homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 267 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 267 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 > >     
Google Wins Yahoo
The guessing is over -- Yahoo stays with Google and debuts new look.

 9:29 pm on Oct 9, 2002 (gmt 0)

Just announced that Yahoo has renewed with Google, and this also explains the major changes that some people have seen at Yahoo this week. This thread covers that:

Also posted a story at my site -- if a moderator wants to do a direct link, pretty easy to spot.



 12:09 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

I just submited a site this morning.
Time for a chargeback

AAAHHH...finally, the most intelligent method I ever heard of for getting listed on Yahoo. Since their listings are so bad and never updated, just submit to them, use credit card, do a chargeback, do you really think the person at billing will remember to tell the directory guy to pull it out? No way, you're in you're in for good...

I love it!

PS The reason I have this attitude to yahoo is I once paid their expen$ive fee and didn't get in and the guy was really rude about it. Although I now understand that the site I submitted wasn't that user friendly when I submitted it, as a small non-profit site it's a lot of money to spend to not get in and then be treated rudely by the guy as he rejects you. (It wasn't spam site or anything bad, just poorly designed).


 12:12 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Google has its own (ODP)directory

So when does Google replace ODP with Yahoo? I never thought that'd happen, now I'm not sure.


 12:12 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Has anyone stopped to consider that this might only be the first half of the deal? Yahoo doesn't end up looking so stupid if Google replaces ODP category matches with Yahoo categories.


 12:13 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Apparently Tom has considered it. :)


 12:13 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Well the quality of the search results is way better - so it's a plus for the consumer, Google would have to repeat their poor quality update 20 times before the results were as bad as Yahoo's were.

Having said that - a monopoly is never a good thing - it's like we just got kicked in the stomach by the last update & now this is like a kick in the head while your down.

I can't imagine why Yahoo would do that - it won't improve Yahoo's number of visitors much, Yahoo is a brand name & people use it because they always have. What they will lose is the $299 directory fees. Given that they make over $1million a week on that little operation - they could see a huge drop in revenues.

Congrats to Google though - they deserve all the success that comes their way - gotta hand it to them.

Well in the last week I have had loads & loads of non-relevant visitors from google - seems like our site is good for any search except for searches that relate to what we are about - so I guess it's going to be mirrored by Yahoo searches now. Had a real good position in Yahoo - oh well. Of course it'll be great when we get our position in Google back from the abyss.


 12:14 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Thought about it and I'm hoping that's the case. :) I loathe monopolies of any sort...


 12:15 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

"AAHHH...finally, the most intelligent method I ever heard of for getting listed on Yahoo. Since their listings are so bad and never updated, just submit to them, use credit card, do a chargeback, do you really think the person at billing will remember to tell the directory guy to pull it out? No way, you're in you're in for good..."

Yeah...a webmaster friend submitted 2 sites to Yahoo in February and was denied a listing. He did a chargeback on the credit card and Yahoo has not challanged to this date. They probably don't even know which site the charge originated from.


 12:15 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>> You will still be a winner if the keywords trigger the Yahoo! directory.<<<

NoCarrier - Not completely true. I have a fairly new site that was #1 in Y! for my search term...had all the search phrase in the title. Now it does not exist. When Google updates this month it will. So why do I need to pay? I don't.


 12:15 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Three things. Firstly, Google pretty much accepts any site into their directory for the $299. It either has to be a repeat or something really, really bad for them to reject it. Secondly, web searches are lazy. Most will not bother clicking on the "Directory Sites" link when they come to search. They will go straight for the first results that are presented to them. So, in that respect, it is bad news for the people who have spent a fortune at Google getting good directory listing placements as they were displayed first with Old Yahoo!

Thirdly - I'm glad they went with Google - but I would of been equally pleased with Fast or even the new Wisenut index which is shaping up nicely. After all, it's important to have some real COMPETITION in any business.....

Visit Thailand

 12:16 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

An interesting turn around for the books. It will be interesting to see how this affects the site logs. We had just managed to get one site into 10 pos 1st page (yahoo) for a one word term that would have resulted in 54,000,000 results in Google !

I wonder how this may affect Google, as now people do not need to go to Google they can check their emails through Yahoo and get a valid and accurate search from Yahoo now.


 12:22 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Do you think that InktomiGuy and GoInkGo are amongst the 20% layoffs? That might account for their absence from the forums these days. :)



 12:25 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

>Given that they make over $1million a week on that little operation

Is that correct? So, it is about 5% of last quarter revenues, not bad.

If they get the Google directory, that would be huge for them and they would definetely increase the number of people that pay $299.


