| This 134 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 134 ( 1 2 3  5 ) > > || |
|The Real Deal with Yahoo|
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.
|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?
Quite simple the proof is in the pudding, or in the eating thereof. I'm not a fan of PFI, and I certainly understand many people's concerns.
I think it's mostly a simple equation: Should Yahoo really compromise the quality of their search they will lose marketshare. This is the insurance we as marketeers have.
The issue at hand seem to be very straightforward. Yahoo is charging a PFI for sites to be included. Other sites will be indexed free. Yahoo is in business to make money, so who do you think they will place at the top of the serps and who do you think will be buried deep down?
i am glad to here your success but when you fall out of grace on one of the search engines for server down time or other reason would you like the same arrogant quotes given to you
I wonder maybe you are so fantastic at seo and all webmastering tequniques you could teach all those here who according to your insight know nothing about the business they are in
Already, a significant number of searches have the "free" results below the fold because of PPC. With the addition of SiteMatch, can you honestly say that Yahoo's strategic direction is not towards fully monetizing as much traffic as possible?
Some people around here are under the misconception that Yahoo is not moving towards full monetization even though it is already obvious that they are well on their way.
Yes, heini, the proof is in the pudding. The pudding says that they have just made steps towards more monetization. I (and a lot of other people) are getting a very bad taste in our mouths and are speaking up about it.
Original topic (3 parts - paraphrased):
1. Yahoo! still has free inclusion and is indexing at a faster pace than Google;
2. A "something for everybody model", e.g. pay for those commercial sites that want to pay and free for everyone else, is acceptable;
3. Yahoo! serps look better than Google's at this time.
1. Tim said at Orlando PubCon that there will still be free inclusion. I have no reason to doubt him at this time. As to faster indexing, I haven't checked;
2. As to Y!'s model, time will tell;
3. Where you stand depends upon where you sit. From where I'm sitting, Yahoo! serps look better than Google's. :)
<added> Oh, and as to where the proof lies. Everyone knows it's not in the pudding, it's in the eating. ;) </added>
lawman, pick any keyword that costs a lot and you will find that the free search results will be below the fold.
We need to stop debating that Yahoo is incrementally moving towards full monetization. The evidence is overwhelming that this is the case and to assume anything else is to be "willfully" missing the point.
The discussion needs to turn to what affect that this will have on websites which build great content and try to monetize the traffic that comes to their sites.
Independent content websites will have to focus more of their budget on advertising (ie, yahoo) and less on building great content.
Howdy logiclamp. I was just paraphrasing the original post and trying to respond in compliance with TOS #16 [webmasterworld.com].
>Read that link on Site Match and tell me where it says Yahoo is going to necessarily continue to crawl for free:
This whole argument of Yahoo not crawling is pretty weak. It seems to me that PFI is a self limiting position. Only those that can afford it will pay for it. That leaves out a whole lot that dont have the margin to play with .15/.30 per click. Without a crawler pulling in the rest of the web, their index will be pretty scarce.
You can be sure that the Feds, with a little assistance from lawyers employed by Google and Yahoo, will address the FTC issues.
This is a discussion forum I would assume.
If it is a place for 'senior members' to give press releases about what they think is 'the real deal with yahoo' please add that to the TOS as well.
There is significant disagreement with everything originally posted. I would like to think hearty, open, and nuanced debate is an excellent source of new ideas and understanding of the intricies of search engines.
And lets face it, participating in the internet economy means intimately understanding what 'the real deal with yahoo' is.
If we simply understand it from a shallow, 'what they are doing right now right today' perspective .. ie, 4 inches in front of our face .. and can not look back and forwards in time, then our understanding is very incomplete.
In fact, by understanding the future directions of these companies, people who are starting up websites now will have a better idea of the business models that are viable in the future.
To give anyone the impression that Yahoo is going to be all about 'free crawling' is a painful disservice to new users who might depend on a business model which requires 'free crawling'.
Are you comfortable giving that advice? I assume not, so lets call a spade a spade. Lets stop debating about the obvious .. Yahoo is moving significantly away from free crawling and towards full monetization of all traffic.
Kirby, pick any set of expensive keywords and you are going to find the 'free search results' below the fold.
SiteMatch is just another step forward in the full monetization of all traffic. The argument is not weak, it is plain as day.
Here is a test: would you tell a new user thinking of creating a website and depending on Yahoo to continue to do free crawling that its a good idea?
