| 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.
| 7:40 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"If the past was always a 100% indication of the future, then if i read the form guide, I would win on every horse."
Hardly a good analogy - there is nothing unclear about betting on a horse. This is about the rules changing - the assumed benefit of the $299 has changed. Sure there is nothing that says that yahoo has to provide the directory search service, but it is implied simply by the fact that it existed. Wouldn't at all be suprised to see some class action lawsuits spring up. You can't bait & switch.
The Yahoo results are a lot better now, but I think they will see a big drop in $299 listing fee's, there really doesn't seem to be any justifiable ROI for spending $299 a year at Yahoo for the vast majority of sites.
As ecommerce becomes a greater % of the overall economy the actions of Yahoo / Google etc will surely become more regulated. So con merchants like Lookdumb couldn't get away with the type of stunts that they have. But Yahoo is still ethically many steps above the clowns at Lookdumb.
| 7:44 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Napoleon, I think you first floated the directory income figure:
> 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?
Where's that coming from? I've never seen Yahoo break out the income it gets just from directory listings -- and when I've asked, I get the standard Yahoo doesn't talk about those sort of things.
In the latest financials that came out yesterday:
there is a reference to "Fees and Listings" totalling $83.1 million last quarter -- but that includes things like HotBot listings and personal ads. I'm not even sure if directory listing income is in there.
Instead, that income might be part of the "Marketing Services" revenues totaled $147.4 million last quarter. The Overture ads that Yahoo carries are part of that figure. One figure I've seen suggests that Overture makes up about $30 million of that.
Since all the financial analysts are excited about the growth Yahoo's getting from Overture -- and they tend to forget it sells its own listings -- I get the impression that Yahoo Express isn't that major of an earner for Yahoo. If so, it may explain why they aren't worried that some of those who are now paying on an annual basis might decide not to renew.
| 7:45 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|there is nothing unclear about betting on a horse. |
You are hereby invited to join me for the next race day any time you want!
| 7:52 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Danny... it was a broad brush calculation earlier in the week as follows:
New entries in Yahoo directory last week:
· Tuesday Oct. 8 - 1032
· Monday Oct. 7 - 726
· Sunday Oct. 6 - 30
· Saturday Oct. 5 - 27
· Friday Oct. 4 - 736
· Thursday Oct. 3 - 671
· Wednesday Oct. 2 - 893
That's 4115 and it does not include those who have paid but have had their site rejected, or of course those who have paid the annual renewal.
I reckon almost all of these were paid for, well over $1M per week (4115 x $299 = $1,230,385 last week), or $50M+ pa.
In my opinion they are gambling with a heavy chip on the table and have not properly selected the right number.
| 7:59 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Napoleon: Looks like the same stats that I posted in a thread earlier. I agree with you completely. Even without dealing the Income from Business Express, they have crossed the line of Ethical and Unethical.
Unethical Business Acts must be contagious this year. Enron, Arthur Anderson, and now Yahoo.
| 8:03 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Don't miss L$ off that list.
| 8:10 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Ah, I see. I'd suggest this -- take just the submissions in the Business & Economy category, since those are the only places where payment is required. No doubt, people are paying to be in some of the
"free" categories, but it's really hard to know how many. If you stick to just Business & Economy, at least you have a better "low end" figure, I'd say:
Tuesday Oct. 8 - 201
Monday Oct. 7 - 158
Sunday Oct. 6 - 1
Saturday Oct. 5 - 1
Friday Oct. 4 - 115
Thursday Oct. 3 - 148
Wednesday Oct. 2 - 233
858 x $299 = $256,000 weekly = $13 million
Interestingly, here's a figure to compare with. LookSmart recently announced in the last six months that it sold 25,000 small business listings. Difficult to do apple-to-apples between LookSmart and Yahoo, but let's just say anyone trying to get a small business listing at LookSmart did Yahoo Express, as well:
50,000 x $299 = $15 million yearly, pretty close to that low end figure above.
However you cut it -- $15 million or $50 million, no doubt the changes are going to cause lots of people to question what previously was a "must do" payment. But all the wording on Yahoo's help pages about "third party" providers that might accept payment suggests they have some serious paid inclusion plans in mind which (they might hope) make up for lost Yahoo Express submissions.
I'm also sure they figure a lot of people may figure that Yahoo Express is still worth doing if only to help influence their chances with Google. Ironic -- as others have observed as well -- that may make Yahoo into the ultimate PageRank for sale system.
| 8:26 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I also knew month's ago that Y! would probably switch to pure Google results. My point was who would have imagined that Y! would have changed their default search from the Directory to Web results. I can bet you very few of us would have imagined that Y! would basically tell the paid for inclusion people you don't matter!
| 8:27 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hmmm, a hell of a gamble for them whichever way you cut it. All my business sense tells me that you don't take a solid earner out of the equation without guarantees.
