homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.197.183.230
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Yahoo / Yahoo Search Engine and Directory
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Yahoo Search Engine and Directory Forum

This 134 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 134 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 > >     
The Real Deal with Yahoo
agerhart

WebmasterWorld Senior Member agerhart us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 2:54 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

After ridiculous threads like this one [webmasterworld.com], calling for boycotts, and all of the bad talk regarding Yahoo, I feel the need to clear things up and bring everyone back to reality.

The reality of our current situation with Yahoo, SiteMatch, Google, etc., is:

Yahoo! is definitely still crawling sites for free. If you can't get your site indexed by Yahoo right now, then you need to get into another business. I have spoken with a few other SEOs, and we all agreed that Yahoo is currently indexing new pages and sites faster than Google is. As I said, if you can't get your pages indexed.....then get in the line to the left.

There is nothing wrong with a PFI/PPC model, as long as there is another option for purely informational sites or people who can't afford to pay. As I just mentioned above, there is. Enough said.

The current Yahoo! SERPs look better than Google's do. I'm speaking from a consumer and SEO point of view.

 

pleeker

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 6:52 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yahoo! is definitely still crawling sites for free. If you can't get your site indexed by Yahoo right now, then you need to get into another business. I have spoken with a few other SEOs, and we all agreed that Yahoo is currently indexing new pages and sites faster than Google is.

Well then, by God, if you and a few other SEOs agree then I'd say that makes it the Gospel truth.

If you're interested in any contrary opinions, which I'm not sure you are judging from some of your other posts in this thread, my experience is that neither G nor Y is faster than the other. The only difference I see is that G continues to be willing to come back more often than Y.

There is nothing wrong with a PFI/PPC model, as long as there is another option for purely informational sites or people who can't afford to pay. As I just mentioned above, there is. Enough said.

Yes, there is a free crawl. But I guess what differs you and the folks agreeing with you from the folks disagreeing with you is that you trust Yahoo implicitly to always and forever treat non-paying sites the same as paying sites. I'm not willing to make that jump at this point.

The current Yahoo! SERPs look better than Google's do. I'm speaking from a consumer and SEO point of view.

In your opinion, fine. In my opinion, they don't ... in some areas. Your statement is way too general. In some areas, Y is better; in some areas, there're little difference; and in other areas, G is better. In the end, it's great to have the competition and the options.

Dude, are you drunk?

Sheesh. Is that what we've come to? A moderator disagrees with another member, or feels he's been misquoted, and decides to accuse the member of being drunk? Nice touch.

Marcia

WebmasterWorld Senior Member marcia us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 6:53 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Sheesh, the personal bickering back and forth is getting awful distracting from the crux of the subject!

Hasn't it already been confirmed that SiteMatch is NOT going to be listed first before free stuff? Instead it is going to be mixed in, like current INK?

The difference is that with Ink as it has been for simple PFI it was only paying for quicker inclusion and spidering. Now it's more than that - PPC is, plain and simple, advertising. And advertising should be indicated as not being regular SERPs.

Looksmart listings were above the others, and it was clear what they were. The issue is more muddied here than it ever was and will now be more widespread, affecting many more people.

Which is which should be plain to see.

korkus2000

WebmasterWorld Senior Member korkus2000 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 7:02 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think it is important to take what we know and seperate it from speculation. If you are upset about what they are doing then that is fine. It is the assumption of what they intend to do. I think we should discuss what they have done. Personally I want to wait and see. They could go many different ways.

The truth is that if it doesn't work for webmasters then it will not last. I don't think it is the best thing they could do, but I won't be using it.

steve40

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 7:15 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Live with it guys
your free search only based business will fail in the long term big business has moved in
Accept any free seach results are a bonus ( THEY ARE FREE ) dont forget
as for some on here who are saying they think yahoo is now a wonderfull model
1 Google adwords is designed for small and big companys to compete on an even basis using ctr as the controller rather than the highest bid
2 Yahoo Overture will go with whoever pays the most PPC so the big boys with massive budgets will advertise on Y and the smaller sites will be unable to compete financially
in the following areas also notice Yahoo goes for the juggular with where results appear and in many cases any free serps are below the fold
realty, accommodation, any type shopping, employment, finance and a few other areas

Also for those sites who are predominently informational dont think the same big boys will not target every keyword they can to hold dominence
steve

seth_wilde

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 7:36 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

"The difference is that with Ink as it has been for simple PFI it was only paying for quicker inclusion and spidering."

Nothing has changed except the pricing model.. Just because something uses a CPC pricing model doesn't make it Pay 4 Position..

I don't understand why so many are just now becoming outraged by something that's been going on for years.. I think overture has actually leved the playing field a bit by making some paid inclusion options available to smaller sites that were previous only available to 1000+/page sites.

