|Google vs MSN vs Yahoo SEO Differences|
Most important SEO tactics for MSN, Yahoo vs Google
| 5:22 am on Apr 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I rank well on Google and I can write new pages that usually land near or at the top of the Google SERPs for my chosen keyword phrase. I am talking about individual product pages - not the home page or a content heavy topical site like WebMD.
So I am happy with my SEO techniques for Google. However, the very same pages that are at or near the top at Google just don't rank worth a nickel on Yahoo or MSN.
Oh sure,a page here and a term there do ok on Yahoo and MSN - but we are really talking night and day differences between my Google results vs Yahoo and MSN.
Can anyone point out the most important difference frrom a page structure aspect in how Yahoo and MSN rank pages versus Google? I am NOT going to give up success on Google to rank well on Yahoo and MSN, but is there something about how you write a page for MSN or Yahoo that is different from the way you write for Google?
Forget the links issues - however many links I have is what I've got - and they sure are not hurting me on Google. My site has session ids and a lot of my product pages are currently not listed in my site map. Do msnbot or yahoo's bot have trouble with session ids? Do I need big "I like Yahoo" and "Bill Gates for President" Smiley faces on my home page? WHAT? ;)
| 11:15 am on Apr 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
to get good ranking on Google and MSN its relatively easy,at least in my experience.Sure more easy than Yahoo/Altavista.
The reason seats in the different matching criteria that they use.
Google and MSN work on partial matching:this means that they recognize also a "partial" keyword,for instance,the word "magazine" in the world "magazines",making so no difference between singular or plural keywords.Or recognize partially a keyphrase: The word "magazine" in the phrase "american magazine" for instance.
Yahoo/Altavista instead,work on exact match: they recognize only an exact keyword or keyphrase:"magazine" on "magazine";"american magazine" on "american magazine" ;"magazines" for instance represents completely another match.
Moreover for spam reason Google ignores meta tags such as description and probably (but not sure)keywords tags.While for Yahoo they are very important;I had a page ranked in first position for a good keyword without content except tags.
Different are also ranking criteria and algos but here I cannot be more accurate.
| 11:30 am on Apr 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Can anyone point out the most important difference frrom a page structure aspect in how Yahoo and MSN rank pages versus Google? "
is not the page structure for Yahoo,i talk abou yahoo only ,for me MSN is a dead man walking and i don't care...Back to the topic, as much anchor text you have in sites listed in Yahoo index and not remooved "manualy" because as i have seen in many other posts here people can find from there site only the index...(me too as well, a few sites that was ranking #1 in travel and hotels where remooved within a few days,so tipadvisor got his throne back ,and that is not bot's or spam filter work ,is Yahoo edittors work).My advise, if you are a small fish try slow,like i do,i know there tricks so everytime they remove one of my sites i publish a new one and so on,in fact they are week to fight a good SEO.
| 12:09 pm on Apr 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Google ignores meta tags such as description and probably (but not sure)keywords tags.While for Yahoo they are very important |
I think Yahoo said something about metatags being important when they launched their search engine but Google ignores keyword metatags. searchenginewatch says keyword metatags are a waste of time but that statement may have been made before yahoo launched their own search engine. Whatever I do to keyword metatags for yahoo won't change anything I am doing for google. I'll go address this issue and create some better keyword metatags.
I recently noticed that the text from one of my pages "meta content" descriptions that was #2 in Google for search term was being displayed in SERP. I had put some standardized mumbo jumbo in the content description and it looked stupid in the SERP. Consequently I have paid a lot more attention to whatever I write in my content description so if it appears on Google SERP it matches query.
| 6:43 pm on Apr 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps I'm only one of a small number of people that believe META tags are used by G's algo - although to what extent is unclear. At the very least, they can and will use your META description phrase in their SERPS *if* it seems to match the content of your page. For me that's a big plus as I can control what Google searchers see as my site description instead of relying on what Google decides to pick out of my page.
Getting back on topic, I also have serious issues with Yahoo's algo and seem to be all over the map. From the keywords I've been looking it, the results seem to be quite varied with sometimes ridiculous pages getting a high ranking (the page has absolutely NOTHING to do with the keyword, outside of perhaps one single mention in the page's content).
Another thing I've seen is forum user profiles ranked well: A profile.php page from PHPBB forum for example where the member's home page is the only place the keyword is mentioned!
I've also noticed duplicate (or near duplicate) content showing up in a series of results (eg. pages ranked #11-15 have almost identical content but are on different domains).
Net net, I'm still frustrated - there often seems to be so little rhyme or reason as to how some pages are getting ranked high! To make matters worse I'm also seeing a LOT of cloaked pages listed.