>> all the wording on Yahoo's help pages about "third party" providers <<
I interpret this as "Now that our results look clean we will find a way to completely screw them up and drive folks off our site".
Anyone remember the one hour "glitch" on Google a few months ago? The one in which an advert was slipped into the #7 slot in the search returns?
I reckon that's just the sort of trick we will see from Yahoo as they take the SERP de-value path. I confidently predict problems with the FTC downstream as Yahoo push the boundaries to the limit.
| 10:00 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
JayT....LOL; how good did it feel to say that? I'm with you. :)
I'm not sure why some people can't understand the frustration over paying for Yahoo review/possible inclusion and then turning around the next week and being hit with this.
This is the way I see it - and granted, maybe this is naive - but before this changeover, Y! results were substantially different (at least in my target area) than Google.
I paid my $300 after careful consideration, thinking I had a good chance at placing well in the Y! results. Note, I did not say I paid my $300 to be included, or to rank well, or to dominate Y! as one small step in my evil plan for a global monopoly on my pet keywords -- I paid for review of my site for possible inclusion in the Y! directory. I was willing to take the chance it wouldn't place well, because I had the "facts" or so I thought at the start.
Now, I did NOT pay my money just to have them yak back up the [insert your favorite colorful words here] results from Google! I really don't think that's what they advertised when I signed up. It's certainly not what I thought I would be getting, that's for sure - my fault, I guess.
I think it's misleading, though.
I paid for review/possible inclusion from a "unique" directory -- different from Google. What I got was a $300 duplicate Google listing.
Illegal? Doubtful. I really don't know and don't care. But it's frustrating nonetheless.
Y! and Google can do whatever they want; it's business, I understand that. But to say it's not deceptive? That I don't understand.
Let's say you had a free listing in the X phone book and Z business-to-business directory offered you a chance to be included if your biz passed their standards - no guarantees. If you paid Z for the possibility of being included in something substantially different, wouldn't you be kind of ticked if they took your money and just xeroxed X and passed it off as something unique?
Anyway, spilled milk I guess.
I'm sure this worked out well for a lot of folks, I'm just not one of them. ;)
| 10:51 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Questions for all of you. We have a very new website and are trying to attract more traffic. We chose to list with LS a few weeks ago and clicks and conversions from MSN have been very positive in the last few weeks. Based on this success, we were also about to submit to Yahoo. That was until yesterday of course. We're kind of in a crunch as we want make sure we get loads of relevant traffic during the holiday season. Overture rates for our kw's are way too high and we fear optimization efforts will turn take too much time to produce results.
Everyone on this board seems to think that the best way to get listed high on Yahoo *now* is to obtain a top listing on Google somehow. However, if Yahoo is looking to add more 3rd party partners, wouldn't any effort in this regard be somewhat useless? Do we really know for sure that Yahoo results won't be *less* influenced by Google in the coming days and months?
Would it be better to wait and see who the other search result providers for Yahoo turn out to be? Is it even possible that LS will be one of the providers (saving us a great deal of trouble)?
| 10:57 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
With regards to "all of the revenue" that Yahoo is going to be losing in BizEx submissions...
The professional webmaster and SEO community is only one small segment of the paid inclusion market for Yahoo.
Don't believe me?
Watch the new additions link over the coming weeks and months... yes, there will no doubt be a drop in the Business and Economy category, but it will be a far from disappearing.
The vast majority of people that are ponying up for inclusion on the web have nowhere near the savvy and insight that this community does.
Masses upon masses pay anywhere from 10-50 dollars for the "Submit-Your-Site-To-50,000-Search-Engines" scams each and every day.
There will be thousands of folks paying Yahoo the BizEx fee without any understanding of how their SERPs work in the hope that it will bring them traffic from the most popular Portal in the world.
The SEO community is the "loud minority" in these matters... Yahoo is marketing to the masses, and they know it.
For every individual that is devastated because their business model was dependent upon carefully crafted listings in the Yahoo directory... there is another webmaster that is thrilled because they are making just as much additional traffic as the others have just lost.
I can assure you that Yahoo will not be whining over the lost submission fees the way many are whining about their lost referral traffic.
They knew *exactly* what they were doing... and why they did it.
They've been testing clickthroughs on these updated SERPs for months now.