 12:32 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

crobb305 wow, I wish I had done that!

Google charges 299 for their directory? I'm confused...I thought they used dmoz.org?


 12:33 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

It seems to me that some nervous nellies here are waaaay missing the point. That red arrow is huge. If you aren't in the red arrow list, you just ain't happening.

A search for my key term has millions of results... and there are only 50 sites on the Yahoo directory page. Fifty. How many people will click the red arrow to lead to "more sites: directly on this topic"? I don't know, but if you aren't there, you are making a major error. It does depend on the category of course, with smaller ones more valuable, but if you aren't on the first page of the results, you definitely should be in the directory.

It used to be that you could pay $299 to be displayed on a default page with pretty non-relevant results. Now for $299 you get to that irrelevant results page by clicking the Directory link in the upper right, but you also get a direct link from the red arrows next to whatever are the top search results on the default search, and that red arrow link is to the much more useful dir.yahoo.com page not the more gibberishy search.yahoo.com/search/dir page.

In general, this is a huge improvement across the board for those in the directory -- and obviously more so if the Yahoo directory takes ODPs place as the Google Directory. The only people hurt are those who are in the directory who happened to rank well on the search.yahoo.com/search/dir page.

The way I see it, I am always now one click away from people being able to see my listing, and that is awesome (partly because the Yahoo editors did okay with my description).

The only downside I see is there will be more !mysite.com listings to get at the top of the alphabetical lists.


 12:36 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Google does use DMOZ. I think he was confusing Yahoo! with Google.


 12:39 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

you still get exactly what you pay for

I disagree. While legally and perhaps even ethically you “get what you pay for,” this has to do with basic supply/demand; and Yahoo hasn’t been grossing a million dollars a week from webmasters (as someone in another thread pointed out) for a possible little red arrow next to their Google results. The phrase should be “Yahoo will get what they deliver,” which is nothing but a stupid little arrow.

I find this one of most fascinating things that has ever happened on the web. Yahoo goes pure Google! I bet you won’t find that one in the 2002 prediction thread.

P.S. – This is one affiliate not jumping out of any windows.


 12:54 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

If you aren't in the red arrow list, you just ain't happening

The questions are:

1) Are your Yahoo directory sites doing better or worse then they were one day ago?

2) Are your Goohoo pages doing better or worse then they were one day ago?

‘nuff said.


 1:18 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

I wonder if Yahoo will just start phasing out the directory all together? Or sell it off and/or outsource all search?


 1:18 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Personally, I am very happy this was done for Yahoo. They are not stupid. Most importatntly, I think they have an opportunity now to make a killing on directory submissions, changes, updates, etc.

Think about it..... you just hit #1 on Google for "widgets" ... but your Y! desc. says it sells "bodgets" back when that was your focus. You will pay to update the listing so you can get "widgets" in there so it will be bolded and increase your clickthrough.

This is the same for all the sub pages on your site too if they begin to rank well. Say your site is massive, you can pay $50 or whatever to add a page to Yahoo's database, so that when that sub-page shows up, your description is geared towards the focus and search terms of that specific page.

Yahoo could in fact make much more money by opting for this type of directory submission over the traditional one. And since the sites are now ranked by Google (a non-biased or paid-for search), then Y! can get revenue from these directory descriptions and still be in accordinace with the FTC as disclosing them as "non-paid" or "relevant search" ... a major advantage of INK. And since users will undoubtedly like these SERPs more, their revenues from OVER should increase as well, and their 10% stake in Google will increase that much more in value....so it is completely win-win for Y! anyway you look at it.


 1:19 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Two comments.

1) As this, AP story notes, [library.northernlight.com] the new contract with Google, "doesn't prevent Yahoo from using search results from other providers."

2) Yahoo paid Google $7.1 million for search services last year


 1:29 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Thats the most confusing piece of cr*p I've ever seen ! LOL..

I think the key is "non-exclusive"

I'd like to seem them hook up with something like IXQuick over ink..


 2:13 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

even if you didn't like Yahoo SERP's at least they were different from Google... now everything is the same – jaytierney

But it’s not the same, actually from the searches I’ve run, the results are much better, in fact cleaner in Yahoo! It’s as if the irrelevant results have been reduced. I still see a few irrelevant sites slip through but in general the first 100 results look good. It really depends on the industry I suppose.

A lot of website promoters would pay $300 for a Yahoo directory listing just for the Google boost, regardless of traffic results from the directory. - mayor

Now mayor, saying something like that is just …well…so reasonable and, well sane. As long as the results stay as clean as this and the weight of Yahoo’s listings rate high, it may continue to be worth the cost.

