| 4:41 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
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?
| 4:47 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Geranimo, excuse me, what part of what you quote has been abandoned?
You pay for consideration of inclusion to the directory.
You pay for it, you get it. The Yahoo directory is still up and running. As Danny points out it's quite prominently avaliable from the tabs. There is no mention whatsoever of how, when and where those directory listings get displayed in what you quote.
On a further note: what Yahoo now does has happened on quite a few portals with directory before. It is a given, even for someone who has not been in this business since the good old days, that things are changing and shifting constantly.
Sometimes you loose, sometimes you win.
You see that happening in this very thread.
People who need (somewhat)reliable investments do PPC.
| 4:51 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I think Webmaster World is a monopoly. Seriously, Google obviously isn’t a monopoly. And even if they were, the only reason consumers are protected against monopolies is because of price gauging. Free isn’t price gauging. |
From Google's dictionary
mo·nop·o·ly Pronunciation Key (m-np-l)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman).
Law - A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
A commodity or service so controlled
Google has control or influence over AOL, Netscape, Yahoo! and all the Google affiliates. For me this amounts to about 80% of my SE referrals even though I rank better in other engines. They MAY not be a monopoly now but one more move (dumping the ODP for their own, or Yahoo!'s directory) and they would be IMHO. As far as the free product, information, I don't think whether its free or not matters. I can't really think of any monoploly that would be more dangerous than one on information.
[edited by: heini at 5:30 pm (utc) on Oct. 10, 2002]
[edit reason] please leave (international) politics out / thanks! [/edit]
| 4:55 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"(maybe a 20% cost)"
I bet it is a LOT more than that. Humans worker bees in a big American city are very pricey.
| 5:10 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Even if the cost is lets use 50% you are still talking 25 million in year 1, 50 million in year 2, 100 million in year 3, 200 in year 4 etc. Again do you think Yahoo is willing to lose this kind of money? I can guarantee you that there are going to be a lot of people who do not pay for renewal!
| 5:16 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Ahh, finally, my years of diligent refusal to pay exorbitant submission fees have been rewarded.
Y! must have realized how badly their search had degraded - kudos for doing something about it.
| 5:24 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|If your web site is accepted for inclusion in the commercial Directory as part of Yahoo! Express on or after December 28, 2001, then your web site's continued inclusion in the Directory will be subject to additional review each year and you agree that your credit card will be charged the Recurring Annual Fee. |
Yahoo won't see any significant drop in that $50m annual income. The majority of sites in the directory now will be automatically renewed.
Besides, any drop in submission revenue will be offset by the dramatic increase in search related advertising. If you've ever done any advertising with Yahoo, you would discover that all the category ads are completely worthless. The only ads that convert are the ones tied to search. The more people search, the more money Y! makes.
| 5:28 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|what part of what you quote has been abandoned? |
Actually the entire quote heini. If the page serverd from a normal Y search is supplied by Google it is no longer a directory. Your argument about the directory being available on a tab somewhere is quite weak. The expression inclusion package claimed Yahoo results are served by this human directory, I don't see it anymore as well as the rest of the average internet users, this is also apparent in my yahoo referrals in the log data.
|On a further note: what Yahoo now does has happened on quite a few portals with directory before. |
Have any of these portals charged people $300.00 weeks before dropping their listings.
|Sometimes you loose, sometimes you win. |
I can accept losing, don't like being deceived and robbed.
| 5:31 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I want to add a link here for those of you who think the Yahoo!Directory search is lost now that it is mixed with Google.
Check out [dir.yahoo.com...]
I know most users will use Yahoo!'s front page for their searches, but I think it is still a comfort that there is an interface for pure Yahoo!Directory search.
Personally I have just added a Yahoo!Directory search box to my site, and I am sure many webmasters will do the same and keep the pure Yahoo!Directory search alive and kicking.
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 5:40 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|If the page serverd from a normal Y search is supplied by Google it is no longer a directory. Your argument about the directory being available on a tab somewhere is quite weak |
But it's still a directory. You can ask a librarian to help you search the isles for a book or you can search through the "directory" of dewey numbers.
It's just that the customer care provided by the librarian has been moved to the front of the library :)
I think it's safe to say that a google search is more relevant than Y!-hand-picked and paid for directory sites.
changed back to front ;)
[edited by: brotherhood_of_LAN at 5:48 pm (utc) on Oct. 10, 2002]
| 5:40 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I know most users will use Yahoo!'s front page for their searches, but I think it is still a comfort that there is an interface for pure Yahoo!Directory search. |
Boy this sure gives me comfort. To hell with the losing my Yahoo trafic. I'll just look at my listings on a page served by Yahoo that nobody can find! I feel better already!
give me a break
| 5:48 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
For the record I love the change and I do think it is legal.
However, you may want to take some of the energy you are using to bash Yahoo and start adding content to your sites while googlebot is crawling. Content is King.
You may get your traffic back real soon.
| 5:48 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have to agree with Geronimo, I don't like losing but when you feel like you were deceived how should someone feel?