You can be sure that they took into consideration some lost revenue from the SEO community and that it is a drop in the bucket when weighed against the gains they stand to make from users that are more satisfied with their SERPs and all of the other correlative gains associated with their new format.
| 11:16 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|There will be thousands of folks paying Yahoo the BizEx fee without any understanding of how their SERPs work in the hope that it will bring them traffic from the most popular Portal in the world. |
I don't doubt that this will remain true, but I wonder how many of these folks will be paying the renewal fee once they do become aware of how the SERP's work? Once burned, twice shy......
| 11:17 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|My point was who would have imagined that Y! would have changed their default search from the Directory to Web results. I can bet you very few of us would have imagined that Y! would basically tell the paid for inclusion people you don't matter! |
Yahoo websites & web pages question [webmasterworld.com]
Yahoo? or Google [webmasterworld.com]
Google SERPs as Default Search On Yahoo? [webmasterworld.com]
Many have been tracking Yahoo's careful testing of these SERPs for months now, and I for one thought the change was going to be even sooner.
I held back on submitting 2 sites for over 3 months... had I known that it was going to be this long I would have simply submitted and more than quadrupled my investment in just those 12 weeks alone. ;)
| 11:20 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
what does yahoo stand to gain from this? i can see how aol would use straight google, but yahoo? the searchers aren't yahoo's only customer here. They've always been trying to find ways to, i know it sounds crazy, but, turn a profit. If NBC decided to stop showing commercials where would they make their money?
I think they have something in mind, don't know what, but the way it is they have written off a big chunk of revenue. Maybe they're really counting on that peice of google that they own.
ps...i'm watching a yahoo ad on tv right now that just came on...sbc yahoo dsl deal, $29.95 a month. maybe you'll start seeing yahoodsl popup ads every time you do a search.
whatever...point is...for profit companies just don't write off revenue unelss there is a very good reason to do so. any ideas?
| 11:20 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
OK - lets talk about ethics.
Some of you think this is unethical. Fine. I tell you what: ethics don't even come into play here.
This is web biz. Lets get real here: up to now it was for many people a cool deal to get hold of a KW laden url, stuff it with affiliate links, shell out $300 and shoot high on Y!.
Y! would then list your site no matter what, which in turn gave a boost in Google, which is one of the reasons why affiliate stuff dominated so many serps in Google.
Not a chance for the mom & pops.
So that was ethical business? And Y! did a good, human reviewed ethical directory?
It was a GOOD DEAL for many people - no problems with that.
Somewhat cheesy it gets when some people now start to clamour about unethical business practise.
Even more cheesy it gets when people claim the Y! directory was a quality directory, now abandoned by big bad Y! for the even bigger badder Google's serps, which are of inferior quality.
If Google serps are in certain money areas of inferior quality it's not to a small degree due to the poisoning with the completely sold out directory of Yahoo.
Yahoo has in this forum been brandmarked as unofficial PR shop of Google. That product, btw, is still on sale at Y!. Ethical business? Quality directory? Don't make me laugh.
Please - lets better leave moral highriding in regard to doing business with Y!. It was never about ethics, neither from their side nor from our. The word ethics gets a cheap smell when used in the wrong context.
There are lots of members here, who think $300 for a Y! listing is still a good deal for their business.
Other members think the deal is not worth it anymore.
That's the discussion here. Trying to evaluate the situation. Seeing what works for whom. Trying to stay afloat.
>why some people can't understand the frustration
Oh, frustration I do understand very well. But we should not forget: relying on buying your way into directories is a risky business.
You pay several directories for inclusion. A lot of money gets burned. Next you realise: One directory decided to drop the hyphen from a carefully crafted two word phrase. Another directory has just decided to put one more OV listing on top, so that your directory listing slips beneath the fold. A third directory all of a sudden gets a PR drop from Google. A forth directory starts wrapping your url in a jump url.
Has all happened.
Another example: You set up an account with Espotting, because you want to ride high on Lycos and didn't get it right with Fast. Espotting has a 3 years deal with Lycos. But hey - the deal gets cancelled after 3 months.
That's how commercial webpromotion works, I'm afraid. Sometimes you're high, sometimes low.
It takes a lot of knowledge and forsight to minimize the risk.
| 11:21 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I wonder how many of these folks will be paying the renewal fee once they do become aware of how the SERP's work? |
Far more than you imagine... there are entire industries whose profit margins are built on the fact that a very large percentage of consumers never cancel billing accounts that are recurring or bother to read their statements.
| 11:32 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>>Far more than you imagine... there are entire industries whose profit margins are built on the fact that a very large percentage of consumers never cancel billing accounts that are recurring or bother to read their statements.<<<
I agree with you to a point, but when you are talking $300 not $20 or $30 there is the big difference. So IMHO people are going to jump off the Yahoo pfi bandwagon
| 11:49 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This is an interesting comparison to the recent Looksmart change from a directory to a PPC engine. At least Yahoo hasn't actually destroyed their directory, and it will still get some traffic.
In relation to the 'ethics' of this move, it is unfortunate that Yahoo didn't see fit to warn webmasters 3 months in advance of the impending changes. It does seem very rude to me to keep on selling a product right up until the last minute and then spring a major downgrading onto unsuspecting customers. And it is a massive downgrade of their express submit product.
I wonder how many of those submissions would have gone ahead if the site owners had known how Yahoo would turn out?
From a user's POV I think that this is an excellent move, for 3 reasons:
1. It provides page matches to specific searches, courtesy of Google.
2. The directory is easily accessed if visitors are looking for sites on a subject.
3. Yahoo have substituted the Google snippets wherever possible.
Explaining this a little more, when people are searching on the net they are mostly searching either for sites, in which case a directory of categorised sites is ideal, or they are looking for a specific piece of information, in which case a search engine is better since it can pinpoint that information. I think that Yahoo now has the balance just right, in the same way that Google has had it for some time.
I have complained about the snippets on Google before; they can be very confusing for inexperienced users, who just see a jumble of words, including the search terms. Replacing these with the Yahoo site descriptions is a great way of improving the usability of Google's results for some users.
| 11:50 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I agree with you to a point, but when you are talking $300 not $20 or $30 there is the big difference. So IMHO people are going to jump off the Yahoo pfi bandwagon |
Only those that aren't getting any traffic at *all* from the directory listing.
Yahoo is still listing relevant categories before all of the other results... and while this won't provide nearly the flood of traffic that a top 10 SERP will, I've spent a lot of time studying traffic patterns, and just the category listing alone can deliver traffic at comparable and sometimes better ROI than traditional PPC for only 25$ per month. (without even factoring in PR gains)
I can assure you that Yahoo is not the least bit concerned.
This was a calculated and tested strategic decision on their part and if you watch their earnings reports over the next four quarters I'm sure you'll see just how calculated it really was.
| 11:51 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo has left room for adding another set of search engine results into the mix. I encourage them to do this in order to provide the searching public with an alternative to Google. I for one am going to wait before I pay to have another client site listed in the Yahoo directory. Right now, it appears that the only benefit of having a directory listing is to help with PageRank on Google. And, please don't get me wrong. I love Google but competition and alternatives will help continue to make search engine marketing a viable low-cost marketing solution by providing a better and better search product for internet buyers.
Barbara 'WebMama' Coll
| 12:27 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'm surprised so many people are so amazingly self-absorbed about this change. For my main keyword there are eight categories shown (to be fair, four are basically empty). Altogether there are about 150 sites in these categories. Some who paid $299 were on the fifth or sixth page of the old results! $299 for that? (My $299 got me 17th, while duplicate doorway spam sites sat at 1,5,6,7,9 and 11. Gee, how awful to see that downgraded.
For 20% of the people, the $299 may seem like a waste now. For the other 80% of us, it is a MUCH better deal now.
While concerns about Google being too powerful surely are valid, Yahoo made a great change for its users AND most of its customers.... and also for itself since Overture rates likely will increase a lot.
This change is better for the big majority of directory-listed sites. Now, instead of being shuffled off to oblivion, my site listing is ALWAYS one click away, via the red arrow. This is HUGE, and if people don't recognize that, I don't know what the heck they think about.
Sure, people who happened to be #1 or top five in the old results will be pissed. Well, wake the heck up! What about all those others below you who paid $299 and didn't get crap for it?
| 12:47 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Personally, I begrudgingly agree that the results are far better. Yahoo results were never a patch on google or pretty much anything else!
What has annoyed me, is having only paid for inclusion weeks ago, obtaining fantastic results for only 3 days at a cost of $299.
If we'd known, we wouldn't have wasted our money!
| 1:01 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
For those of you that lost all your traffic, (especially those with the !mysite.com or my-spammy-keyword-site.com) I really can not sympathize with your loss.
Y! used the directory in it's pure form, people spammed it with !#1 garbage. Y! tried to use the directory in a google-type listing, but poeple spammed that too with their multi-keyword domains.