As always, it comes down to budget. I reach for the best strategy and coverage I can get for the dollar. That $300 might be better spent by joining a few industry associations and boosting theme, authority and popularity. Not to mention the networking possibilities and that whole ‘linking outside the box’ [webmasterworld.com]movement I tried to get started.

Google actually likes us to spread our eggs so for those who worry that those efforts are wasted might want to take another look at their strategies. Everybody wants it to be so easy and not put the time or effort into actual site promotion as I believe is needed. That includes at the very least intelligent linking with unlimited possibilities for drawing traffic from not just the search engines but all the peripheral venues.

Yahoo doesn't end up looking so stupid if Google replaces ODP category matches with Yahoo categories - WebGuerrilla


if you aren't on the first page of the results, you definitely should be in the directory. – steveb

good point


 2:28 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

That would be.....a rather strong cartel if Google used the YAHOO! directory. Good or bad for a site promoter, it would just plain suck for 2 companies to have that much control over access to info on the web. Even if it is Google, its waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much control, especially a publicly traded Google.

From a quality and common sense point of view its hard to see Google using the YAHOO! directory in place of ODP. Maybe YAHOO! could use the ODP in place of its directory and then accept paid submissions to the YAHOO! version of it. [not likely]

In any case if you do SEO and have a solid grasp on Google, you are golden at least for the moment.


 3:08 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

[url=http://add.yahoo.com/fast/help/us/ysearch/cgi_comments]Feedback for Yahoo! Search

cheater copperpot

 3:35 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Just left a nasty feedback message for them....

Google domination sucks. My area is completely scattered with terrible spam results in the most recent google update and now they show on Yahoo.

I had $600 i was ready to give Yahoo this week, now they wont be seeing a penny from me. I dont see how this wont kill their incoming revenue from site submissions.


 4:42 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

This change SUCKS! When Yahoo's default search was the Directory I was #1 for 4 of my keywords and #2 for 2 others. Now that they are defaulting to the websearch I have only one of those keywords in the top 40!
I think I am going to find the nearest bridge to jump off of! How can Yahoo expect anyone to pay the $299? What a bunch of crap! I am definitly not renewing with Yahoo!

I just sent a nasty email to Yahoo telling them how crappy this change is and that I am definitly not renewing with them!

How can Yahoo justify these changes? Why would they change the default search results from their own paid listings to someone elses crappy search results. I did a search for one of my keywords and out of the 1st 20 reslults 7 of them were SPAM!


 5:03 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

>> I think I am going to find the nearest bridge to jump off of!

Yeah, me too, starting to see search.yahoo stats taking shape. Make room for me .... [geppetto.ca...]


 5:04 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Dont forget what Dnny said. It may well be that other results from say Inktomi and others may be mixed in in future too. Things can change quickly in this business.

The results DO look good on the default page. Befroehand desfault searches in Yahoo in areas i search came up with a list of company sites and commercial sites - hardly anything useful unless you wanted to buy something, and some listings were only very broadly related.

That said I hope some other databases are intergrated soon. This shows the Y! still sees Search as a major part of their portal.

Y! may have been making a lot from their paid listings, but it was at the expense of their SERPS. People would have slowly and surely drifted to Google and others for better results anyway as they became more sophisticated. Anybody notice how much easier it was to get non-commercial sites into the Y! directory for free over the past 3 or 4 months. They had already realised that directory inclusion fees were degrading the informational value of their Search as a whole. This just solved their problem, and is a bold move.

Y! also discloses more clearly now on what are paid results.


 5:04 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

gsmitchell: Maybe I will see you at the bridge... I agree, what was Yahoo thinking. Hopefully it is only temporarly. I had 7 sites in the top 10 for my keywords, and now im lucky to even find one of them in the top 100.


 5:43 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Nice article Danny,

1. Wow will this increase my Yahoo referals..

2. Any good Google seo is worth his/her weight in Gold

3. I thought you Americans had a very strong anti-cartel agency?

How can two companies, together owning 60% plus market share of a business segment make such a deal?
Is that the reason why a third party must be included?

4. I agree that in 6 months Yahoo will wake up to their renewal turn-down.
Paying 299 just for the link towards Google's algo..how many people understand that?

5. The ideas mentioned on including Inktomi could be interesting.
Your page is not in Google, you cannot wait two or three months? Go for paid spidering/inclusion. How they would mix the two algo's is another question.

5. Googles new description, first check DMOZ, if not available use Yahoo, if not available let the algo decide.


 5:50 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

"How can Yahoo justify these changes?"

Because they give users far more relevant, truthful, accurate results.

This 267 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 267 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
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