We all know that there is automatic yearly renewal for Yahoo. All you need to do is contact Yahoo to stop the renewal. And I guarantee you a ton of people will! And lets remember it's 50 million in year 2 but every year it increases!
You say that people who need somewhat reliable investments use PPC. What kind of advertising budget do you have? If you are a small company you can't afford to spend hundreds or thousands a month on PPC.
| 5:49 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Personally I have just added a Yahoo!Directory search box to my site, and I am sure many webmasters will do the same and keep the pure Yahoo!Directory search alive and kicking. |
Well, not this one. Their results have been far from 'alive' for a long time, and they may have been kicking, but it was in a painful area. Mat
| 6:01 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
My 10 cents :)
Personally, I am gutted that INK didn't get the deal - I'd have cleaned up - especially with these SERPs! However, anyone who counted on the old system working at Yahoo where you got a 'major-keyword-here' company name and whacked it into Yahoo and reaped the fruits for a few years (and I was one of them) knew it had to change.
I hope everyone bails out of paying Yahoo! I won't ;)
Loss of PR means lower Google rankings and a corresponding loss in Yahoo - plus loss of red arrow plus not being in the category listings. Despite who was to be the provider, we surely all saw the new type of SERPs coming - we had enough previews and why do you think sponsored listings within catagories took a hike in price last month!
Nothing here that I didn't expect - and nothing that I didn't prepare for :)
Google and Yahoo will still only account for 50% of traffic for most of my sites .
>Inktomi is done....
I've just picked up a £1762.50 cheque from a company who wanted to get listed for a number of phrases on MSN. A L$ listing would not have done it for the range. Done and dusted in 36 hours thanks to PFI, cheque in pocket and will be in my wallet at PubConference. So (IMHO) piffle....
| 6:10 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I paid for 8 sites to be listed in a Yahoo directory |
No you didnt. You paid for a review. Y! gave no undertakings that your listing will appear in Y! at anytime, nor where it would appear, or how high it is ranked.
Heini is absolutely correct. Those who need some level of reliable guaranteed exposure must pay PPC.
Thankfully there hasnt been any "Y! is taking food out of the mouths of my family" type posts. As Dave Winer said so concisely regarding these types of claims re the last Google update - If your income depends on listings in SE's "...get a real job"...
| 6:10 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>If the page serverd from a normal Y search is supplied by Google it is no longer a directory
This is not what the quote says. The directory has been a seperate entity before, of which parts were displayed in default searches.
>What kind of advertising budget do you have?
Depends on the site. If PPC gives ROI I do PPC. If PPC doesn't work I go for free listings and alternative ways of getting traffic.
Also: it's really like Makemetop just said: we all knew something was up. In fact speculations on what would be happening with Yahoo were going on for all of 2002!
| 6:25 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
When most of my keywords in PPC are $1 or more there is no way I can get a good ROI! I have definitly been using free sites but there is a lot of competition for my keywords and it's extremely difficult to get a high listing.
Yes we all knew changes were going to happen at Y!, but did anyone expect Y! to stop using their directory as the default search? IMHO no one could have imagined it!
| 6:30 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
For anyone who says this isn't a disaster for Yahoo express submitters, I have two words for you: SHUT UP. What complete nonsense... let's see, I went from 150 on-target visitors a day to almost nothing. How is that better for me? Call it tough luck, call me a whiner, but please cut the BS.
| 6:33 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>IMHO no-one could have imagined it...
Should have been reading here - an example from a couple of months ago - and this wasn't the first thread:
So - trust me - those in-tune certainly imagined it!
| 6:34 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>nor where it would appear
If I pay for an ad on a store window, and after I hand over my money the store owner removes the glass and places it in his back room would I have legal recourse? Is the store owner's action ethical? If I only payed for him to review my ad to see if it was suitable for display on his window and he concluded that yes, indeed, it could be displayed there and then placed the ad and removed the window to gather dust in the back room would that be ethical? Or perhaps if he merely added a snippet of text on the window that said, See A Description Of An Ad In My Backroom that would indeed be okay?
What I see is that you can indeed buy some Pagerank, it costs 300 bucks and Yahoo! is a Google approved vendor. Looksmart changed their model and there was a huge outcry. Yahoo! changes their model and people are defending the change because Google darling is part of the change.
| 6:44 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>If I pay for an ad on a store window
Who paid for an ad? People paid for a fast review for inclusion to the directory.
Ads are adwords, banners, sponsored listings. If you pay for a banner on a front page and get displayed on a inner page, then you might protest.
Also: this is not a Google decision. You think Google should have said: OK, we only renew if you keep your PFI directory as default search option?