Net_Wizard



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 8:19 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

I don't understand why so many are just now becoming outraged by something that's been going on for years.. I think overture has actually leved the playing field a bit by making some paid inclusion options available to smaller sites that were previous only available to 1000+/page sites.

You kidding right?

At 15 or 30 cents 'per click' who do you think can afford such thing?

In fact this would be more expensive in the long run compared to the normal Overture PPC 'regardless' of your industry.

Why?

Remember the relevancy is based on your 'page content' not only from your target keyword.

So, if user searches for 'tutorial for widget' or other similar information query only and if so happen that your page 'selling widget' is #1. You'll get hammered by 15c or 30c per click of non-targeted traffic.

Good for Yahoo, bad for small business.

Net_Wizard



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 8:25 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Marcia said it right...

The difference is that with Ink as it has been for simple PFI it was only paying for quicker inclusion and spidering. Now it's more than that - PPC is, plain and simple, advertising. And advertising should be indicated as not being regular SERPs.

which is worth repeating...former PFI models are based on you paying for inclusion and the algo is applied to 'ALL' sites fairly and square.

With the current Site Match...you have to pay for the inclusion($45) and then...you have to pay 'Per Click' depending on your industry could be 15 or 30 cents per click.

Lets be honest, do you think there will be a fair algo to 'ALL' sites?

walkman



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 8:27 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Where does it say that here:
[content.overture.com...] "

Because they're trying to sell you something over there. Why would it make sense to say that your site might be indexed for free in a month, when they're trying to make you pay for it?

makemetop



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 8:30 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

>non-targeted traffic....

Don't use it then! This program is only for those who want very fast inclusion and/or update their product pages rapidly - same as PFI always was. Wait and get spidered for free.

Seriously, the same problems have gone on with CPC feeds. People using them have learnt how to optimise properly to minimise this problem. The same can be done on this type of PFI.

While I agree that a lot of small webmasters are probably going to be quickly disillusioned with this program and I think Overture are going to be overwhelmed with support demands from people who are used to PPC complaining about not ranking, their sites being dropped through tripping penalties and being charged for irrelevant clicks if they don't understand it, those who have being using PFI for years will not suffer from these problems - nor will their clients. The methods of preparing pages for this kind of targeting was all sorted out years ago.

Frankly, I think OT are being a little "brave" in trying to sell this direct to users rather than via resellers - unless they are going to help every webmaster optimise their PFI pages - but time will tell.

caveman

WebmasterWorld Senior Member caveman us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 8:43 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Geez, wild thread. We live in interesting times.

FWIW, Danny Sullivan today noted that the new Yahoo product(s) are somewhat confusing. He also took notice of the fact that Y was having to reassure marketers that *even if they don't pay* they will still be included in the SERP's. This is key, and I'm glad he brought it up.

INK's past performance in this regard was very poor, and those who were involved with INK know that.
--You paid for some pages, the pages got in...
--You didn't pay for other pages, those pages didn't get in (indexed, yes; appeared in the SERP's, no)...
--You paid and then you stopped paying, you were never heard from again.

It's only natural that some people have skepticism about the new Y!, especially since it strongly resembles the old INK.

However, clearly Y slurp is running around like crazy, and amongst our own sites, we do see some evidence of pages appearing in the SERP's that were never previously allowed to surface by INK.

If this continues, and Y lives up to its word - showing every accessible Web doc that is worth showing - then I'll be in the front row clapping and cheering "yahooooo!" ;-)

seth_wilde

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 8:45 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

"u kidding right?"

AV, Fast, Ink & Ask have been doing CPC based paid inclusion for large sites for years. I think it's a good thing to give small sites the same options as long as their not forced to pay.

"former PFI models are based on you paying for inclusion and the algo is applied to 'ALL' sites fairly and square."

Nothing has changed... This is still the policy afaik.. If this were to change then I could see your problem, but until that happens I think it's a little too early to declare that the sky is falling..

makemetop



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 8:55 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

>You paid and then you stopped paying, you were never heard from again..

With all due respect - that is totally untrue. I've never renewed and have never (shall I say it again), never ever been dropped. I also have always had all my pages spidered that were not in PFI. Now, I know others may have had different experiences but I have thousands of pages that I have stopped PFI on. Not 1 has been dropped longer than 2 weeks after the subscription ended.

If anyone was going to be targeted to be forced into keep on paying - I would have thought I would be squarely in their sites. I wasn't then and don't expect this to happen now.

caveman

WebmasterWorld Senior Member caveman us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 9:08 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

With all due respect - that is totally untrue. I've never renewed and have never (shall I say it again), never ever been dropped. I also have always had all my pages spidered that were not in PFI. Now, I know others may have had different experiences but I have thousands of pages that I have stopped PFI on. Not 1 has been dropped longer than 2 weeks after the subscription ended.

