| 7:53 am on Aug 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I saw some results very different from Google yesterday afternoon, but I haven't been able to check again until now. I'm seeing the same different-from-Google results again, but only on some searches. They're not Inktomi results, either, by the way.
On other searches I'm seeing the usual clustered Google results.
| 6:03 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ya, yahoo's flirting with Ink powering the USA now.
| 6:14 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Are these appearing in the main SERP's? With large, generic keywords, or smaller keywords?
| 6:22 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I can see them with large one word keyphrases - although they sure don't match inktomi results.
| 6:37 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
randomly. If you do get one - reload the page and it is gone.
Looks like side-by-side dualing page tests.
| 8:48 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Has Yahoo always used Overture for sponsored listings? I thought it was Adwords. *sigh*
| 10:03 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Nope...paid results coming from Overture, not Adwords
| 10:12 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
On Yahoo! a search for my keywords (quoted or unquoted) is showing me where Google had me about two or three weeks ago (#14), but Google is showing about 20 weblogs in front of me now (there are only three blogs actually, and only one original article with the keywords, but they are all heavily cross-linked).
Mabye the differences are because Yahoo! is doing more extensive filtering or something?
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 10:14 pm (utc) on Aug. 24, 2003]
| 8:46 am on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't see it! Is this another hoax aka the .co.uk announcement?
I spent 30 minutes trying Yahoo searches and no sign of Inktomi :(
Roll on the day it is true.....but it doesn't appear to be just yet!
| 4:27 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hey I am seeing only Google results. Maybe Yahoo is trying Ink for only a few keywords.
| 5:38 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I spent 30 minutes trying Yahoo searches and no sign of Inktomi |
I don't think it is worth anybody's time trying to make this happen. Also, to repeat, what I saw was definitely not Inktomi... Maybe it was just a different Google center that was momentarily out of sync with the others, albeit it was out of sync in a big way.
Or maybe it was a new Inktomi center that was out of sync with Inktomi in a big way.... ;)
| 6:45 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>what I saw was definitely not Inktomi...
Me either, and nothing like Google either. It slips in and out momentarily.
>>Maybe it was just a different Google center that was momentarily out of sync with the others, albeit it was out of sync in a big way.
That's how I'm figuring it, though one is awful close to what was there a few months back, and what's at #1 has never been there at Google.
| 6:48 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've heard rumors about Inktomi testing their servers to see if they can handle Yahoo!-volume queries, but they were uncomfirmed rumors.
Maybe this was the first time they did live testing.
| 8:53 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing something entirely different from both Ink or Google. I have no idea where its coming from.
| 1:42 am on Aug 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It's not always where you get the data, sometimes it's what you do with it. :)
| 7:47 am on Aug 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing these results too. Not Ink or google. They look more like Yahoo Directory listings than anything. The descriptions pulled actually are Yahoo Directory descritions for most of the results.
| 8:18 am on Aug 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
same old old here in thailand... google results (with Y! title instead of the <TITLE></TITLE> if that site is in the Y! directory - which they have been using for more than a year.
MonkeySage is very sagascious! When Y! does move on from Google dont count on seeing what we knew as "pure ink". Thats why im not worried about optimizing for Ink right now because we dont really know what Y!-ink is really going to be.
| 8:30 am on Aug 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|The descriptions pulled actually are Yahoo Directory descritions for most of the results. |
Yahoo has been doing this with its Google results... substituting the Yahoo title and description (where they exist) for the Google title and snippets or description... but they are still Google results.
Chances are they'll do this with Inktomi (or Ink/Fast/AV hybrid) results too, when they show them.
| 4:50 pm on Aug 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If Google would not power Yahoo anymore, does this mean that we would not be able to do thinks like allinurl:www.yourdomain.com? Would Yahoo implement an alternative?
| 8:46 am on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Still Google results here, with Google titles and indent listings removed.
| 2:15 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Still Google here in Spain. Nevertheless, Yahoo it's less than 5% of the traffic for me, although I'm well placed in the searches. I supposse these numbers reflect the share market for search engines here in Spain.
| 7:11 pm on Aug 29, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hi I used to work at Inktomi and allow me to shed light on this situation. Although im only guessing what I believe is happening is that because google and Inktomi work well for many sites on the internet namely yahoo, aol, msn and since Yahoo just bought Inktomi I would imagine that they are taking the best of each engine's amentities and using both.
