| 2:27 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Beyond algo changes and everything,
how long have those pages been in the index?
I would be very worried if your 11th position sticks for a while.
| 2:34 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Check this post: [webmasterworld.com...]
It could just be algo changes.
| 2:35 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Technically there has not been a Yahoo! index for very long to test against. But it has been in the Yahoo! directory for 19 months. And it was definitely in the SERPs since Yahoo! has changed to their own index.
I understand Yahoo! is testing new algos all of the time. But going from 76th to 11th (and 10th) approximately 72 hours after I submitted for inclusion seems like to much of a coincidence since I have not changed anything on the pages, nor gotten any more links for it.
I would like to see if others have tested this out to confirm whether this has happened to them (or if I am just very lucky).
| 2:37 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The SERP's have been changing quite a bit in the past 36 hours. Yesterday I was getting what looked like SERP's from at least two data centers. I don't know that we know enough about Y to conclude anything on one experiment.
| 2:38 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That said, even more dramatic fluctuations appeared during the Florida/Brandy updates at Google, so I would suggest Yahoo are just making algo changes that are having a similar (though less dramatic) effect on rankings.
What do you think?
| 2:46 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am not in the SEO biz, but I was told by the one and only SEO I have ever met, with a nod and a wink, that PFI comes with a flick of a switch which allocates a certain amount of pre-ordained link popularity. He was very convinced about it and rambled on about all sorts of evidence and supposed 'insider knowledge'.
Your comments BaldGuy fit with this version very well.
If it turns out to be correct, the real loser will end up being Yahoo. In the long run that is certain.
As we say around here, "the truth will out". I personally hope that it is wrong, but I wouldn't stake a wager on it!
| 2:48 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have been doing some more investigations. It seems as though Yahoo! directory listings are doing better (and the site in question is in the directory).
Can anyone else confirm this? I was considering taking the site out of SiteMatch program to see if the SERPs would change again.
But I have several sites and most of them are ranking top 10. So I specifically picked this one to test because it was ranking so low. I could understand a change of 3-5 positions as a result of an algo change, but going from 76 to 11 seems a bit much. Let's hope I am wrong.
| 2:53 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo has updated its index. It now reflects over 130 more pages for my site than it had showing up in search results a couple of days ago. These are NOT PFI pages.
If I had a boss, I would have gotten a raise after this update. Yahoo must like the way I write.
| 2:53 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It could be that Yahoo are giving a higher weighting to recently modified pages. If yours has been refreshed recently, it would be an up-to-date version whereas all the free listings could be a few weeks out of date.
| 4:09 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I have been doing some more investigations. It seems as though Yahoo! directory listings are doing better (and the site in question is in the directory).
Can anyone else confirm this?
One of my sites has been in the directory since 1999. It has been steadily dropping down page 1 since Y! made the switch. Now I cant find it in the first 100 results, so I wouldnt bet that the directory has any influence.
| 4:24 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes, Yahoo has just posted the results of a DEEP Yahoo craw it appears. The results just appeared today! The new Yahoo results looks strikingly similar to what Google results used to look like before Google corp went into the idiot zone with the Florida update.
| 4:30 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Liar, Liar, pants on fire!"
You might owe someone an appology. (at least for today) The way things are these days it is very easy to make these assumptions. Corporate greed is rampant, and after all the crappola that has been fed to us from Google, people are justlty a little skeptical of these type claims. Todays changes look like a Yahoo deep crawl however.
| 4:31 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
For our keywords, the results are EXACTLY Google's
| 4:33 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
yep, deep crawl. One site of mine had 27000 pages... about 5000 more then Google. I didn't even know it had that many pages.
| 4:38 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If PFI allows you to have your URL crawled more frequently, and if you can tweak your page to 'optimize' it for better positioning...then doesn't PFI allow you to slowly but surely move your URL higher within the SERPS?
Isn't it disingenuous to claim that PFI does not affect the SERPS when it can provide clever webmasters with the ability to get better placement more quickly?
If this theory is correct, then how long will it take before the SERPS are dominated by PFI webmasters that have figured out how to 'optimize' for Yahoo?
| 4:46 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>If this theory is correct, then how long will it take before the SERPS are dominated by PFI webmasters that have figured out how to 'optimize' for Yahoo?
About the same length of time it took them to work out how to optimise for Inktomi :)
| 4:47 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>yep, deep crawl. One site of mine had 27000 pages... about 5000 more then Google. I didn't even know it had that many pages
Walkman - have you tried looking to the end results to see if there are still that many results reported as found? I just checked, and, I have more listed that what is currently in the google SERP's, when I got near the end the results gradually dwindled away...
Am not sure what on earth is going on but Y has found every single page on my site roughly (1700) pages, but I cannot find the index page for the life of me.
| 4:59 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing the reverse...
All 4020 of my pages were there until this morning, and I'm now down to 1300.
Climb in G, fall in Y...climb in Y fall in G. I feel like a yo-yo.
| 5:20 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Walkman - have you tried looking to the end results to see if there are still that many results reported as found? I just checked, and, I have more listed that what is currently in the google SERP's, when I got near the end the results gradually dwindled away... "
now it went down to 73 pages. Hahaha. still updating /fine tunning things I guess.
| 5:56 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
How is everyone checking the results for amount of listings?
