| 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.
| 6:14 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hmm, I've only been here for a couple of months, but I have noticed that it is the same people that seem to retain their sanity during the *several time a month* disasters that are about to bring an end to google/yahoo/universe.
They always seem to be willing to wait and watch their logs before running to the nearest bridge.
For the record, I *never* use yahoo for searching, but I occasionally use it for a directory.
If yahoo is able to somehow produce better results than google for their searches by combining engines, then they might gain in popularity, gaining more hits by gaining volume.
Watch your logs, and if you decide it's worth your $300, then send it to them. If not, spend it somewhere else. But deciding within a few hours of a change is just plain stupid.
| 6:20 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
> 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
Yes, I had a noncommercial site I didn't even submit added to the Yahoo directory a few weeks ago. They were even nice enough to include a string of my keywords in the description. My traffic on that site nearly doubled as a result. But now some of that traffic will be gone with the switch to skip over the directory. Yahoo giveth and Yahoo taketh away. :)
Most of my pages do well in Google, though, so I'm hoping to see an overall increase the traffic to my sites because of the recent changes.
| 6:23 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I used to love yahoo. My.yahoo was great, search was ok. When google joined the team I used yahoo becuz of google results...
Too many people know my yahoo.com email to just drop it, but I am pretty tired of those darn bernie mac pop PIA commercials. I never saw bernie mac and for sure never will...
but as for the results, every algo change will mean some people are down some are up.
This reminds me why I stopped caring about SEO years ago and focused on being the best there is quality-wise. You get it right for one algo, they change it on you and then you have to start again. After not looking at it for years, all the non-personal sites I have worked on have a PR of 6 without trying. After seeing the answers to my PR thread, I guess it ain't bad...
Sure I could do or not some things that would improve my results and am enjoying reading you guys, but overall I think my strategy was the best. Forget positioning. Think about quality.
| 6:37 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"In any case if you do SEO and have a solid grasp on Google, you are golden at least for the moment." As "Skibum" stated, this is a gold mine. We no longer have to rely on the titles and descriptions of the editors.
| 6:37 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
lets just hope and pray that now google pretty much owns the search engine business that they get their algo worked out. It doesn't help website owners to be getting a bucket load of people visiting their site that arrived by accident due to some random placement for non-relevant search terms & it hardly helps searchers either.
Google now more than ever holds the opportunity to drive the whole web to a better place by building on the framework they have created - that forces web sites to develop good content & solid sites. So long as they focus on relevant results instead of trying to combat the 5% manipulation that will always be there no matter what they do.
| 6:52 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think we should just hope and pray that Google implements some sort of customer service department for site owners/webmasters..... even if fee-based.
In case our sites are suddenly dropped for no reason, or webmasters would like to know why they've been penalized.... there is no excuse why Google can not do something like this for a fee.
When you have this much market share, you must be responsible for the monopoly you're running, too many people are dependant on you and there should be a dispute mechanism to determine if a site is penalized, and if not, some sort of "immediate re-spider and index" for a fee if there was some server glitch or other problem preventing you from being indexed.
| 6:56 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Any news when Yahoo.fr and Yahoo.co.uk will update to this new era?
| 7:10 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
From a searchers point of view, two of my biggest gripes about Google have always been
1. Default to ten results per page
2. Those damn indented second results
My homepage is set as Yahoo already, although previously never for searching. If only they had a Yahool! Bar I'd be all set.
Has anyone seen any fresh results there yet?
| 7:22 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I hope local yahoo will adopt it too.
| 7:24 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The challenge for Y! is to make their default SERPS more different than Google.
Given that they are similar, yes, there are some advantages of using Y! SERPS to Google, as Powdork says, but there are disadvantages - popunders, much more on page advertising, longer loading times, and page titles that sometimes are no longer descriptive as the page content has changed but Y! only uses the name originally used in the Y! description in the description. Y! also retains older grandfathered sites, that more often now are very out of date or no longer tended.
Of course the great thing for Y! users is that they get much better default SERPS. Directory SERPS are characterised by:
1. Commercial sites of very variable quality
2. Corporate or Company sites of variable relevance to specific queries
3. Grandfathered sites which may no longer be given TLC by their owners.
4. Site Titles and site descriptions which are no longer descriptive as they were registered years ago, and the content or focus of a site has refocussed since.
5. Very poor relevance to specific queries as the directory database was much smaller and used site index pages only, therefore missing good specific content in other pages.