I'm going to keep looking into Y! but until I can see some consistency in results, I'll spend far more time working on Google!
| 7:28 pm on Apr 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Perhaps I'm only one of a small number of people that believe META tags are used by G's algo - although to what extent is unclear. At the very least, they can and will use your META description phrase in their SERPS *if* it seems to match the content of your page. For me that's a big plus as I can control what Google searchers see as my site description instead of relying on what Google decides to pick out of my page. |
There is a difference between to recognize the tag content showing it in the SERPs and to include it in the algo calculations.Your observation is true;building up properly body text and description tag results in real "look" advantages in the SERP but is relatively important for the ranking (maybe not at all).
|Getting back on topic, I also have serious issues with Yahoo's algo... |
Unfortunately Yahoo/Altavista is a highly "spammable" SE.It's incredibly easy to get top rankings on it with some simple spamming issues and it seems to have any importance for the Owner Company.
It's from long time that Yahoo lost its reliability but no significant update has been made to remedy the situation.
So,when you optimize a site for it,expect odd things and take the results with a bit of humor.
|I'm going to keep looking into Y! but until I can see some consistency in results, I'll spend far more time working on Google! |
Optimizing also for Yahoo however represents the possibility of adding traffic,so go ahead,but keep in mind that Google currently represents the status of art.
| 9:00 pm on Apr 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I appreciate your comments Specter. I guess I'm just going to quite worrying about yahoo. Human editors there drive me nuts anyway. I am not throwing rocks at them in public, but my past experiences were not good. You are doing your best to tell them you sell olive oil and they want to put you in motor oil distributors.
I am not sure you should consider MSN a dead man yet. Yeah, they do not have Google's traffic or clout. I read in a book a stupid person with money will get further than a smart person without any. Google has money, but not MONEY like Microsoft.
I'm going to concentrate on Google, or course, and then MSN and forget Yahoo. I just don't have time to mess with Yahoo inconsistances. Thanks again Specter!
| 11:30 pm on Apr 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I guess I'm just going to quite worrying about yahoo... |
|Human editors there drive me nuts anyway. I am not throwing rocks at them in public, but my past experiences were not good. You are doing your best to tell them you sell olive oil and they want to put you in motor oil distributors. |
Leave it alone.Forget the directories.They are only a waste of time you could better spend optimizing site.
|I am not sure you should consider MSN a dead man yet. |
It wasn't me.You've confused with "Goofy".
Personally I like very much MSN,due to its advanced searching technology that allows it to crawl and index very well and very fast (more than Google!)web pages, but it remains still unknown for the most,so under-used,altough I'm persuaded that it has a great potential that could make it to the top in a next future.
|I'm going to concentrate on Google, or course, and then MSN and forget Yahoo. I just don't have time to mess with Yahoo inconsistances. |
| 10:04 am on May 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As discussion is about results on Yahoo, Google and Msn. First of all i want to suggest [url snipped = one of those search engine comparison sites] for easier for comparison of results and time saving.
Until recently I have always cared about google only. As it was bringing much more visitors then any other search engine. But recently I have realised that Yahoo has almost same potential. It is just the results on yahoo are distributed more evenly among searches then on Google.
One important thing is that. It is a fact that quality of results on google are far worse then on Msn and Yahoo. That can be explained by huge amount of webmasters that are trying to overload their site with keywords to rank higher. But take Msn, as far as I know their ranking system favors sites that are naturally optimised. That is to say, they do not favor artificial but natural optimisation. This can turn in traffic increase from msn in the long run as people slowly move from Google to other search engines.
[edited by: msgraph at 1:06 pm (utc) on May 2, 2005]
[edit reason] removed tool [/edit]
| 11:27 am on May 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I always used to turn to google for obscure or technical searches but their fascination for links at the expense of content has changed my opinion recently.
| 12:22 pm on May 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|It is just the results on yahoo are distributed more evenly among searches then on Google. |
Are we talking about the same Yahoo!?
|One important thing is that. It is a fact that quality of results on google are far worse then on Msn and Yahoo. |
It's not a fact.Absolutely.Google even with its lacks currently represents the status of the art of internet search,due as already said to its advanced matching criteria that makes it less "spammable" than the other ones mentioned.Try various searches on Google and Yahoo and then, tell me where you found more spam in the SERPs.The truth is that matching criteria and spam control in Yahoo is obsolete and returns unreliable and often highly "polluted" results,as reported in the above posts if you read well.
Besides that,also the pertinence of a search on Google is well superior to the other ones;the results are well tidied up in pertinence order page by page;this doesn't happen with Yahoo or MSN that give result based upon a more random order.
So I consider your claim totally unacceptable,and even less your explainations about:
If webmasters overload their sites to get higher rankings is a problem of the webmasters;if "naturally" optimized their sites will appear pretty bad,so,they will hurt themselves and their high ranking will be totally unuseful.If they are instead "dirty" optimized,well,this can be done on Google as well as on each other existing search engine.
But Google still remains the more difficult to spam.
A last observation:
It's not true that Google privileges links at expense of content:it is necessary to not take a part for the "overall".It could happen to meet a "strange" result,but It can depend on many factors; the fact is that the general,global quality remains high.