So for instance, in musical chairs as in search results and relevancy, what ever the keyword lines up with 'at the time' is why some rankings are higher than others. Kind of a first come first serve basis, then taking into measure how Google relates to other sites linkings and their own algorythems.
Google offers relevence through user's use, and Inktomi offers certain quickness and rankings through its taxonomy.
Meta tags, keywords and paid inclusion are what governs alot of how the spiders have processed your sites links and pages. Its basically a buffett for the spiders to eat, use and diggest through how we (the internet community as a whole) search for our keywords.
Imagine this buffett being brought to you by waiters, and those waiters specialize in thier own features. Some features are easiest done closer to home(inktomi/network caching), and some are repeatedly used by everyone (google).
DOes this help?
| 12:55 am on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
..... well, I just went over to Y! and typed in 'cars' into default search... and got what looks to be blended results. I then went to Positiontechs 'Pure (Inktomi) Search', Google and Yahoo Directory and did the same thing.... then I took the top 20 from each page and stripped them down to just the url.... then I went through each url to see where else it showed up in the other top 20 SERPs and color coded them so I could pick up patterns easier.
now, before you are too quick to come to conclusions, if any can be made from what I gleaned, remember that we are talking about a mega search term... it is unlikely that you will find some lame little site that somehow just popped to the top without being listed in the top 20 somewhere else.... but I found 8 like that.... granted they werent little sites, but they didnt show up in the top 20 in the other 3... however, I imagine that they are somewhere in the other 3... a site that is ranking that high in Y! is going to be somewhere in G and Ink... but here is the top 20 (where I=Ink, G=Google, D=Y! dir, and?=?) I also will put a * next to those that had cached pages (not all did) b/c they most likely came from G even though they may have been in the top 20 somewhere else
... so basically there are 7 that I dont know where they came from at the moment.... if they were G, then I would assume they would have a cached page with them. So maybe they are buried, maybe from somewhere totally different
| 4:36 am on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
dogboy, I believe all you are seeing is the Yahoo "filter" effect that Y! has been using for several months. They are basically Google originated results but with a different set of filters/SERPs algo applied.
As far as I can tell Y! has a lower weighting on backlink anchor text than Google (basically same algo, but with one/two components tweaked). So sites with a lot of keyword backlink anchor text will perform better in Google than Y!.
To add to the confusion Inktomi also places a fairly high weighting on backlink anchor text, somewhere in between Google and Y!. This often makes the Inktomi and Google results look similar for sites with strong backlink anchor text, but those sites are positioned lower at Y!.
I will be very surprised if Y! ends up using a combination of different raw SE results. I think it is most likely we will see straight Inktomi results with Overture sponsors as seen at Yahoo.ca
| 1:14 pm on Aug 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I think it is most likely we will see straight Inktomi results with Overture sponsors
thats what I would think too.... which makes me think I shouldn't think that:) Every Ink major partner has always tweaked the results, just to be different than everybody, if nothing else. but I cant imagine they would 'blend' results.
>I believe all you are seeing is the Yahoo "filter" effect that Y! has been using for several months.
well, you might be right because I don't pay attention to searches like 'cars', but the SERPs I follow are still showing G... but when I see the filter in play in my SERPs, I still recognize the majority of pages... for example, the number 6 site moved to 1, 1 moved to 4, but 2,3,5,7 are same, then 13, then 8,9,10,11 are the same, etc.... this didnt look like that to me... much bigger variation here... #3 in Y! default was #65 in G.... but maybe because we, again, are talking about a 'mega' one word term, so that might make sense. But here is another thing.... #2 in Y! default was #4 in Ink... it was listed in both as 'www.XXXX.com'.... but in Google, it was listed at #9 BUT it was listed as 'www.XXXX.com/home' which can mean the same thing to the surfer, but not to me... that result was coming from Ink, IMHO.
anyway, all I can say is that this was my read. Pure Ink would just be fine with me
| 9:05 am on Aug 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>anyway, all I can say is that this was my read. Pure Ink would just be fine with me
Me too....so come on Yahoo....get the heck on with it and stop mucking around with these futile tests!