So there is no question in my mind, that the new "merged" set up provides a much better customer experience.
I think incoporating results from other SE's in time, will help Y! build repeat users and good loyalty to their Search, rather than users who only use Y! because they know nothing else. Y! just got smarter...
[edited for stoopid spellos]
[edited by: chiyo at 7:33 am (utc) on Oct. 10, 2002]
| 7:32 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well, I love it. But then I would - top of the hill with Google, never really showed up on the Yahoo Web Sites tab (old default), now we're number one on most combos, front page at worst.
Yahoo!, to coin a phrase. Good job we're going to a dedicated server.
Surely the most salient point, as commented on by a couple of folks, is that Y plain and simply HAD to change their default results. People vote with their default homepage and their bookmarks, and, slowly but surely, they would have been leaving Y as the results were so hackneyed and low-rent. They went with the best. Good call. And yes, they can have my 299 time and time again.
| 7:35 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Dear oh dear... what were they thinking?
Around $50M per year... that's what the directory brought in. How much of that do you think it will bring in now? 10%of that?
Remember, most of the express submissions are from non-pro's. All they want is to get into the directory because that is what they see in the returns - sites plucked straight from the directory. This is the simplistic level most people operate that. They are not in the industry and just pay for what they see.
With the new set up, it is a little more convoluted. "Pay $300 and get into the returns?" Well... maybe... but not yet. You have to wait for this other search engine called Google to re-index. Then you may appear somewhere amongst billions of others.
Well that should convince them - not! Also remember that PR means didly squat outside forums like this.
Unless they do an about turn, the Yahoo Directory will die pretty quickly, at least as a source of income for Yahoo. And as I mentioned in another thread, $50M will take a lot of catching up... especially with a falling use base (yes: this will hardly stem the flow from Yahoo to Google: search with stacks of ads will always lose to the same search without).
Not a good day for the industry really. Not a good day for diversity and for the searcher. And not a good day for Yahoo either.
| 7:35 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"I think we should just hope and pray that Google implements some sort of customer service department for site owners/webmasters..... even if fee-based. "
I think that is a great idea that google should look into. A subscription service that let you see info about a particular URL
- Status (penalty free, in the index etc)
- Pagerank, maybe pagerank history
- Number of backward links
- maybe some other small items of data
Maybe $20 - $30 a year per URL, I think a lot of people would pay it, and it would also reduce the costs associated with having cust service reps read all the emails webmaster people send to google.
Most of the info is already there, but with a few extras it would be a nice interface that people would like to check.
Googleguy - you should give it some thought - maybe a way to monitize a bit more.
| 8:06 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
it's like a cleaner version of google, i like this alot even moved up a few places.
I think that if you come a member of the pr0 club you better leave town ;)
| 8:46 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
According to Searchenginewatch.com the local yahoo's will be free to pick their own partners. I hope .co.uk ends up looking exactly like .com here- our traffic would go through the roof!
| 9:06 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"How can Yahoo justify these changes?"
"Because they give users far more relevant, truthful, accurate results."
When Google gives top placement to sites that employ cloaking and use Yahoo and Dmoz listed expired domains as feeder links, how can you say that the results are more relevant, truthful, accurate. Aparently the most dependible way to place high in Google is to cheat.
| 9:13 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I don't know where you get that nombre, but if you are saying the old yahoo results were better than google -- no matter how good or bad the google ones are -- then what is to talk about. This year, Google has had the best results of any engine, and the public clearly believes that. What Yahoo did may be good or bad business, but the results are surely better for the user, no question.
| 9:18 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Count me among the disgruntled...
There goes all that money down the drain...oh well, I won't be renewing next year for any of the sites I have listed and won't be listing any of the new ones I have in the works.
Might as well try for Google top spots.
What really stinks is that where the heck can you search any more that's not dominated by Google? Everybody's got Google results. And, no, they're not always right on target.
There are certain things I routinely search for that I want a wide variety of results to make comparisons among; what good does it do me if I go to Google, search engine A, search engine B, etc. and I'm getting all the same results?
And, I'm not really sure how the people who are saying "it was a wise business decision..." arrive at that conclusion. How do you figure they'll get ANY sites to pay the $299 fee?
