| 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. :)
| 2:01 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Amen to that internet marketing m and to jen24815.
<edit>remaining comments on the subject of SEO = spamming</edit>
| 2:11 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>Yahoo's pagerank effects are worth nothing unless you are selling tumbleweed
So if the Pagerank from Yahoo! is worthless and no one seemed to like their directory or get any traffic from it, why was Yahoo! recommended to everyone as one of the links to have?
ROFL Is the Pagerank benefit from ODP worthless too? Or does Yahoo! somehow have tainted Pagerank unless of course you market the ever popular tumbleweed?
| 2:15 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.
Okay, now go to the front of the class and write "I will not quote out of context" 50 times. :)
I was pointing out that for an enormous number of BizEx customers just the directory traffic alone can be worth the $25 per month when weighed against the current PPC market.
Of course, those that aren't getting any traffic at all will not want to renew... if they're even paying attention.
As for people not noticing a $300 charge... shall I forward you an article about a company that bilked hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their clients by continuing to bill monthly for years after their contract had expired?
The only reason this even came to light was because one client finally did notice more than a year later and when they were refused a refund for the erroneous billing did some research on their own...
What they found was more than 750 other clients lining this company's coffers because they weren't keeping tabs on their accounting.
Sure a SOHO is likely to catch the charge... but there are thousands that won't, and thousands more that will continue paying for a listing with Yahoo because they don't run a ROI check for all of their advertising and promotion expenditures.
Do you really think that the thousands of businesses that spend in excess of 10,000 per year on banner, space, print, yellow pages, and PPC advertising are going to drop their $300 listing in the directory of the most visited portal in the world?
It's a pittance to the big budget players.
Unlike the illegal billing scam mentioned above... Yahoo's recurring fee is perfectly legal, and while there most certainly will be a decline in their BizEx listings and renewals with budget conscious businesses, you can count on the fact that they will continue to collect Millions annually regardless of their recent SERP change.
|If that is what you think, |
It's what I know... along with every other B2B provider that does recurring billing including Yahoo.
|I have some waterfront property in Nevada to sell you! |
Thanks, but I've already got a nice view of the Pacific from my home here on Maui. ;)
| 2:17 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"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!"
Irony meter goes off the scale....
| 2:23 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|So if the Pagerank from Yahoo! is worthless and no one seemed to like their directory or get any traffic from it, why was Yahoo! recommended to everyone as one of the links to have? |
I mean that now Yahoo pagerank effects for some competitive areas are smaller than some months ago, and smaller than actual Dmoz PR effects.
| 2:34 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'm sorry if I rubbed some of you the wrong way, and I guess it is partly Y!'s fault too they allowed such manupulative SERPS in the way of multi-keyword domains. But let's face it, everyone was playing the system, and when you play, you can lose.
I can't see how people counted on these "spammy-like" sites (or optimized if that makes you feel better) :) ...as their bread and butter and didn't have a backup plan though with a site that is useful, high page rank, good content, etc. Surely the spammy sites you used supported another major site, right? How come you are not doing well with this site now? If it's just Google's "questionable" Sept. SERPs, then perhaps you need not worry once the next update comes.
| 2:59 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It's all really simple
If you are listed here:
Yahoo Directory Category [dir.yahoo]
You go to the end of the line (in google serps).
The FTC will be interested in how the consumer is impacted.
The Justice Department will be interested in the effects of collusion.
"This transaction would substantially lessen competition for <fill in the blank> and result in higher prices and poorer services to <fill in the blank>"
I initially thought (pre-yahoo! announcement) that google had simply lost the yahoo deal, it now looks like they colluded to not only minimize the yahoo directory presence, but to also target the directory listings for google ranking penalty.
Everyone is claiming how the y directory had to be "cleaned up", I'm sure some other folks are cleaning up as well. ;)
For a time.....
[edited by: Marcia at 8:20 am (utc) on Oct. 11, 2002]
[edit reason] side scroll [/edit]
| 3:18 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
i think it will be smart of Y! from a PR standpoint to reimburse a pro-rated fee and take out the Y! listing for those who wish not to continue given the changes made to search listings ...
i know they never guaranteed a listing or positions ... but many people who paid did so with certain expectations as long as the site was accepted following Y! listing guidelines ...
now overnite this changed and caused a lot of uproar ...
personally whether Y! does the above or not will not affect us ...
but my 0.02 for Y! is to get an automatic form up and running on Y! quickly offering disgruntled webmasters a way to get out ... and not seek the class action route or other legal actions or air out a lot of crap!
| 5:36 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>>I can't see how people counted on these "spammy-like" sites (or optimized if that makes you feel better) ...as their bread and butter and didn't have a backup plan though with a site that is useful, high page rank, good content, etc. Surely the spammy sites you used supported another major site, right? How come you are not doing well with this site now? If it's just Google's "questionable" Sept. SERPs, then perhaps you need not worry once the next update comes.<<<
So everyone who in your mind who was ranked high in Yahoo had a Spammy Site? What if you have a very good site with good content and rank in the top 10 or 20 for some other search engines (MSN, Ask Jeeves,Lycos, AV etc.) and top 40 in Google,but you didn't feel you were getting enough traffic so you did some research and you paid your $300 and you were fortunate to be allowed entry and you were ranked either 1 or 2 for 6 or 7 very important keywords. You saw your traffic increase an enourmous amount. Then all of a sudden, Yahoo changes the way they do business without any warning from them and despite all of your hard work in optimizing your site for the other engines your traffic goes just suddenly disappears! How do you think that makes you feel? I bet you would feel like you were just punched in the gut! And I can guarantee you that there are a lot of people out there that have similar stories. I definitly agree that there are always going to be people trying to manipulate the system (has anyone heard of the 80/20 rule?)but IMHO (call me naive if you want)I believe that there are more of us out there trying to do the right thing and make an honest living off of the internet.
| 5:56 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>> Okay, now go to the front of the class and write "I will not quote out of context" 50 times. <<<
How did I quote you out of context? I don't feel that I misquoted you.
Anyway another thing you say is >>>Do you really think that the thousands of businesses that spend in excess of 10,000 per year on banner, space, print, yellow pages, and PPC advertising are going to drop their $300 listing in the directory of the most visited portal in the world? >>>
I had dinner with a friend tonight who is the CFO fairly large (a little more then a million dollar company and whose company spends 50k a year on all of the various forms of internet advertising and he told me that every dollar has to be accounted for and has to be justified before putting it in the budget. He also mentioned that the IT dept plays a large part in deciding where they spend their money. I can guarantee you when there is a large drop in searches from Yahoo the IT dept will bring it up!
| 6:15 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
gsmitchell, I'm not saying all top 20 or whatever sites were spammy. Perhaps only 20% or so were "spammy".. I don't know.
I'm just saying, if you were determined to "play the game" and "go for gold" with spammy sites, why not have a backup plan with a legit site? Why isn't the legit site ranking well in Google? That's all.
| 6:27 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>>I'm just saying, if you were determined to "play the game" and "go for gold" with spammy sites, why not have a backup plan with a legit site? Why isn't the legit site ranking well in Google? That's all.>>>
What about the small guy who is ranked fairly well (top 40) in Google with a legit site but doesn't have the thousands of dollars it will take for SEO nor does he have the countless hours it will take to do it himself because he spends 15-18 hours a day working?Again, IMHO there are a lot of us who fall into this category! Wasn't this country built on the belief that you can acheive anything in this country no matter where you were from or how much money you had if you worked hard? At least the small guy was able to level the playing field a little by being able to pay the $300 in hopes of being listed and being listed high.
Now that Yahoo changed the way searches are displayed, they have just killed the small guy.
| 6:37 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Looks like WW needs a resident counselour - the trauma double whammy of Google changes this time round, coupled with Y! changes is seeing some real sore and angry people.
Sympathy is called for, but realism tells me to pour oil on the boiling waters, not balm. Heini covers pretty much everything I feel anyway, but to the amens and 'hear-hears' floating around, I say nonsense.
Honor, Integrity? - purleease. And neither is it semantics. I think that there is a delicious irony in professional web business people (those that have suffered as a result of the listing change) implicitly supporting the previous Y! results. Sure, you may have been placed well, but look me straight in the eye and tell me that a Y! SERP was anything other that pretty much the worst thing out there, quality wise, and I'd have a hard job to a) not laugh, and b)believe you.
No, you say, the results were there, it's just that Y! didn't display them well enough. Nonsense again - no matter which way you shuffled the deck, it was missing lots of cards. Even supposing you were right, and it was just about how they presented their listings, what were they to do? Bring in a good algo. to present their listings in a more relevant way? An algo. like, say, Googles?
Things had to change. Some people seem to feel that an advance warning was appropriate. Hmm.
They've changed, they're massively better. It's business, solid and old fashioned business, and I simply cannot believe that the people who used to be well placed in the Y! directory could have thought that they were standing on anything other than very thin and very crazed ice.
[edited by: mat at 8:27 am (utc) on Oct. 11, 2002]
| 6:52 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>> They've changed, they're massively better. It's business, solid and old fashioned business, and I simply cannot believe that the people who used to be well placed in the Y! directory could have thought that they were standing on anything other than very thin and very crazed ice. >>>
Tell me how it is better for the small guy who has a legitimate site? The small guy who had a little more level playing field. You are assuming that everyone who had a high listing was because they used a "Spammy Site" or are professional web business people. Wake up and realize that most people who pay the $300 are the honest hard working guy who is trying to get his business going. I will definitly agree that there was abuse going on, but again the small guy at least had a chance! Now, Yahoo has just KILLED the small guy who is trying to run a legitimate site! And I know for a fact that there are a lot more small guys out there with limited budgets then there are of the multi million dollar ones. And I can guarantee you the small guy is not going to continue to spend $300 on Yahoo.
| 6:53 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>> They knew *exactly* what they were doing... and why they did it. <<
Too right they did - they knew that they were ripping off anyone who has submitted in the last 6 momths. That's what makes them a bunch of crooks.
>> Some of you think this is unethical. Fine. I tell you what: ethics don't even come into play here. <<
I'll tell you what - ethics are all around you. Whenever you take a decision there is an ethical dimension. Ethics, integrity and morality are what define you. You can't just switch them off because you want to take a decision that screws people. Well you can, but you know what that makes you.
>> I'm not saying all top 20 or whatever sites were spammy<<
Spam is in the eye of the competitor! Bet I could find something that I could define as 'spam' if I looked at your site.
| 6:54 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"Now that Yahoo changed the way searches are displayed, they have just killed the small guy."
You write this standing on your head? This is great news for the little guy!
Now that spam-upchucking big company I face can't pay for FORTY doorway sites, and get six of them to land in the top eleven.
In the old garbage results, big money always won. If you don't rank #1, just submit another doorway! Hey, how great for "the little guy."
Now the searcher gets plainly better, more relevant results (with the risk of too much dominace by one company) and the little guy can compete on equal footing in almost every area of the Internet.
Again, would the nellies be crying if they had paid $299 and were listed 35? Of course not. I was number 1 for a month and always in the top ten for my main keyword till these FORTY duplicate sites dumped into the directory. (I always wondered how they would rank one duplicate site eight and another 11... what would they do, have a lottery where litle numbered balls would roll out?)
Those complaining should really examine how terrific this change, in the principal of it, is for everybody except very deep-pocketed and/or spammy sites. Coincidental bad luck is no reason to condemn a great improvement. The best results on the Internet, with your paid-for directory listing always one click away. Your $299 is now on an equal footing (except alphabetical) with every other $299. My goodness, how can anybody complain about *the principle* of that?
| 7:03 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I am a 'small guy'. Never paid for PPC or PFI in my life. That's precisely why this is good.
Can you really not see the wood for the trees here? Google IS GOOD for Mon 'n Pop. Google IS GOOD for fairness and quality. Now, too, is Yahoo.
| 7:13 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|What about the small guy who is ranked fairly well (top 40) in Google with a legit site but doesn't have the thousands of dollars it will take for SEO nor does he have the countless hours it will take to do it himself because he spends 15-18 hours a day working? |
He will have to stop spending the few moments of his precious free time whining about how the latest development in Corporate America has destroyed his ability to succeed and get back to work on his online business.
| 7:40 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Okay SteveB, I'll tell you exactly why some of the little guys are complaining.
Mr. Small Business builds his site, he sells blue widgets so hey, he buys a domain name that reflects that fact. After building his site he submits to all the engines that count. He ranks 29 in Google for his keyword phrase. Now he's been told to submit to Yahoo and pay the 299 bucks for the review. He submits, Yahoo! accepts his money and his site. For his keywords on Yahoo! he gets listed at #4. Hey, not bad. He's getting some traffic now. He assumes at the time that since Yahoo! lists the damn directory first, and it is their directory, that his site will displayed when those Yahooligans type in the keyphrases for his site. Now, Yahoo, without telling anyone the specifics in advance, changes the default listings to Google results and he's back at #20 again, with little traffic. His assumption wasn't bad, previously, Yahoo! listed the directory results first, this established their method of business.
You keep going on about being one click away while conveniently forgetting to mention that it is another click away and unless you rank well on Google no one really cares about that little red arrow because your listing and that cute little red arrow are beneath the fold.
So, for some of these small guys, Yahoo looked like a duck, walked like a duck, then barked. The reasonable expectation that a successful submission would be displayed as the default was created by Yahoo!, not SEOs, webmasters or any other entity other than Yahoo!
Every SEO I know recommends submitting sites to Yahoo! That spammy neighborhood known as the Yahoo directory is pretty cozy with Google and I see post after post here talking about bad neighborhoods, linking to bad neighborhoods, etc. Guess what? Google gives that big 'ole spammy neighborhood some pretty good PageRank. Looks like MONEY can make SPAM smell like filet mignon.
| 7:50 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
So i go out with my mobile phone every night and my friend gets so used to it that she gets to assume i will always have it. I have reviewed her as a "suitable friend" becuase she has conservative, unique and neat clothes and I think people will like me becuase she is always so attractive. She dosent have a phone but she has gotten used to using mine when she goes out, even though i have never promised her she can or how many times in a night.
She sorta.. just... expects it...
One day i decide to upgrade to a new phone, and her boyfriend's number that was programmed into my old phone is no longer there. She howls with dismay when she finds she cant use the phone in the normal efficient way.
Am I at fault for creating an assumption?
Should I have informed her before that i was planning to upgrade my phone?
Or was it her fault for not planning for contingencies, or making working but not always true assumptions that my phone will always work as it is used to?
[edited by: chiyo at 8:01 am (utc) on Oct. 11, 2002]
| 7:59 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
chiyo, that is a pretty bad example to be honest. Perhaps if you purchased a mobile phone for $299 (payable yearly) and it worked well - until one day it stopped working on some of the main numbers you normally call. What would you do? Complain or say, oh well, I can always use a phone box....
Of course people can pursue legal action if they wish. In fact, it's a good case and I'm sure as I type there are already meetings and letters being drawn up.....
Affiliate people will be the most affected. Why? Overture doesn't like them any more. But small businesses rely on affiliates to bring in lots of revenue. So - Yahoo! was a great option for them. But, believe me, the average Yahoo! surfer will not bother to click on the directory link. Shoppers can be very fickle and lazy ;)
So at the end of the day - small businesses will suffer the most. And with news of Google developing their own affiliate marketing strategy - it's a painful time for the little guy on the web.
[edited by: nutsandbolts at 8:04 am (utc) on Oct. 11, 2002]
| 8:04 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Chiyo, we can play this game if you like, but I think it will prove pointless.
