homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.17.79.35
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
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.
dannysullivan




msg:122057
 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:
[webmasterworld.com...]

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

 

gibbergibber




msg:122177
 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.

Abrexa_UK




msg:122178
 12:50 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

gibbergibber,
I think that you are very much looking at this from a user's perspective rather than from a webmaster's perspective like most posters here. Assuming that Google's results are going to remain in the good to excelent category overall, then they aren't going to lose their user-base.

At the moment, Yahoo, AOL and Google between them account for a huge percentage of searches, and this is the monopoly that webmasters here are referring to. For many sites, who can't afford Looksmart (and thus MSN), Google is the only potential source of large quantities of search engine traffic now. Fast can't provide it, a Yahoo directory listing will count for less (possibly), Inktomi is dead in the water and the remaining engines account for such a small percentage of searches they aren't really worth discussing.

Hence, for many webmasters, Google is the only source of se traffic, which is why it is seen as a "monopoly". If you aren't in Google, you are in trouble.

This whole issue brings up the role of SEO once more. We are now left with basically 2 things for SEOs to do:

1. PPC on Looksmart, Overture and Adwords. Between them these cover pretty much everything non-Google in the US market.
2. Promote a site for Google placement.

Everything not covered by these two combined willl account for what? 10%? 15% tops?

nombre




msg:122179
 12:57 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

chiyo

Yes I am aware that the directory has not been "canned". However, it is not searchable and if you want "search" results from the directory rather than the entire WWW you must tediously browse through each related category reading each description in search of your keywords or phrases. I see no means to search only the Yahoo directory. Am I missing a link? This is not efficient use of research time!
Is losing my listing clouding my judgment? Perhaps, but I can say that the money is of far less significance to me than the satisfaction I received from doing research for DR. XXX from Slovakia or Peru or timbuc2. Fortunately, my Yahoo listing has been included for four+ years and was free.

My Dean is aware of my moonlighting and will be made aware of the Yahoo removal at our next meeting or via list serve.

At the last regional congregation of librarians I attended (http://www.nahsl.org/); the lack of search result diversity was a frequent topic in casual conversation. Someone called it "the googleization of America". With this move by Yahoo, I have no doubt this lack of diversity will be a more significant topic on list serves and librarian discussion boards.

Rugles




msg:122180
 1:12 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Happy days are here again.

I am already seeing a big spike in refers from Yahoo. Fantastic! They are suddenly my #2 referrer.
Time to ask for a raise.

gsmitchell




msg:122181
 2:16 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Again this new change is absolutely ridiculous! How can anyone think that people are going to continue to pay $299 when all that guarantees is a possible increase in pr on Google. There definitly is no guarantee anymore that your site will have high rankings in the new default search. I had 4 top notch keywords that were #1 on the "old" Yahoo and 2 good keywords were # 2. Now I can only find 1 of the 6 in the top 100 and I have to say that the results are rather spammy! For one really good 2 word search out of the 1st 20 results 7 of them are spam. So if anyone tells me that this is a better result then I definitly disagree! Now the only way to guarantee being listed on top is to use Overture and pay $1.50 or more per click and since I have a small advertising budget, there is no way for me to compete!

On a normal day, I was getting 1500-2000 visitors to my site and at least 1000 from Yahoo. I got less then 250 from Yahoo yesterday!

heini




msg:122182
 2:23 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

>1000 from Yahoo../.. less then 250 from Yahoo yesterday!

Looks like it's time to work on Google ranking. A Yahoo listing in most cases/cats does help your G. ranks....

Internet Marketing M




msg:122183
 2:25 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Diversity is overrated. I think that every search engine should use Google results, that way we could all be so happy! Its obvious they are the best search engine in the world because all the sites that we up top last month aren't there anymore. They have been replaced by new sites. Hmm wait, maybe that means that Google is actually garbage this month....

1. Google does not care about your site.
2. Yahoo is Google with ads.
3. Aol is Google with ads.

If you like google with pay per clicks on top of it, then Yahoo and AOL are great!

I think this is a really great move for yahoo because now they have absolutely nothing of value. Anyone that wants to slap together Overture, Google and Dmoz will kick the crap out of Yahoo. Very good move.

I am thinking of putting a yugo kit on the mercedes too. I think that would be a real good move to. Anyone care to trade in their bigscreen for a calculator?

jk3210




msg:122184
 2:29 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>For one really good 2 word search out of the 1st 20 results 7 of them are spam. So if anyone tells me that this is a better result then I definitly disagree!<<

How exactly are they spam? Hidden text? Comment tags?

Rugles




msg:122185
 2:34 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

I_M_M

Yahoo is a brand name and they will always have huge amounts of traffic. Now they provide world class search results which will keep eyeballs glued to their site.
This way they can focus on other revenue streams. Such as web hosting, premium e-mail, DSL service, banner ads, hotjobs, the list goes on and on.
I would guess that after you subtracted the cost of the directory management the fees did not count for a large part of their profit. So they are not counting on growth in that department and focusing on growth in other areas of the company.

heini




msg:122186
 2:47 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

As a user and promoter I for one have never been a great fan of Yahoo's paid directory.

The point about diversity on the web for the user, but also for the independant web publisher and promoter nevertheless is not invalid.

With the downgrading of the directory another Google independant window to the web has gone.

Jakpot




msg:122187
 2:53 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

"Happy days are here again.
I am already seeing a big spike in refers from Yahoo. Fantastic! They are suddenly my #2 referrer.
Time to ask for a raise."

I'm with you but it doesn't overcome the tragedy from the last dance

starec




msg:122188
 2:59 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

>1000 from Yahoo../.. less then 250 from Yahoo yesterday!

those 750+ go to my site now ;)

Rugles




msg:122189
 3:03 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Come on Jakpot...... the glass is half full not half empty.

geranimo




msg:122190
 3:19 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

It's not a monopoly. It's nothing like a monopoly

Sure seems like it to me, I believe Overture and Google have just locked up most advertising dollars from ecom sites.

I just listed 8 sites with Yahoo 2 months ago and was enjoying decent traffic until now. Now they have dropped off any Yahoo search. Seems to me they have a similar business model as L$, to hell with the customers who just paid... we have the money. As an ecomm webmaster Google is almost impossible to get decent listings due to the nature of the business, who is going to link to a ticket broker? Looks like its back to overture and adwords and try to find a bunch of obscure search phrases that are reasonbly priced.

hmgab




msg:122191
 3:26 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

This is just messed up...
We've spent over 120k on listings so far this year, and this sure as hell takes down the revenue a few notches. Traffic has PLUNGED.
This is, at BEST, a betrayal of their paying webmasters.
We will look into legal action.

Another thing they should be concerned about, is their VISA/Mastercard merchant accounts, which is going to be hit HARD with chargebacks from webmasters all around now. VISA doesnt give a **** if it's almighty Yahoo! Inc., as long as your merchant accounts hits 2.5% in chargebacks, it's sayanora to that, and you are on the TMF.
I am sure stockholders are going to LOVE that, and the drop in revenue.

Robino




msg:122192
 3:27 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

A Monopoly? Have you ever seen this at the bottom of a Y! SERP:

Search in other search engines
AltaVista - Ask Jeeves - More...

defanjos




msg:122193
 3:29 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

>I would guess that after you subtracted the cost of the directory management the fees did not count for a large part of their profit. So they are not counting on growth in that department and focusing on growth in other areas of the company

Bingo.....

The directory revenue is only about 5% of total rev., so it is better to sacrifice 5% of your revenue to make sure you keep the other 95% going.

More people will stick around which equals more money in the coffers.

defanjos




msg:122194
 3:33 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

>A Monopoly? Have you ever seen this at the bottom of a Y! SERP:
Search in other search engines
AltaVista - Ask Jeeves - More...

Yes, that is nice indeed, but why would you go somewhere else to search, if you are happy with the results of your Y/google search?

Don't get me wrong, this change has been kind to me, but I am more nervous than ever. I don't like having all my eggs in one basket - or at least the great majority of them.

Travoli




msg:122195
 3:35 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

My traffic is up slightly, can't complain. I lost my bet, though :)

Rugles




msg:122196
 3:41 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

hmgab

Don't waste more money on lawyers fees. I am sure Yahoo ran this whole scenerio past their lawyers before the switch.
Does it not say in the contract that the $299.00 was for "consideration" to be added the directory?

geranimo




msg:122197
 3:50 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

I am with hmgab on the charge back thing. I am going to file 8 today. Can't hurt, at least I will feel better knowing I tried to recover from being deceived and ripped-off. I paid for 8 sites to be listed in a Yahoo directory no less then 8 weeks ago and now the directory is basically gone This is certainly reason enough to apply for a charge back.