With *great* respect, it happened to us on two different sites, so perhaps your comment should have read: "in my experience" ;-)

I'm a publisher, roughly 200 sites, tens of thousands of pages, though probably never PFI'd more than 100 pages....

In any event, I have no axe to grind with INK (except when they lose my pages), no reason to lie. Both times, within *days* of not renewing, those pages were gone. I should clarify, however: In one case the page came back about nine months later. I can't speak to whether or not it was a *frequent* thing, but I can certainly speak to whether it was true or not. In our case it was. I'm sure you've heard others note similar experiences.

trimmer80

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 9:38 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think people are forgetting that for Y! to be successful it needs to give the best results to the end user.

Two of the primary goals of a search engine is :
1. to give us all of the relevant information available on our topic.
2. to give us only information that is relevant to our search and to rank it according to relevance.

if Y! was to not include sites based on PFI then it could not possibly achieved the first point.
If it was to biase the ranking of results based on payment it could not achieve the second point.
Thus, IMHO, it will not move to a PFI only system or rank based on payment.

jranes

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 9:50 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Surely Y has the historical organizational memory to recall how they ended up having to rely on big G in the first place.

They got there by not improving the quality of the free serps and relying on pfi to do it all. If they do that again then, well I can't believe what big G has done in the last six months either so who knows.

lawman

WebmasterWorld Administrator lawman us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 10:33 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

I don't think there's enough testosterone in this thread. Maybe I'll add some of my own.

I'll be back. ;)

Your friendly neighborhood lawman

caveman

WebmasterWorld Senior Member caveman us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 10:35 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

I only shoot if I'm fired upon ;-)

lawman

WebmasterWorld Administrator lawman us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 10:41 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

In my day job, if it moves I shoot it. But that's what I get paid to do. However, as a mod I get paid to keep the peace.

That said, if I have to pull over, somebody's gettin' a spanking.

lawman

teeceo

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 10:46 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Sites are still getting in for free." How exacle?

teeceo

Net_Wizard



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 10:51 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

[quote]AV, Fast, Ink & Ask have been doing CPC based paid inclusion for large sites for years. I think it's a good thing to give small sites the same options as long as their not forced to pay.[quote]

That's right.

But do they charge 'per click'?

That's the difference between this program and the other PFI program.

Do you think the per click would be affordable to small sites?

mquarles

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 11:09 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Do you think the per click would be affordable to small sites?

PPC affordability has nothing to do with site size. It only has to do with whether or not you can convert a visitor into a buyer. A good small site can do that far better than a big player, as we have proven to the big retailers in many categories.

Personally, I like the fact that now my sites can be up there in Yahoo!, whereas to be up there in Google you seem to have to be named Amazon or Bizrate. Which SE is really killing the little guy?

MQ

seth_wilde

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 11:11 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

"But do they charge 'per click'?"

Yes, paid inclusion for large sites has been charged on a cost per click basis all along.

I do realize that this hasn't been the case for small sites in the past. Depending on their success in the old system some of those sites could find the new system more expensive and some could find it to be cheaper.

But either way you always have the option to stick with free listings..

"Do you think the per click would be affordable to small sites?"

I don't think the site size is going to determine if it's affordaable.. It's going to be your site architecture, profit margins and coversion rates that determine if it's worthwhile.

extremegolfer



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 11:22 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yahoo says slurp will visit sites every 2-4 weeks? Anyone have any experience with that timeframe? Also, how can I assure myself that my site is going to be indexed in Yahoo, MSN etc? I already have two websites listed in Yahoo, should I link my new site from those pages? If yes, does the link have to be on the index page or any page would do?

Zeberdee



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 11:33 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Just looking at it from a non-commercial angle, Yahoo is surely dicing with death here.

I always used Google for search because it found quality sites with it. The big budget didn't dominate proceedings. Quality had a chance, and usually quality was found on page 1.

True, they shook that confidence in the last few months, for goodness knows what reasons. Suddenly, the results were poor, and big money driven sites dominated. That trend though seems to have been reversed at least to a degree. Good news.

The new Yahoo looks good as well at present. But they tread a very fine line.

If, at any point, they give any ranking advantage whatsoever to the guys who pay, they are, in my opinion, finished. It will be the green light to pushing quality downwards in the rankings.

They will edge, bit by bit, to what MSN has been for years: totally useless to any serious searcher.

Logically, MSN should really be the #1 search engine now. They hold so many advanatages. They blew it though because they allowed paid sites to filter to the top. Quality was effectively surpressed.

Surely then, if Yahoo give a ranking advantage to the guys who pay, they will suffer the same fate. They will lose searchers hand over fist.

It's in their hands. Tamper with results based on money and they will destroy the quality of their product.

It seems so obvious, but as someone said somewhere, history is full of fallen engines which ignored the obvious. It's a question of how greedy they are for all that lovely PFI/PPC money. If they go over the edge and allow it to affact the rankings, they will be toast.

"To see the future, study the past".

seindal

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 11:49 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yahoo says slurp will visit sites every 2-4 weeks? Anyone have any experience with that timeframe?

Well, I have a reasonably successful affiliate site where Slurp grabs robots.txt several times each day, but nothing else. It is been so for all of january and all of february.

So, yes, slurp does visit often, it just doesn't refresh anything :-(

René

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 12:03 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

"I have spoken with a few other SEOs, and we all agreed that Yahoo is currently indexing new pages and sites faster than Google is."

If this were even remotely true there would be no issue here, but anyone who seriously believes this has no clue at all about this business.

New pages and new sites get in Google the very SAME day as when they are put online, if you have knowledge about the industry and some tools (good PR domains) at your disposal. Yahoo is not in this league, and seeing someone insist they are is actually kind of embarrassing, like watching someone do karaoke.

The program Yahoo announced could be mostly benign if they do live up to the promise that they will begin to crawl the web adequately and promptly. As of today they do not. They are not competitive with Google in this way.

That is Yahoo's challenge: show us. Actually free crawl the mass of the Internet; allow Amazon/etc to pay for jillions of long urls; rank these sites properly; don't give the Amazon sites too many tips so that they soon dominate the top ten for everything; actively devote resources to fresh crawling free sites every single day, like their competitor does; fix the reverse penalties being exacted that causes canonical pages to be removed and redirects and copies to stay; and GET RID OF THE REDIRECTS that are polluting the serps.

But it all comes down to the free crawl. It is a joke right now. What will it be after the "add url" link is added? That is the question.

The mission here is simple... impress everyone with the free crawl.

nanocet

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 12:03 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

I've never renewed and have never (shall I say it again), never ever been dropped. I also have always had all my pages spidered that were not in PFI. Now, I know others may have had different experiences but I have thousands of pages that I have stopped PFI on. Not 1 has been dropped longer than 2 weeks after the subscription ended.

I've seen you post this before, and certainly don't doubt that what you say is true, but you are well aware of people who have their free listings disappear after paying for 1 or 2 pages, or after ending PFI for those pages. You say "that is totally untrue" when somebody mentions the problem with not renewing and then having those pages disappearing, but in the same message mention that others "have had different experiences"
I'd be interested if you would clarify/validate a few things:

Were the "thousands" of inclusions you mention paid for from the same submit accounts?

At any given time, what is your average number of pages that are currently under PFI?

You indicate that the act of not renewing so many pages would seem to make you a target, but is it the opposite because you actually spend more on inclusions than those who do have all of their free listings dropped?

jady

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 12:11 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

I too a m happy with Yahoo's index - even though we rank a bit lower than our #1 spot on Google... Everyone should stop complaining, sit back, create good quality sites and enjoy the ride!

Thats what we do and we have increased revenue by 300% each year for the past 3 years.

GO YAHOO! GO GOOGLE! We love you both...

walkman



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 12:13 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Everyone should stop complaining, sit back, create good quality sites and enjoy the ride!"
are you saying that everyone who's out of their index has cheesy sites, and that we are just whiners?
None of us has legitimate issues?

extremegolfer



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 12:16 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

Dear Angry People:

This is life. Learn to love it even on the bad days... Now, this is for any informed individual that can assist me. I am 62 years old, and Im new to web designing. I am also on a budget, so if someone would be kind enough to assist me, I would be much obliged! Here are my questions:

Yahoo says slurp will visit sites every 2-4 weeks? Anyone have any experience with that timeframe? (one person answered this already, so thank u) Also, how can I assure myself that my site is going to be indexed in Yahoo, MSN, Hotbot etc? I already have two websites listed in Yahoo, should I link my new site from those pages? If yes, does the link have to be on the index page or any page would do?

flobaby

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 1812 posted 12:29 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)

Everyone should stop complaining, sit back, create good quality sites and enjoy the ride!

Jady, my site is also doing great on both Yahoo and Google, but you are WAY off base telling people with legitimate troubles to just chill. It's easy to "enjoy the ride" when your site is doing well. Knock on wood that technical glitches haven't befallen your site as they have so many others. And, while you're at it, borrow a cup of empathy, why don't you?

This 134 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 134 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Yahoo / Yahoo Search Engine and Directory
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