What I saw at first glance might as well have been pure Google. And last time I checked, it looked like Y! didn't have any problems getting tons of sites to sign up at $300 a year. But they will now - and they're certainly not going to draw any NEW visitors by recycling Google results, so how do you see this as a wise business decision? They're keeping the same audience and losing all that revenue. That's the way I see it anyway.
Bitter? You bet! :-)
I want that $300 I spent last week back. Might as well spend it at Findwhat where I know I'll get results.
| 9:19 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have to say.. I feel bad for the people that had simple search phrases such as "Florida Vacation resort" and had the ultimate description on yahoo. Now, their screwed I am sure and really.. I feel for you. I know one phrase I had which I ranked #8 out of 500 and something is nowhere to be found... nowhere.. I looked through the first 150 results. Fortuntately for myself I get looked up under thousands of search terms, literally, and this wont affect me.. if anythign might even help.. so for myself the impact is zero.. yahoo is a link now as I see it.. other parts of yahoo still help me but man.. now I know why they gave me any description I wanted this past August.. the editor probably knew it wasnt going to mean anything...
| 9:38 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Everybody is asking "why pay $299 for a Yahoo listing now?"
How about if Google were to use Yahoo as the base for its directory rather than DMOZ? :) :) :)
| 9:51 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I do feel for those who at first thought think their Y! express listings have been a waste of money. Im not sure that the effect in new paid listings will be as great as others may think. I think that is too hasty.
1. There are links to the directory at the top of many default SERPS, and under each listing that is in a directory. I think that will mean the directories still get a good look.
2. Many sites just list in yahoo for PR. That advanatage is not lost, and indeed extended by the new set up. While mom and pops DO pay for listings sometimes Im willing to bet that Y! express gross revenue is accounted for in the majority by maybe the top 5% "big listers" who submit multiple sites, and they would indeed know the value of PR. They may lose the mom and pops or solitary lister, but may make it up with more spending by their big clients. That's typical in business.
3. The value of a Y! express listing now expires in 12 months. It is no longer forever. It needs to be renewed. So the biggest hit if for those who have renewed of started recently.
4.Y! may well be able to increase their share of the searcher market with their new SERPs due to the much more useful SERPS. Y! may even scratch back some market share from Google. People may use Y! as default search more than now and people who do so are more likely (than in Google) to find your directory listing.
On the whole I think it is too early to come to a decision of the new value of a directory listing. And certainly too early to predict that Y! will take a massive hit on directory listing revenues, especially if they are replacing that with some other revenue source though the Y! brand as a whole.
[ Disclosure:! We do not have money invested in Y! Express. We have never paid for a listing. We have 4 sites, of which 2 are grandfathered Y! directory listings. One of those sites has had 6 pages added to the directory (sections and columns) with no request from us over the past 6 months. The 3rd site was accepted by free submit 3 months ago. The other site does not have a listing after a year of trying free submit! ]
| 9:58 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Yahoo as the base for its directory rather than DMOZ?
Google is an international search engine. US sites and visitors are only a part of the market for Google.
A directory which catches only the US is no option.
| 10:04 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think the Yahoo results are up in the air. This is their first cut. There will be more. That's why it's non-exclusive. As soon as they can find something to make results better than google, they'll do it.
Google has innovated bigtime. The only reason you and I don't have google as our homepage (some of u prob do actually) is that they don't have a my.google.com yet. And they probably won't. Yahoo will hold them hostage I figure...if they do a my.google, yahoo will soon depart...too bad, becuz I'd just love to get rid of yahoo on my homepage...
As for yahoo losing the $$ on express submissions, not a chance. They thot thru this carefully. Plenty will still pay...it may go down, but people know the yahoo name, and they aren't experts like u guyz. So if $$ goes down in directories, it won't be by much, and it will be MORE THAN MADE UP FOR in the overture paid ads...
Anybody have figures on how much revenue overture brought vs. $299?
| 10:17 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Anybody have figures on how much revenue overture brought vs. $299? |
Great point heretic. I think directory submission revenues are a very small part of Y! revenues, and was it really worth it for the damage it caused to the relevancy and usefulness of Y! pure directory search? I think that Y! finally relaised they could not depend on their brand name recognition and new user base alone to move their brand along. And that a a clearly sub-optimal search service would not be accepted by an increasingly savvy user that Y! is no targeting.
Like you say, overture revenues will increase, and Y! has many other options for advertisers including the promotions and other ads.
I think this marks a significant point in the fall from grace of Pay Per Inclusion as a whole. It is now, I think, dead in the water, now that consumers are becoming more sophisticated, and know how to seperate a general info type search, from a commercial/shopping search.
