself, buddy.

If the pages are manually being reviewed there must be a record of why sites are being rejected for internal records at PT or OV.

That's a given.

From Overtures point of view though..I guess that by not clarifying why sites are not being included fuels the "grey area" in terms of what is and is not acceptable in terms of SEO strategy.

Again, that's a given. If someone needs others to tell them that the keyword stuffing on their page is going to hurt them, or that having doorway pages is going to hurt them terribly in the long run, they probably should be more concerned with learning the fundamentals of search engine optimization.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved