homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.127.56
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
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.

 

chiyo




msg:122297
 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!

NovaW




msg:122298
 9:07 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

Yahoo was good for commercial interests, but not really good for the consumer. I've done my fair share of moaning about the new google index, but lets face it Google is one of the best things on the web - in the face of exploitation, google is like an angel. So - now Yahoo has google results - the Joe Yahoo loyal visitor gets better searches than he ever did. Google gets a bit stronger. Where the consumer wins the whole market wins & the consumer got a raw deal with the old Yahoo results.

Where it all falls down is when google becomes huge and turns evil. Now that's the time to really cry into your beer. Right now is nothing but a potentially concerning step on the path to the darkside.

steveb




msg:122299
 9:40 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

digitalghost, instead of your current complaint, just pretend the "problem" here is some big company dumping 40 doorway sites into your category, and your nice #4 ranking turns into a #29. Well, now what? Yahoo never guaranteed you a freaking #4.

You are complaining about something that is surely less bad than an alternative that happens a lot now. So you are in a category where $299 can get you a #4. Well guess what, in most competive categories all $299 gets you is the right to be in top 100 or so. I don't want to sound mean here, but your complaint is like you are speaking Martian to people in categories where deep pockets throw money at the directory. Independents have no chance the old way. I spent $299 on the Yahoo directory. A competitor spent $12,000 to *buy* the top spot. That is bad for users and surely bad for little guys.

Boaz




msg:122300
 12:07 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

And here's another "let's pretend". Let's pretend Yahoo hasn't changed the actual way it presented results, so directory results are still the default. But let's also pretend Yahoo has only changed (radically) it's search algorithm, and (as an extra twist) has merged some of the categories where there were few listings... I think there;s no arguing this is 100% within their right? Then what? I think a large part of the people complaining here vocally (though not all) would still be complaining that this is not what they were paying for, and talk about suing Yahoo or asking for a refund...
Before the flames rise too high, please note I said "though not all". :)

digitalghost




msg:122301
 1:17 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>I don't want to sound mean here, but your complaint is like you are speaking Martian to people in categories where deep pockets throw money at the directory

Sorry SteveB, but your argument doesn't fly with me. Mr. Deep pockets does exactly the same thing with Google. How difficult is it for Deep Pockets to create 40 complete sites and and get them all listed in Google? The only difference is that with Google he can do what you suggest for free. Happens all the time.

Mr. Deep Pockets has an advantage. Nothing you or I or anyone else can do will change the fact that money talks and big money talks with a commanding voice. If Mr. Deep Pockets decides to OWN your category in 6 months he will spend the money, hire the SEOs, buy the domains and OWN it.

hooloovoo22




msg:122302
 2:00 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

face it...the more grown up the web gets the more it will become like all other media. we have history we can't ignore. when full service marketing and internet ad agencies get big spending clients on retainer like print and broadcast do now, good luck competing.

ma & pa can't buy a prime time tv ad and pretty soon they won't be able to compete on the internet except in niche little places & communities like local cable tv and local newspapers and the bulletin board in the grocery store.

enjoy it while you've got it

gsmitchell




msg:122303
 2:19 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>>Mr. Deep Pockets has an advantage. Nothing you or I or anyone else can do will change the fact that money talks and big money talks with a commanding voice. If Mr. Deep Pockets decides to OWN your category in 6 months he will spend the money, hire the SEOs, buy the domains and OWN it. <<<

My point EXACTLY! Anyone who doesn't see this is only fooling themself!

>>>And here's another "let's pretend". Let's pretend Yahoo hasn't changed the actual way it presented results, so directory results are still the default. But let's also pretend Yahoo has only changed (radically) it's search algorithm, and (as an extra twist) has merged some of the categories where there were few listings... I think there;s no arguing this is 100% within their right? Then what? I think a large part of the people complaining here vocally (though not all) would still be complaining that this is not what they were paying for, and talk about suing Yahoo or asking for a refund... >>>

I disagree with you on this. At least if they changed the algo you would still have a chance of being ranked high and shown 1st. Now with this change you have no chance!

Boaz




msg:122304
 2:40 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

"At least if they changed the algo you would still have a chance of being ranked high and shown 1st. Now with this change you have no chance!"
And I disagree with that :). The people who complain are after all mainly those who already had listings in Yahoo and lost their investment. Now assuming a hypothetical Yahoo algorithm change would have been removing the effect of PR and shifting the search results all around (for example removing the weight of keywords in title and URL, or considering any hyphens that appear as part of a word so "keyword1-keyword2" could only be found for "keyword1-keyword2" and not for "keyword1" or "keyword2"), there's no way anyone who lost his good positions would have been able to change them back and achieve no. 1 again - so the effect on these people would have been the same as what has happened now...

gsmitchell




msg:122305
 2:49 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

Boaz,

>>>And I disagree with that . The people who complain are after all mainly those who already had listings in Yahoo and lost their investment. Now assuming a hypothetical Yahoo algorithm change would have been removing the effect of PR and shifting the search results all around (for example removing the weight of keywords in title and URL, or considering any hyphens that appear as part of a word so "keyword1-keyword2" could only be found for "keyword1-keyword2" and not for "keyword1" or "keyword2"), there's no way anyone who lost his good positions would have been able to change them back and achieve no. 1 again - so the effect on these people would have been the same as what has happened now...>>>
Lets just agree to disagree on this point. :) We all knew that Yahoo did what ever they wanted with your listing. They could change your submission completely to whatever they wanted. We were submitting in the hope of being included. We all know that there is never any guarantee of rank. You could rank high one day and someone could submit 100 sites the next and cause yu to be ranked low the next! Now the small guy has no chance of being # 1. Big money will win because they will spend their money optimising for Google (who controls more then 75% of the market) and will be ranked # 1

geranimo




msg:122306
 3:24 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

Can't believe this thread is still going, I believe the horse is dead.
hooloovoo22 hit the nail on the head.
We just took another step closer to deep pockets owning the prime exposure on the internet. As long as the search engines are trying to turn a profit they will make decisions that are good for the bottom line and their stock prices. My only beef with this move was the fact they took $2400 from me 8 weeks ago to list my site in a directory that they have since moved to the basement. Ok I got over it, have filed for a charge back and we will see what happens from there.
What the Internet needs are 2 separate and distinct neighborhoods for users to conduct searches and research.
1) A SE to handle all non-profit sites for information and education.
2) A SE to handle all business related and commercial PPI and PPC stuff.

Enterprising entrepreneurs will always figure a way to be successful in competitive market.

Powdork




msg:122307
 4:10 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

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?

If she paid you $299 then yes. Its called an implied promise and reading about it will give you a better idea of Yahoo!'s substantial liability here. I believe they are well aware of this and aren't worried because they're not done yet.

gsmitchell




msg:122308
 4:29 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

This is my last post on this particular subject. I am just amazed how many of you don't see this as a disadvantage to the small company. Now if you want a high ranking in more then 75% of the search market, you will need to spend thousands of dollars to optimize for Google. The small guy can't afford to compete. And don't tell me you will just need to work harder because most small companies work their butts of but don't have the expertise or the time to spend learning how to optimize their site. So yes I am frustrated but I guess that no one cares about the small companies and there is nothing I can do about it other then take it like a man and move on.

geranimo




msg:122309
 7:03 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

Just though of a positive thing..
We can now run a WPG reporter mission against Yahoo get all of our placements without fear of a penalty from the almighty Google.

Powdork




msg:122310
 7:13 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

Just though of a positive thing..
We can now run a WPG reporter mission against Yahoo get all of our placements without fear of a penalty from the almighty Google.

If that was a possibility before you wrote this it now probably no longer exists.

Boaz




msg:122311
 7:15 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

Positive thoughts are always a good thing - but as to this specifc one, you could have done this with WPG also before, having it check the Yahoo Web Pages results.

geranimo




msg:122312
 7:19 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

Yes that is true but now your Yahoo results = Google results.

jk3210




msg:122313
 7:48 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>How difficult is it for Deep Pockets to create 40 complete sites and and get them all listed in Google?<<

And your ONE little site has just as good of a chance at being listed #1 in Google as any or all of Mr. Deep Pocket's 40 sites, if your CONTENT is good enough.

And if your content is NOT good enough, why would you expect to be listed #1 ahead of better sites?

Powdork




msg:122314
 8:22 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

Yes that is true but now your Yahoo results = Google results

Not exactly. Yahoo does not have indented results and the default is 20 results per page. Therefore, Google can have 5 domains per default page whereas Yahoogle will have twenty results per page. A site which is at number 20 on Yahoo!, under the fold but on page 1 could conceivably come in at 39 on Google, way down the fourth page.
This is a worse case scenario, but there will always be some of this effect. mysite.com moves from 22 on Google up to 15 on Yahoo! because of this for an important keyword phrase.

This of course all depends on whether or not the default setting is 20 per page. Thats what mine is set at and I can't find anywhere to change it or check if that is default.

gsmitchell




msg:122315
 9:24 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>>And your ONE little site has just as good of a chance at being listed #1 in Google as any or all of Mr. Deep Pocket's 40 sites, if your CONTENT is good enough.

And if your content is NOT good enough, why would you expect to be listed #1 ahead of better sites?>>>

No one said you should expect to be # 1 if content isn't good enough. But Mr Small guy doesn't have the financial wherewithawl to spend the Thousands of dollars it will take to optimize for Google! Nor does he have the time or knowledge to do it own his own! Wake up and face the facts, Money talks!

jk3210




msg:122316
 9:42 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>But Mr Small guy doesn't have the financial wherewithawl to spend the Thousands of dollars it will take to optimize for Google! Nor does he have the time or knowledge to do it own his own! Wake up and face the facts, Money talks!<<

I sit here at my cheesy little $2 computer and write content about the vacation destination where I live, and guess whose site is #1 for a search on Google and Yahoo and ALLtheWEB and AOL for "******* hotels?"

That's #1 out of 1,000,000+ sites.

It's done with no ad budget; no staff; and not a whole lot of intelligence on my part. That's as "small" as it gets.

And if a dork like me can do it...so can anyone else.

gsmitchell




msg:122317
 10:10 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

Obviously you have nothing better to do then sit around and work on your site. Because the people who have to work 15-18 hours a day don't have the time!
I can also bet you you will be singing a different tune when the Big Boys realize all they have to do is spend their money optimizing for Google!

coconutz




msg:122318
 10:22 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

Nor does he have the time or knowledge to do it own his own! Wake up and face the facts, Money talks!

C'mon, I'm a "Mr. Small Guy" one of those week-end hacks or "muppets" as you all like to refer to us as and my cheesy little commercial site ranks #1 for my main kw phrases and for the most competitive kw phrase (3,000,000 results) my site ranks #2.

And don't tell me that I'm not the average muppet.

Obviously you have nothing better to do then sit around and work on your site.

I work close to 60hrs a week in my primary business.

pmac




msg:122319
 10:28 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

Obviously you have nothing better to do then sit around and work on your site

So the guy that doesn't spend alot of his time working his site deserves to be #1? C'mon, your argument is just not making sense. If somebody takes the time to build a great site that others feel worthy of linking to, then they deserve to be ranked. That thakes time and commitment.

jk3210




msg:122320
 10:32 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>Obviously you have nothing better to do then sit around and work on your site. Because the people who have to work 15-18 hours a day don't have the time!<<

I work a full-time day job that takes me out of town 3 days every week. (If I can do it --you can do it.)

>>I can also bet you you will be singing a different tune when the Big Boys realize all they have to do is spend their money optimizing for Google!<<

The site listed in the #2 position behind me has an ad budget that allows them to be #1 on every PPC you can name for every travel destination you've ever heard of, and so many inbound links that trying to check it would cause Google to lock-up. And 8-10 months out of the year I'm ranked ahead of them.

And if I can do it --you can do it.

Darichman




msg:122321
 10:39 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

gsmitchell,

You got a good point but it's really not that hard to get a good ranking in google. Google's algo is pretty simple to figure out.

The hard part is raising your PR enough to get your optomized page up with your competition. But there are ways to raise your PR faster than the "normal" trading links. Of course I can't tell all my secrets but there are many ways of getting people to link to you.

I am also a little one man operation just like jk3210. And I have top 10's for thousands of keywords on google.

All you got to do is optomize your page for google and raise your PR by getting people to link to your page with your best keyword in the anchor text.

I have come up with an automated cgi script that get's people to link to my home page from their home page nearly every time which speeds up the process of getting a higher PR from many high PR home pages.

If you can come up with a way to get many people to link to you from their home page then you'll be #1 in no time at all!

It's simple stuff.

Iguana




msg:122322
 10:45 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)

The information you need to rank well on Google is available for free on WebmasterWorld (you may need to use judgement to decide which advice is worth following). I think that means it's a reasonably level playing field. If the big boys want to get good Google rankings then maybe they should employ some of the posters in this forum.

Since the main advice is to build a site with good content that people want to link to then surely the Internet will improve because Google dominates rather than the Yahoo directory.

WebGuerrilla




msg:122323
 10:49 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)


We could go on and on debating big guy vs. little guy.

The reality is that the changes at Yahoo have been great for some (both big and small) and terrible for others. Those that lost traffic will hate it and those who gained traffic will love it. And the general Y! user won't really notice or care either way.

Such is the world of SEO. One persons success always comes at the expense of someone else. Afterall, there are only 10 spots on the first page.

In the big picture, I do not think the sky is falling on the little guy. I've simply been through far too many weeks like this through the 6+ years I've spent squeezing a living out of the World Wide Web to believe that we are all doomed.

Situations change rapidly and opportunities come and go. Those that learn to adapt quickly will survive and those that don't won't. It doesn't really matter whether you are a VC funded dotcom or a stay-at-home Mom working part-time from a spare bedroom. The basic principle is the same.

There will be more to this story in the near future. Y! wouldn't have negotiated the nonexclusive portion of the deal if this was their idea of the final product.

So at this point, since this thread has pretty much run its course, I think it would be best to put this thread to bed. That way everyone can rest up and get ready for round 2.:)

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