I am using site:domain.com, which seem to be returning a consistent amount each query. Except of course once you drill down into the SERP's
| 6:04 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>"Liar, Liar, pants on fire!"
>>You might owe someone an apology
I hope I am wrong and I would certainly owe an apologize to Tim and the other Yahoo! reps.
But I was shocked this morning when I saw these changes. It is hard not to come to this conclusion when I have tracked the results for this particular SERP since Yahoo! changed to it's own index. And this page has never appeared higher then 73. Then 72 hour after I do a PFI, this page goes up to 11.
I also checked another one of my sites (with a similar amount of backlinks and it is also in the Yahoo! directory, but I did not include this in PFI.). It went from 64 to 60 (not as significant of an increase in rank as 76 to 11).
The nice thing about this forum is that we can collectively come to some solutions, but I have not seen anyone else post about what has happened to their pages after doing PFI. Has anyone else done it? If so, have you noticed any differences?
As for some people saying google and Yahoo are the same results, that is vastly different from what I am seeing on our various results. We are in 2 different industries. For one industry we are doing great in google, not so good in Yahoo. And the exact opposite is true for our other industry.
SiteMatch makes sense as to why they are doing it. And if it doesn't influence results, I think it can help their results. However, one problem I have is that I would have to pay per click on results I would not want to rank for (for example, if I rank for a certain result that does not convert, I do not want to have to pay for those visitors).
[edited by: onebaldguy at 6:11 pm (utc) on Mar. 19, 2004]
| 7:26 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|PFI comes with a flick of a switch which allocates a certain amount of pre-ordained link popularity |
How else would a dynamic page (that may be Flash or almost all images) buried deep within a site show in the top rankings above a page that got in for free because an engine found it and included it by following links?
Maybe someone should Ask Jeeves, they seem to have come up with a theory.
| 9:17 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
1) If you are number x for a certain keyword and haven't been crawled in a long time - getting crawled recently might have an effect.
2) One page isn't enough to show this is or isn't true. You need multiple pages with PFI and without. Both getting indexed at the same time.
3) If it is true - the party will be over soon. It won't take much for a place like Consumer Reports to do a test on this (it is a little beyond my patience to test).
4) My suggestion for anyone wanting to run such a test is to SSI the date in the title. Pick X pages (AT RANDOM - NOT YOUR RANDOM BUT USING A COMPUTER) and do PFI and the rest not PFI.
5) You have to have the same date showing in the title for all pages and then you can draw some real conclusions.
SAME DATE + RANDOM PAGES
Otherwise we are just guessing.
| 10:40 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Either it is an amazing coincidence"
Are we going to have to see these sort of posts every time Yahoo updates? Sheesh. Search results change drastically over over the place, but one site movement brings out the black helicopters.
"Yahoo PFI does appear to influence results" = "Results do change on Thursdays" = "Wearing red underwear influences the results"
| 10:46 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ya--- It's going to take more time to tell. Tim and Mike and the rest of the crew have given us many answers and have completely honest with us. We have no reason to believe otherwise. They said it doesn't affect ranking... let's not jump to conclusions. If you want to prove the occurance, you'll need quite a bit more evidence.
Yahoo is in the middle of a update. Things will continue to fluctuate. Plus, keep in mind that your pages were just crawled are "fresh". Fresh content may be given a boost in the serps.
| 11:01 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>"Wearing red underwear influences the results" <
I know for a fact this is false.
On a serious note, Y! results are changing on almost every refresh for the last couple days. Impossible to draw conclusions unless you take ChrisR's advice.
| 11:52 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A possibility: the page which was showing up at 76 hadn't been updated in the Yahoo! database for quite some time. When you PFI'd it, it was spidered and updated, and improved in the rankings because you have edited it since the last time it was spidered, or because it is now considered "fresh."
I tend to believe that PFI listings get a boost though. When I spoke with an Inktomi salesperson a while back about getting in on the XML feed thing, he assured me in every way he could without directly saying so that their team would work with my team to ensure that we got the clicks we needed for our clients. Yahoo! has to be doing the same thing - giving out tips and advice on how to make sure your pay-for-inclusion-per-click pages get the clicks so that they can get the cash.
| 6:42 am on Mar 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I wanted to chime in on a couple topics that have come up. First, Site Match isn't a repackaged version of Inktomi. Both the new Yahoo! Search Technology and the Site Match program are newly developed technologies. Certainly we used some of the knowledge and experience from several companies (Inktomi, AV and FAST) but Site Match is not the Inktomi Search Submit program.
The second item is that yes, as some posters mentioned, Yahoo! has been rolling out and testing software changes and making adjustments in the scoring algorithms. The goal is, of course, to continue to improve the relevance of our search results. For some, the effect of these algo changes on their rankings will be small. In a few cases the change in rankings may be more dramatic. We'll continue to adjust the algos and our editorial process to reach our goal of providing the most relevant search results to users.
I know we've said it before, but just to reiterate. we do treat the crawled and the Site Match sites the same when it comes to relevance.
| 7:01 am on Mar 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>we do treat the crawled and the Site Match sites the same when it comes to relevance.
They do indeed...their pants are not on fire. In fact on the old Inktomi (PT) program I have evidence to show that PFI damaged your positions, don't have that for the new program (yet).
Yahoo seem to be doing the right and honorable thing. Free crawl is just as good as PFI, no benefit either way....other than one is free of course :)
| This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38 (  2 ) > > |