I doubt it. The issue is no longer if incremental erosion of free SERPs on yahoo is occurring, the issue is what the incremental erosion of free SERPs is going to do the internet industry as it stands.
The bottom line is PFI didn't work for INK - what makes anyone think that PFI with PPC thrown in will.
We have several content strong sites/pages that would cost over $100,000 per year each, under this model with no way of returning a profit on investment.
It appears Yahoo did a "gaaaaaaa aaaa leeeeee, looks what we could make if everybody baught just one, shazaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmm"
Again - it didn't work for Inktomi...
But on the positive side, look at all the extra traffic we're gonna get from Google if Yahoo continues with this.
What I stated was simply untrue was the generalisation that Inktomi PFI users knew that their pages would be dropped if they stopped PFI. I don't know this. It didn't happen to me and it hasn't happened to several other colleagues I have spoken to from other companies - so they don't know this either. I have people stating that this has happened to them. I don't doubt that their pages/sites were dropped. I do doubt that stopping PFI automatically did this. It clearly not always does and I very much doubt that it always will in the future. If anyone thinks I was accusing them of telling fibs, I apologise, I was trying to state that a sweeping statement saying that stopping PFI gets your site dropped was wrong and that Inktomi PFI users knew this (which by implication would include me and other users I know) was also wrong.
The same with people who have stated that sites with PFI pages don't get crawled. I've not had this happen either, although it has taken an age for the non-PFI pages to become included - nor have any people I have met face-to-face and asked directly. This is not to say that this also hasn't happened to others.
If there are rules for some who paid and not for others and it were proveable, I would be the first to complain vociferously about it. Despite impressions that may be to the contrary, I spend a lot of time trying to assist smaller webmasters - not just catering for my larger clients.
>Were the "thousands" of inclusions you mention paid for from the same submit accounts?
>pages..any given time...
Fewer thousands (excluding feeds).
Getting back to Yahoo! I still don't quite understand the fuss.
This is not a new model, CPC has been around for an age in organic results. The cost of entry for many people is significantly lower and they can pull pages if there is poor ROI. Plus Yahoo state over and over that they are going to crawl frequently and often which will negate the need for most people to even use PFI, if they are correct.
Surely the most important aspect here is what will happen with surfer satisfaction. If Yahoo are right then eyeballs will grow on Yahoo and everyone will be happy. If they desert Yahoo as they perceive the results to be rubbish then the model will fail. Only time will tell and whatever happens, I would have thought a good webmaster should try and prepare for it.
>Kirby, pick any set of expensive keywords and you are going to find the 'free search results' below the fold.
"city real estate" searches are .30 a click and serps look good to me. In fact most sites that havent been in INK for a long time are doing well.
However, I have taken several screen shots and am willing to revisit this discussion in a month or so to see what happens. The mom and pop sites in there now wont be paying for inclusion and .30 per click. We'll see how they compare.
30 cents is nothing. Competitive keywords are 5$ +
>.30 is nothing
I'm talking about .30 per click in the new PFI model.
Sorry, I meant put in an expensive keyword and you'll see that free results are below the fold because of PPC.
It is just an example of how Yahoo is trying to move towards full monetization, rather than giving free SERP its (at least) 50% due.
Certain members around here are saying yahoo is about 'free crawling'. This is a disservice to newcomers who might leave thinking they can build a website which depends on Yahoo for free traffic.
Maybe you can do this for Google, but Yahoo has clearly and authoritatively said "no, not for Yahoo anymore".
It seems not one of you has an answer to my post. And I thought webmasterworld was comprised of experts...
The answers to your questions are that no-one has experience with the 2-4 week crawl cycle as this search service has just been launched and we don't know when the cycle begins!
As far as getting your new site in, link from sites that are already in the index and a home page link is usually better than an internal page.
Even better, get links from DMOZ, Yahoo and other directories.
it is a disservice saying that new users should not optimize for yahoo because you believe they are moving to pfi only. No one here has said they should rely solely on any search engine for a traffic base. It is more important to work with what we know rather than to speculate on 'what ifs' that have no solid foundation.
At no time have I EVER said people should not optimize for yahoo.
Trust me, I use PPC on overture and I will be optimizing as much as the next guy.
I am just saying, AdSense publishers and people who rely on free traffic from Yahoo MUST see the writing on the wall. Which is:
If you do a search on some competitive keywords you will find that free SERPs have been pushed below the fold. The release of SiteMatch is just another step in the incremental erosion of free search traffic on Yahoo.
