| 3:33 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>doom-prophets who have for years been saying that the day Yahoo drops Google they will be finished are now possibly reconsidering their positions
HHH! Wait a day or so to start rubbing it in MMT (many are still in shock right now, the jab will be sharper then).
| 3:35 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Like the McDonald's commercial says: "I'm lovin it"
This database contains tons more of my pages (flat and dynamic) than the Google database does. And serp relevance seems better. These don't seem like my mother's INK serps.
| 3:39 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo shows my old dynamic URL's that have been changed for some time. It looks like an old database.
| 3:45 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have pages in there that went live 5 days ago in PFI - so not all old!
| 3:51 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Below is a cache of [example.com....]
It's a snapshot of the page taken as our search engine partner crawled the web."
Search engine Partner?
What they do not want to take credit for the results?
| 3:56 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Yahoo shows my old dynamic URL's that have been changed for some time. It looks like an old database. |
I am seeing the same things. My pages in the index are pretty old. Dynamic URLs have been changed to static ones a long time ago. Yahoo only shows the old dynamic URL pages. Number of pages are much less (about 1/20 of what I have in Google). Some very old pages showing up in the SERPs. It seems that the crawl was done at least 5-6 months ago. No new pages made during last the 3 to 4 months showing up. I am also seeing a lot of PDF files in the SERP for some terms.
| 4:00 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Here are my observations, for whatever they are worth:
1) The new SERPs have been aprtly good for me. Some sites which do not appear anywhere in google even though all rules as I kow them have been followed, are right at the top in the new Yahoo SERPs.
2) Looking at all my sites, I can confidently say that they are all from Ink/ Overture / maybe FAST.
3) I have sites appearing at the top (no.1!) which by all logic should not have been there. The keyphrase is popular too! Its an abandoned site that has no links to it, and been abandoned for an year. It says so on the site too!
4) Not as many pages indxed as google - in fact, the number pf pages indxed for all my sites seems to indicate an Ink or Overture database or a combo.
5) None of the recent changes on my sites are there in SERPs. (I am stil at the top, so I am not complaining!). The database seems OLD.
Overall, I am not complaining, as I am doing well. IN some cases, I believe its well deserved. But in some other cases, I am stunned by the inclusion of sites with zero or minimal links.
In my opinion, the new Yahoo puts a lot of emphasis on on-page optimization than Google. Don't know if that's good or bad. But competition, definitely, is!
| 4:08 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Its nice to see many are happy as long as their own pages are on top.
An index that is six months old will be crushed by google.
It looks to me like they have switched back to google results.
Maybe they thought we wouldn't notice.....
I would love to see a solid competitor to Google but if this is Yahoo's big launch...they won't be much of a competitor.
| 4:09 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I have pages in there that went live 5 days ago in PFI - so not all old!
MMT - I think some people are seeing new pages included quickly, but old pages that were spidered and included some time ago are not updated. That is certainly the case with my site and seems to be for others as well based on comments here.
| 4:10 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So many positive comments you gotta think that GoogleGuy is also reading them - and getting a little nervous.
| 4:13 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am getting excellent results for my home page (three key words right near top) but yahoo only has a few of my other pages from early december, the newer ones (mid-december plus are not there yet), homepage though been renewed within last three days or so.
once google rolls in the 64...... changes it might start looking a lot fresher than yahoo.
| 4:14 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Its nice to see many are happy as long as their own pages are on top.
I'm happy that directories don't rule the new serps and sites that link to me don't show up ahead of me in the serps for my terms.
>An index that is six months old will be crushed by google.
Tough to argue with, but new pages seem to be included.
>It looks to me like they have switched back to google results.
>I would love to see a solid competitor to Google but if this is Yahoo's big launch...they won't be much of a competitor.
I fully agree with the first part of that and hope you are wrong about the second part ;)
| 4:23 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thank you YAHOO!
Google shot me down for the last few months and Yahoo brought me back to my rightful place I have had for many years!
Rightful place? huh? Since when was being at the top anyones rightful place?
Inktomi results are garbage.
| 4:24 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hope that everyone will switch to using this - my sites are still listed
| 4:25 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Its nice to see many are happy as long as their own pages are on top}
I'm happy that I can type in "how to" type searches without playing with quotes and find sites that tell you "How To" do it. Google has messed up NL-type searches lately while Yahoo is showing potential
Compare some results on how to [enter phrase here] on both Google and Yahoo.
For example, type how to plant flowers.
| 4:50 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
On the deep crawl pages, I have a sneaking feeling that these are from the huge AV crawl done some months ago. The results from this don't seem to have shown up anywhere yet. Could explain the massive page increase over INK content and the age of this deep content.