Conard




msg:122198
 3:53 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Now that this has been done, I can't imagine how busy the Google News will be during the NEXT update.
GG, We keep trying to follow your advise about all of our eggs in one basket, but every time I turn around Google is taking over all the baskets.

dannysullivan




msg:122199
 3:57 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

> Yes I am aware that the directory has not been "canned". However, it is not searchable and if you want "search" results from the directory rather than the entire WWW you must tediously browse through each related category reading each description in search of your keywords or phrases. I see no means to search only the Yahoo directory. Am I missing a link? This is not efficient use of research time!

This is easy. Do a search from the Yahoo home page. When the results come up, click on the "Directory" link in the reverse bar at the top of the page. The results that come back will be pure Yahoo Directory matches -- no Google links involved. You can compare the counts to see the difference.

Alternatively, use the Yahoo Advanced Search Page:
[search.yahoo.com...]

and set the option to search only the Yahoo Directory.

john316




msg:122200
 3:58 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>Does it not say in the contract that the $299.00 was for "consideration" to be added the directory?<<

The other factor is how directory results were presented to searchers at the time of purchase. There was obviously preference given to directory results, which is part of the value equation.

The situation is similiar to paying for a yellow pages ad in the phone book, and they later decide to print and distribute one book.

I think the lawyers call it something like "implied merchantability".

[edited by: john316 at 4:10 pm (utc) on Oct. 10, 2002]

Canton




msg:122201
 4:06 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

That's it for us...no more $299 to Yahoo! Had to abandon Inktomi a while back when the $25 investment became useless...now it's time to drop Yahoo! from the pay to play list...

Note to Y! officials if you read these forums...don't expect the Business Express Submissions to continue...

nutsandbolts




msg:122202
 4:06 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

john316 is right on the button.

nowhere




msg:122203
 4:06 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

I think Webmaster World is a monopoly. Seriously, Google obviously isnít a monopoly. And even if they were, the only reason consumers are protected against monopolies is because of price gauging. Free isnít price gauging.

This wonít be the death of Yahoo since all they would have to do if revenue plummeted is switch back. I do think itís a little sad that the story of two guys that the story of two guys who made a list of favorite sites is over. Then again, I guess it ended many years ago.

The bright side of this (besides those of us that are doing better,) is that this will move the industry farther away from the pure pay to play with soon to be astronomical prices scenario that everyone predicted. Unless of course Google started charging, then weíd be screwed.

geranimo




msg:122204
 4:11 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

The Yahoo! directory is organized by subject. Sites are placed in categories by Yahoo! Surfers, who visit and evaluate your suggestions and decide where they best belong. We do this to ensure that the directory is organized in the best possible way, making it easy to use, intuitive, helpful, and fair to everyone.

I just printed and saved the above quote from the Y Express inclusion page. This is what I paid for, this has apparently been abandoned. I canít imagine Amex not considering my charge back unless they are a major share holder of Y... or Google.. or Overture. I think a see a pattern.

gsmitchell




msg:122205
 4:22 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Heini,

Believe me I have been working on getting a better ranking in Google for quite a while. Quite a few of my keywords are very competitive and the best I have done so far is a top 40 ranking. That is why I have been using adwords. But a top 40 in Google is nothing compared to being ranked #1 in the old Yahoo!
I am also going to contact Amex and see if I can do a chargeback for my $299!

mosley700




msg:122206
 4:31 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Okay, I was upset with Yahoo, and I do feel that they buggered those of us who paid to have our sites listed. It always felt good to do a search and find my sites, and not the competitors because they were too tight to pay for a listing. And yes, the Yahoo search now gives spam sites top listings for some searches.
But I gotta say, it is a better search now. When the directory listings were default, I had a good position for my home page. Now I have good listings for 52 of my interior pages. And after checking my stats this morning, I gotta say "thanks, Yahoo!" .I never knew that I could get so much traffic from Yahoo!. Before the change, Google was consistently giving me three times as much traffic as Yahoo!, and now it looks closer to the same amount.
And the real good news is, we don't have to pay $300 anymore. Maybe I can finally trash this TI-99 and get one of those new Compaqs?!

gsmitchell




msg:122207
 4:41 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

Defanjos,

How can you think that approximately $50 million a year is no big deal. After directory management (maybe a 20% cost) you still have $40 million in year 1, 80 million in year 2, 160 million in year 3. Do you honestly think Yahoo will mind losing a $100 million or more a year when people decide not to renew?

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