The latter have a valuable place on the Internet of course, but not mixed in with searches that claim to be broad based, comprehensive or objective). Google has already proved it, and with Y! now much more clearly distingushing paid and non-paid results (eg: Overture, directory), it seems that Y! has learned it too now.
| 11:08 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Did anyone else notice that deep link pages that place well on Google are displayed without any reference to their Y! listing. For example, no red arrow, page title, and a Google description.
| 11:24 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"What Yahoo did may be good or bad business, but the results are surely better for the user, no question.”
You are dead wrong. If Wal-Mart was the only place left to shop, would that be "good" for the "user"?
While the less than 5% of my income that came from Yahoo search results is 50% gone, I am also a supervising reference librarian at a large University in the North East . We depend on specialized search engines and databases for our research in addition to the mainstream engines and the Yahoo directory search results. With the irrelevancy and inaccuracy of the "new" Google results and now the cloned Yahoo results, a large and important part of the diversity is gone. It is extremely important that we (and students) be able to search a directory in addition to a search engine. I have heard mostly complaints, and precious few compliments regarding the new Google results from both students and other reference librarians.
Other than a link to Yahoo Mail, I will be removing the link to Yahoo from our 260 public and student terminals and replacing it with a DMOZ directory search. There is obviously no point in having links to both Google and Yahoo search on our search menu. I will also be placing a statement on the menu stating that Yahoo, Google, and AOL search results are the same.
| 11:33 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I suspect this is Yahoo's first move out of the general directory business. The regionals might continue. I think they see the directory as a dead end.
| 11:45 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I will also be placing a statement on the menu stating that Yahoo, Google, and AOL search results are the same. |
Well I am surprised that a reference librarian would incorrectly advise students!
They are certainly similar, but not the same.
Are you aware that the Y! directory has not been canned. It is as available as always from the Directory Tab. You can even give your students the new bookmark. The major change at Y! has been to change the DEFAULT page to a Google ranked SERPs which include BOTH directory, and google results, with plenty of links to the relevant directories.
We've done to death the claims on "inaccuracy and irrelevance" of new Google results here already but it seems many are saying that informational queries (which your students would use) may have even improved, while some say commercial and highly competitive keywords are sometimes sub-optimal. As a reference librarian surely you would have browsed most of the info and reaction to the update, which as whole, is no basis for your claims.
Are you sure your estimate that you are now only making 50% of what you did on Y! before the change in your moonlighting job is not affecting your judgement in a job that has a trusted position?
If I was the Dean of your university, i would call you into my office for a quick chat!
| 12:40 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If your site has removed from the Google index, then it won't appear in the Yahoo search results, even if it is listed in the directory. Google just got a promotion from Vice Principle to Sheriff.
| 12:40 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
-- Unfortunately Google will own the search market eventually - a monopoly is never good. --
Can I just add my tuppence worth?
It's not a monopoly. It's nothing like a monopoly.
It's not even like the semi-monopoly microsoft enjoys, which exists because I'm not free to use a non-microsoft operating system with windows-compatible software. Sure, I could use Linux or whatever, but then all my windows software would be useless. I could use Linux with linux software but the user base is smaller so commercial companies are deterred from developing for it. Microsoft has locked in the consumer with a vicious circle of compatibility problems.
Google doesn't lock you in to their search engine, Fast search and all the rest are only a click away, and as soon as Google's quality drops I'll move to a different engine. If I want to I can run several searche engines side by side on my desktop, it doesn't cost me any more time or money. I can't run the same software on Linux and Windows.
If you still don't believe me, consider that 5 or 7 years ago we would have been talking about how Yahoo or Altavista had the monopoly on search results. They didn't really have monopolies either, and that's why Google was able to rise to the top as it provided the best product in the best way.
Yes, Google is very very popular, but saying they have a monopoly is like saying Coca Cola has a monopoly on soft drinks. If coke tasted bad, there's absolutely no mechanism to deter consumers from buying something else.
I agree Google has a great deal of power because of their popularity, but it's a fragile power that would disappear were they to abuse it (e.g. by putting unmarked paid-for results mixed in with the normal ones). They're only no 1 when they're the no 1 for results. The reason monopolies are bad is that quality and value always cease to be the dominant issues, but that clearly isn't the case here.
| This 267 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 267 ( 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ) > > |