Some members would like to pretend otherwise, that Yahoo is all about 'free crawling'. This is obviously not the case.
>Some members would like to pretend otherwise, that Yahoo is all about 'free crawling'. This is obviously not the case.
logiclamp - There is nothing obvious at the moment.
|I am just saying, AdSense publishers and people who rely on free traffic from Yahoo MUST see the writing on the wall. |
I don't know about the other folks here, but I get 3 to 4 times as much traffic from Google as I do from Yahoo. Yahoo referrals are certainly welcome, but I don't rely on them--and I doubt if many other content publishers do, either.
Hopefully that is the case, EFV. I would encourage people to be happy about traffic coming from Google as odds are it will continue to be free. I would discourage anyone saying otherwise about Yahoo.
Kirby, I will post what I did in another thread:
1. The overture release does not refer at all to free crawling.
2. The erosion of free results which has already occured with PPC -try searching on compettive keywords and you will see free results below the fold only.
3. The addition of SiteMatch is a step towards charging for traffic rather than giving it away for free.
Yahoo is incrementally eroding free SERP traffic.
Where is this argument wrong? What they have done with PPC is a clear indicator of the direction they are heading in.
If Yahoo free traffic is apart of your business model, then you may want to make a note in your business plan saying odds are this will not last.
>>>The overture release does not refer at all to free crawling.
Well that's because it is on Overture's site not Yahoo. You are welcome to use search engines to find other posts in this forum or elsewhere explaining how Yahoo and other search engines work. I know it is hard to learn about how search engines work but hey, we all have to learn sometime right? :)
|Yahoo! Search crawls the web every 2-4 weeks and automatically finds new content for indexing. If pages already in the Yahoo! Search index link to your site, it will be considered for inclusion in the next update of the index. Getting your site listed in major directory services such as the Yahoo! Directory and DMOZ is an excellent way to be sure that there are links to your site. |
Msgraph, the reason the overture site doesn't mention the free crawling is because Yahoo is slowly positioning itself to shut off a free search traffic.
It is posts like this which drag out the conversation. Its funny, I think some people think I am getting redundant by stating the obvious that Yahoo is not interested in free crawling and is moving towards full monetization.
But then people like msgraph post and you start see why I am repeating myself over and over again.
flobaby and others...
Relax! I am not trying to start a world war! If you closely read my post you will note that I meantioned that our main site ranks bad in Yahoo. Reason I said that folks should relax is because we DONT KNOW ENOUGH YET TO FREAK OUT!
If you write good content for your readers, dont use spammy techniques, your site will rank well in all search engines. At least this is the way it works for the 300 plus sites that we manage.
Sure we have some sites not listed in Yahoo right this second, but are we worried? No. Mostly they are new sites and I am sure they too will pop up in the rankings.
In my years of being on Webmaster World I have never seen such responces!
Not taking this personally and back on topic - let me re-word my phrase/suggestion. Yahoo is new, they are perfecting things and like any business need to make money too! We cant just expect to mooch forever off #1 rankings without paying a cent - take it while you can but dont gripe when you loose it, as it was a gift for the time you had it. If you never had it, or lost it - then analyze what is wrong and fix it.
Experienced? Yes - but no pro. I dont think a SE Pro exists these days! We can all do, what we can do - and thats all! Right now, what WE are doing it watching, learning, tweaking and its working nicely.
Hope everyone is in a better mood tomorrow. :P
Makemetop - you said:
|"The cost of entry for many people is significantly lower and they can pull pages if there is poor ROI. |
I accept that the cost of entry will be lower - because I am also assuming, like you, that instead of paying separately to multiple SE's for (the same URLS) to be listed:
Inktomi Per URL (USD)
1st URL $US 39.00 each
URLs 2-1,000 $US 25.00
FAST Per URL (USD)
1st URL $US 34.00 each each
URLs 2-1,000 $US 16.00 each
This has been replaced by a single 'Yahoo!' fee of :
First URL: $49 Next 2-10 URLs: $29 each
11th URL and beyond: $10 each
PLUS a 'Cost-Per-Click Fee' based on Industry sector.
Yes - on day one - the costs are lower 'up front'. However the PPC component .15 or .30 per click more than eats up the benefits of the lower up front cost.
Do the math yourself -
10 pages was $442 total annual cost (Inktomi and FAST combined) with all the clicks you can eat.
10 pages now costs $310 upfront, PLUS .15 or .30 per click. That means the annual cost - based on an average of ONE click per day per page - means the annual cost is now between $858 and $1,405 (ie $310 plus 365 clicks per URL per year)
100 pages was $4,132 total annual cost (Inktomi and FAST combined) with all the clicks you can eat.
100 pages now are $1,210 upfront PLUS .15 or .30 per click. That means the total annual cost - based on an average of ONE click per day per page - means the annual cost is now between $6,685 and $12,160 (ie $1,210 plus 365 clicks per URL per year)
So - based on ONE click per day per URL - the price just quadrupled for some people. Try the same exercise with 2 clicks per day per URL!
Obviously - if you didn't used to get any clicks from Inktomi or FAST entities - then you'll save money under the new Yahoolooksmart scheme.....
Under the old scheme - you could change non performing URLS anyway, within limitations.
So - if the answer to all this is 'Yahoo will aggressively spider for free' - then why have this Looksmartesque arrangement? So I tell clients to forget this Yahoo! programme?
Yeah, I am thinking about using the program myself as I make all my money off of PPC, however, there needs to be a way to make sure that I can turn bleeding keywords off.
I do not want to pay 15 cents a click through for traffic that does not convert. Not to mention can I can control where and when the traffic is coming from?
I can pausine my campaign on Google and Overture .. am I going to be able to pause this?
It is unlikely that I will even think about using it until they rationalize what they are doing.
|Lets stop debating about the obvious .. |
This is not obvious to many members here, clearly, including me. I have concerns, based largely upon the old INK, but no one yet knows what the new Y will bring. To assume you know better than all others may be unwise.
|Yahoo is moving significantly away from free crawling and towards full monetization of all traffic. |
Overstatement, at best. Monetizing traffic? Of course. But *all* traffic? That's a bit over the top, eh?
Also, Y! has gone on record as saying that the free listings will compete on a level field with the paid. I don't necessarily believe it, but I don't not belive it either. We'll see. If they do not live up to their comments, they will have a relationship problem on their hands with heap o' webmasters, not unlike what G just went through. I doubt that G's recent lesson was lost on Y. Y seems pretty bright to me.
|The erosion of free results which has already occured with PPC - try searching on compettive keywords and you will see free results below the fold only |
Not accurate. We operate in a lot of categories - 120+, with nearly 200 sites (sorry for repeating). That said, when Y adds their own 'inside Yahoo' listings at the top of the page, and/or their YP listings, and then show 4 Ov ads, almost all the other listings are below the fold anyway. Not much new there.
P.S. MMT: You are quite right that I should not have implied that INK's 'stop and you're dropped' program happened to all users. But it certainly happened to us, twice. Twice - within days of exp. each time - ain't no coincidence ;-)
>>the reason the overture site doesn't mention the free crawling is because Yahoo is slowly positioning itself to shut off a free search traffic.
No, the reason it doesn't mention it is because there is no reason for it to be mentioned. It is explaining a specific program and that is all it's necessary to do.
That is NOT an explanation about what Yahoo is doing, that is mind-reading and guesswork on the part of one individual, projecting one's own analysis onto another's motives. Sorry, but that is not rational, nor is it acceptable.
If that is the case, then PROVE IT.
>>It is posts like this which drag out the conversation. Its funny, I think some people think I am getting redundant by stating the obvious that Yahoo is not interested in free crawling and is moving towards full monetization.
It most certainly is redundant, and what is being stated as "the obvious" is nothing more than one person's opinion ostentatiously and repetitively stated, with no logical reason for anyone to accept it as anything more than the pure biased conjecture of one person.
>>But then people like msgraph post and you start see why I am repeating myself over and over again.
It is not necessary to repeat over and over again; credibility and acceptance do not increase one iota with repetition. It is not people like msgraph's post, it is a stubborn insistence upon agreement with one's own views that are motivating the repetition, and not all are willing to do that and abdicate their own free choice and thoughts to buckle under to domination and bias.
None of us here has been arbitrarily appointed as the WFA (World's Foremost Authority) and we most certainly do want to hear what everyone else has to say. Repetition and insistence, essentially constituting undue domination of others, is getting kind of old.
Maybe it's time for the zipped lip and the open ear on the part of some individuals, who seem to have blinders on so they can't see past their own thoughts and are unwilling and unable to see and absorb what others have to say.
| This 134 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 134 ( 1 2 3  5 ) > > |