If you go into that restaurant and you notice everyone is ordering the filet mignon and they are receiving nice 12oz. portions, and you decide to order filet mignon after noticing what a great deal that is and you get a teeny 3 oz. piece of charcoal on your plate, would that offend your sense of reasonable expectations? :)
Or you get that cell phone bill every month and they have been charging you 10 cents a minute for every minute over your calling plan and suddenly they change that rate to 90 cents a minute would that make a difference?
To strain credibility just a bit further, assume that your friend pays you 300 bucks to bring your cell phone with you that night for dinner because she's expecting an important call, her cell phone was stolen and you bring a cell phone with a dead battery. True to your word, you brought the cell phone, and fulfilled your end of the agreement since she didn't specify bringing a functioning cell phone...
| 8:08 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
yep iid have to agree nuts and bolts... a highly over-simplified and frivolous example to analyse whether you should be responsible for assumptions and expectations that other people have of you, even though you have gone out of your way in your TOS to clearly state that those things are not guaranteed. Are you responsible for causing problems to other people by suddenly changing your behaviour when they are used to other behaviour in the past? - especially if you have already what of your behaviour is guaranteed (review) and what is not (listing and exposure).
Sorry it is Friday afternoon!
PS i changed the example above before i saw you post.
| 8:10 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
dg i agree, after seeing your rejoinder I agree its pointless!
Lets forget the colorful analogies.
See my post above with the facts and not the game.
| 8:18 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>you have gone out of your way in your TOS
I never said that Yahoo couldn't do what they did, I just think they could have handled it better. Don't you?
| 8:19 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I had dinner with a friend tonight who is the CFO fairly large company... he told me that every dollar has to be accounted for and has to be justified before putting it in the budget. |
I'm glad to hear that they are diligent in their accounting, it's just sound business practice.
Unfortunately, as my story related earlier clearly shows, sound business practices are more scarce than they should be.
|I can guarantee you when there is a large drop in searches from Yahoo the IT dept will bring it up! |
Bring it up? No doubt.
Drop the listing? I doubt it.
Gentleman's wager... if your friend's company decides to drop their Yahoo directory listing before this time next year, I'll buy your ticket for the next PubConference.
| 8:22 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|And with news of Google developing their own affiliate marketing strategy - it's a painful time for the little guy on the web. |
I would suggest that with the increasing ability of search engines to zero in on the actual source's site, affiliate marketing on the Web has been dying for a year or more. If I was into affiliate marketing in general i would be out of it by now. It only worked when things were hard to find on the Web when searches were inefficient and search engines were developing their algos
Now they are not.
I make an exception for highly focused sites that add real value and orginal content far and beyond what their affiliate(s) offer and dont just depend on better keywords in url, title, etc. They still have a future.
If this is one of the effects of Y!'s latest changes, it is not the cause, but an effect of a trend in the Web which is causing affiliate marketing a dead end, or at least changing significantly the way affiliates and their partners work together. The evidence is not only in declining revenues for affiliate based sites, but also in the fast decline in average click through or commissions, a larger decline that Web advertising declines overall...
| 8:25 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I never said that Yahoo couldn't do what they did, I just think they could have handled it better. Don't you? |
I think that is a fair comment. Maybe they couldnt afford to show their hand. Unless handled very carefully, it could have tipped off their main players. But I know what you are saying and think its a fair comment.
PS: I promise to shut up now.
| 8:30 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|affiliate marketing on the Web has been dying for a year or more. |
The total opposite. It's growing ever bigger year-on-year. E-marketing MLM E-books - now that's an industry that's dying ;)
| 8:56 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
agree on the latter nuts and bolts..
but surprised that you say its getting bigger, given the press reports of dissastisfied webmasters, informal reports of affiliates (including here on WebmasterWorld) struggling to get income, and lower commissions and click through rates compared to 2 years ago. Always interested to hear why. Of course we would have to start a new thread!
| This 267 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 267 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  9 ) > > |