Yahoo decided to renew the existing contract with Google. It looks as if other search engines also might get into the mix.
| 6:44 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Well, not this one. Their results have been far from 'alive' for a long time, and they may have been kicking, but it was in a painful area. |
I agree. When Yahoo! became a $300 per review/inclusion directory it became a partial web directory becuase many good Web sites have been left out. By their latest move, Yahoo! has just made their own directory a lot less significant. It seems that it doesn't matter much if you are listed in Yahoo! any more, as long as you get high results at Google. Yet, Yahoo! is still one of the top directories on the web that has something to offer. Especially when searching for top commercial sites (and for those who can afford to be included in Yahoo!)
| 6:47 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You are correct, I paid to be reviewed… only after I had done my research and structured my site so I was relatively sure I would receive a favorable listing in their “directory”, if I did not get placed or ranked poorly then shame on me My argument is with Yahoo taking my money weeks before taking their directory listings off the default search results. I can’t understand why anyone would find this acceptable business practice.
digitalhost.. nice correlation.
Maybe someone here can let me know what color my nose will be after I kiss Googles... ahhh sorry lost my head.
| 6:56 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
C'mon, we can argue semantics or the real issue, which is reduced visibility of the directory.
>>fast review for inclusion to the directory.
A directory that then appeared when a search was performed and those sites in the directory were displayed prominently. Argue semantics if you like, a listing for your site is an advertisement. People paid for review because inclusion in the directory gave them visibility that is now reduced. People are upset because the directory listings are now secondary.
>>You think Google should have said: OK, we only renew if you keep your PFI directory as default search option?
No, I don't think that. :)
| 7:03 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
At last.... I have disagreed with Digitalghost so many times.. but I reckon he is absolutely bang on this time. Yes indeed, an excellent correlation.
Yahoo have behaved unethically. No doubt about that surely. People can argue about semantics but the understanding of 90% of their paying customers was that they would get what they saw - listing in a prominant directory.
I'm sorry, but taking the money and running is not the action of an honorable company. Why does this have to be such a shady industry?
| 7:10 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It surprises me that anyone is surprised about this. My first mention of this [webmasterworld.com] (that I can find) is back in July. There's still more to come before Christmas if I'm going to get my 1,000 to 1 payoff from that silly oddsmaker I dealt with. ;) Everything's lining up real nicely for it, though...
| 7:14 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
What has happened in the past is no guarantee what happens in the future. It is no basis for crying unfair. If the past was always a 100% indication of the future, then if i read the form guide, I would win on every horse. People who use Y! Express knew it was only for fast review. That was the only undertaking from Y! People ASSUMED that what happened in the past would happen in the future. It was a risk and has always been a gamble. Things change very fast on the internet, and Y! in their history has gone through many changes to SERP displays, though not as significant as this one for a while.
I do feel sorry for people who think they have wasted their money. But I dont think its justification for thinking of it as unfair. Business so often seems "unfair"
digitalghosts analogy is faulty. Y! at no time promised an ad on the front window. You assumed that from the past. But you weren't as smart as Grumpus :) Foreseeing the future is a key part of successful business...
[edited by: chiyo at 7:22 pm (utc) on Oct. 10, 2002]
| 7:18 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>> A directory that then appeared when a search was performed and those sites in the directory were displayed prominently. Argue semantics if you like, a listing for your site is an advertisement. People paid for review because inclusion in the directory gave them visibility that is now reduced. People are upset because the directory listings are now secondary.
I've read everyone's posts about this change and agree with DigitalGhost that everyone is arguing over semantics...and that this whole fiasco wouldn't be nearly as acceptable to many if Google, the darling of the SE world, weren't involved...no, it's not Google's fault, but the latitude they're given is gauling at times, and is so extreme it's even keeping heat off Yahoo!...
Here's an interesting note, IMHO: When I do a search on AOL Search, or just from AOL (the "fake" internet) I get almost the same results that Yahoo! displays...
Of course, this is obvious, because Google provides the results for both AOL and almost all results for Yahoo!...so why use Yahoo! at all? If I want Google results, I'll use Google...
Regarding Yahoo - Why pay $299 for express inclusion?
Better yet, why does Yahoo! even offer the express inclusion still, unless some haven't yet caught on that it's not worth it?
| 7:25 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It's not about fairness... it's a question of honor and integrity.
Disreputable firms can always hide behind small print. They are usually con merchants, ready to exploit those who trade on the assumption that the other party is not a crook and has some decency about them.
Yes, they will successfully rip people off, but does that make it right? Of course not... unless you want a world in which you have to assume that everyone you meet and know is trying to stab you in the back. Jeez, what a world that would be.
It's amazing to me that some people jump to the defense of the small print. We know it's there, but maybe don't expect an established company to behave like a small time thief.
Fine... point out the small print repeatedly... but for goodness sake don't try to justify its use in a scenario like this.
| 7:35 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|What I see is that you can indeed buy some Pagerank, it costs 300 bucks and Yahoo! is a Google approved vendor. Looksmart changed their model and there was a huge outcry. Yahoo! changes their model and people are defending the change because Google darling is part of the change. |
I see your point about paying for pr. If Yahoo! drops to a PR 9 then you'd be somewhat screwed there too. Of course, Google can point as many pr 10 links at Yahoo! as it likes, which kind of lends credence to the whole monopoly thing.
Don't get me wrong. In general I like the change. I also like to play devils advocate.
| This 267 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 267 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 8 9 ) > > |