Everyone that is complaining has only themselves to blame, they contributed to the degradation and declining popularity of the directory format for web surfers instead of improving it. And if you don't think Y! had a right to keep their users happy, but instead to satisfy webmasters, you are sorely mistaken.
And if any of you think Y! will lose money from this, you are nuts. People will love the search, use it even more, and some will pay for Y!'s services or click on OVER listings while they're at it, making them even more money.
I think this will also improve the directory considerably, since all the my-spammy-keyword-site.com sites will be gone after they pass on renewing their listing. One year from now, Y!'s directory will be better than ever.
| 1:11 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Heini, I think you summed up the argument nicely. Spot on.
|Internet Marketing M|
| 1:19 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Update for all the smarties out there.
1. The only reason anyone ever registered all those spammy domains was because retarded Yahoo ranked them higher than everyone else. Period. Not our fault, theirs.
2. The only reason their directory was crap was becuase they made it so with their algo. You ever submit a site without a spammed out domain to them? $300 LOST. Don't ever even think their results were anything but their fault. NO ONE wanted to reg those disgusting domains.
3. Most people not complaining about it have never given Yahoo a dollar. Not a single dollar. Until you have actually given Yahoo a few thousand dollars to watch your real sites get no where and your spammed out sites do well, you will never understand the complete absurdity of what has happened. Your money is GONE now. How do I know? Because I was #2 on some $5 a click keywords, and #5 on some $14 a click keywords, and now that they have ANHILLATED their directory, there are no more sales from them at all. None. I am getting sales from my free google listings now in Yahoo. NONE from the money I gave them.
In summary, if you haven't given them money, don't bother talking trash about using them for pagerank (you know nothing), still getting sales from your directory listing (not happening now), or that we should be happy we got slammed.
Everyone signup now in Yahoo and get that awsome pagerank! Hahaha, if that made sense, don't you think the google results would look a little simmilar to the old yahoo? Yahoo's pagerank effects are worth nothing unless you are selling tumbleweed.
Thank you Yahoo for the rheeming. All hail the iron fist of Google.
| 1:20 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>>Only those that aren't getting any traffic at *all* from the directory listing. <<<
Are you kidding me? You can't tell me people are not going to notice a $300 charge and question it. If that is what you think, then I have some waterfront property in Nevada to sell you! :) Unless you don't give a crap about your accounting you will definitly be going over your charges!
>>>Sure, people who happened to be #1 or top five in the old results will be pissed. Well, wake the heck up! What about all those others below you who paid $299 and didn't get crap for it?<<<
That's the chance you took for paying the $300!You were hoping to be alladmitted to the Yahoo Directory! You were never guaranteed placement! You were just hoping that if you had a well written submission you would get ranked high in some of your prime keywords! I personally spent quite a bit of time making sure my site was optimized and I had a well written relevant site and I was fortunate enough to be listed very high for quite a few of my keywords. So you bet I am a little upset about Yahoo changing their criteria!
Believe me I have spent quite a bit of time working on getting listed prominetly with Google. So far it hasn't done any good. That is why I use adwords for 1 keyword phrase. But how many small companies can afford $300 a month for 1 keyword. I know I can't, so I had to drop my max cpc so now my traffic has been reduced even more!
| 1:23 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Can we all have an Amen to that Internet Marketing M!
| 1:33 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Y! used the directory in it's pure form, people spammed it with !#1 garbage. Y! tried to use the directory in a google-type listing, but poeple spammed that too with their multi-keyword domains. |
I guess "spammed" it would depend on your perspective. I have multi-keyword domains. The domain name is my business name, which contains keywords.
Was that spamming or was it just smart with the old Y! ranking? I have the non-hyphenated version as well...should I have used that?
Y! is the one who weighted those for ranking, we should just ignore that I guess.
If you have a legitimate, relevant site, why NOT optimize to get yourself the best rankings? Don't know about you, but I don't have $300 to toss away.
I'd be willing to bet that 99.9999% of anyone who posts/reads here regularly manipulates their site in one way or another to get better rankings. Betcha somewhere there's someone who considers how you "optimize" your site to be spamming too.
Y/G can do whatever they want; it's their business. If it improved the results for surfers, great.
I really don't see how everyone thinks this will be such a boon for Y, though; if I'm going to get Google at both places, why would I search at Y and endure all the ads?
| 1:34 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Yahoo's pagerank effects are worth nothing unless you are selling tumbleweed |
And some people [i.ex. john316] pointed this out before the Yahoo change.
Some others, simply lacks IMHO some obvious things. :)
| This 267 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 267 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6  8 9 ) > > |