I agree that this needs to be regularly updated if this is the case.
I wonder if we are now seeing people who have lost their Google rankings making some well-researched statements on these results!
Only to be expected.
Monitoring responses across a variety of sources seems to have produced more people yelling Yippee rather than YahGarbage so far.
Only time will tell, though.
| 5:03 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
hmmm ---> [home.businesswire.com...]
| 5:16 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In looking at the press release, there's a tidbit implying they're merging the SPAM information from Yahoo! Mail that caught my eye. If they're really using SPAM reports from Yahoo! Mail users to penalize SPAM/scam sites, that could be an interesting development. Unfortunately, they don't include any details on this.
It would also be interesting to know if they're using Inktomi, or a hybrid with Overture, or something entirely new.
| 5:18 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|So many positive comments you gotta think that GoogleGuy is also reading them - and getting a little nervous. |
So many positive comments have a lot to do with:
-- the relative ease associated with webmasters being able to do well in Yahink, and,
-- the recent poor SERP's represented by Florida/Austin, which make the new Y! seem very relevant by comparison.
I should stop saying "relevant." Searchers want "useful" not just "relevant" and there's a world of difference. G was providing relevant pages in Florida/Austin, but most of those .gov, .edu, and bookseller sites were certainly not "useful."
So what happens next?
Yahink will tighten up as time passes, and get better at weeding out spam. (It was easy to game G two years ago too.)
Meanwhile, G has already made good strides with Brandy. If it can dump more of the .edu and especially the bookseller listings, things could get interesting. Then of course M$N still looms. Remains a three horse race IMHO, although G has certainly lost most of its advantages...
| 6:30 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I finally got the number one listing on a major SE for the major keywords in my niche that is also my domain name. Had to wait for Y to step up the plate and reward hard work.
Count me in as a big fan of the new Y results.
| 7:00 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
After looking through the results on Yahink, I'm happy that some of my sites are doing much better than they deserve. What is funny is that it is the smaller sites that are the least informative that are doing the best. For some reason, the larger sites that have the most information are the ones that aren't doing as well in the new Yahink. While this is balanced, for me, by my smaller 'less relevant' sites, it is telling me a lot about the general results being served up. If this continues, I'll immediately crank out a lot of smaller sites since they seem to be the easist to manipulate into the Yahink results.
| 7:16 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
How do I get a site OUT of this index?
Y! has confused an old page that hasnt been online for 3-4 weeks with my index page. Pure INK has the correct page, but Y and MSN show the wrong page.
It even reads:
"Under Construction. The site you were trying to reach does not currently have a default page. It may be in the process of being upgraded. Please try this site again later."
So much for its ability to detect dupes and spam.
| 7:33 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sounds like we need a Yahoo Guy! :-)
| 7:38 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You can sticky me with the request or submit via feedback on the site. Link on the bottom of the page.
| 7:44 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So Tim - after reading your profile - can you be the "YahooGuy"?
| 7:49 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes, the new Yahoo! SERPs are vastly more useful than the current Google--what a surprise! Especially nice is Yahoo's finding the RSS syndication feeds for sites and pulling them into the SERPs where they are easy to spot and easy to subscribe to.
| 8:24 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I got problem with the Y database though which is weird on the first place.
1 site - over 4 y.o. plenty of backlinks for the spider to follow...not in the index, not just buried but as if it doesn't exist.
new site - no backlinks for the spider to follow, not one...its in the index. How it finds out of this new site beats me. Currently showing 'Apache default page' in the cache.
I don't think it was penalized for something because using ATW shows that my 4 yo site doesn't exist but the fact is at ATW itself the site have several hundreds of pages. So, how on earth ATW can't see the domain?
It seems to be then that Y is using ATW database but algo might be completely different.
Anybody have any idea how can I fix this problem if disappearing domain?
| 8:44 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm in the index and have a current cache of my site in the new yahoo however no matter what i use to search for anything in my site i'm not in the first 100 pages of the serps.
Lots of OLD sites are what i'm coming across.
| 8:55 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Very freshing to enter the Yahoo! section of this forum after seeing such good search results. I'm over the moon with them to be honest!
I Heart Yahoo.
| 8:59 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Not too happy with the change in Yahoo here. We're #1 in our main keyword at Google despite all their updates recently, and the site is only #36 at Yahoo. I'm not too impressed with the top sites showing at Yahoo.
| 9:37 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In both Google and Yahoo our site ranks about the same for the main keywords we monitor. IMHO it is good not to have Google supplying 60% of the search results. Sadly, until MSN gets their act together and either goes with a relavant search partner or actually builds a good engine, it is still a two horse race. I like the diversification, but it has a way to go.
| This 247 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 247 ( 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 9 ) > > |