| 6:33 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo announced at PubCon that they would distribute the new Yahoo serp's to all their properties. I think they will "tweak" the SERP's according to the target audience of each property. It's too bad though that we lost all the advanced options - perhaps Yahoo will integrate these?
| 6:38 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Why waste bandwidth and get insight into their algo? They could care less, if 10,000 webmasters are using it.
| 6:39 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>Now Yahoo is trying to do the same and take over all the serps I don't read this point of view from Yahoo's supporters much.
I don't think you can make such a comparison. Those of us who have been pushing for SE diversity have been concerned with the major properties that people actually search at. As much as I personally loved ATW, It contributed virtually nothing to mine or my client's traffic. And the same is true for AV.
So the fact that they will both be using Y! won't have much impact either way because no one uses them. (And for the record, I, like many others have many sites not showing up in Y!)
6 months ago, there was one company controlling the majority of all search activity on the web. 6 months from now, there will be 3, and their marketshare will be fairly evenly split.
That's a good thing. And I personally could care less who those 3 companies are, or whether or not their SERPS are as good as any of the older engines that no one ever bothered to use.
| 8:32 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The good thing with Google is they create new software, Yahoo seems to like buying and destroying them. |
There was a study a few years ago that showed the majority of acquisitions/mergers rarely result in a greater entity than if the original entities had stayed separate.
I doubt Yahoo! will get the 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5 synergistic boost many think they will. They will be lucky making a 3.
Using the Inktomi database smells of an upper management decision to justify its purchase. Using ATW, which came "free" with Overture, would be a mark on the careers of those who paid $235 million for Ink.
| 9:08 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Somebody asked about ATW use in the UK...
FreeServe - now, not a lot of people knew that! But it made ATW a bigger player in the UK than many realised.
| 9:15 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|So the fact that they will both be using Y! won't have much impact either way because no one uses them. (And for the record, I, like many others have many sites not showing up in Y!) |
If noone is using them WebGuerrilla wouldn't you prefer these companies developing their own search results. At least this means they have a chance of one day becoming popular. Now they are confined to the scrapheap.
The impact to me is great, no competition for Yahoo, which means they can in the future do what they like. And who do you trust in the longrun, Yahoo or Google. Google is a company who uses free lsiting from Dmoz to populate it's search, or Yahoo who charges Ģ200 for anything approaching commercial.
Ok Yahoo is producing free search results presently. But if they get a majority of search traffic I wouldn't bet on it continuing.
Even presently the Yahoo results page is worse from a users point of view. The SPONSORED RESULTS links take up the complate centre section of my 17 inch monitor. Whereas as with Google the free results are located at this spot on the screen.
Take Google for granted at your peril
| 10:25 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>wouldn't you prefer
Altavista, Fast, Inktomi: they sold their engines. ATW's former owner, norwegian based FAST was extremely happy selling their web search unit to Overture, and now is prospering in the corporate search space.
It wasn't big bad Yahoo forcing them to sell. It wasn't a hostile takeover.
What's the logic behind it all? Inktomi, AV and ATW tried to compete in a market where they didn't stand a chance, for various reasons, in the case of AV mostly because of wrong business decisions.
Websearch all of a sudden had become the biggest hype on the web, one of the very few success stories, resurrecting the whole "E-biz" sphere from the ashes.
So what happened was big money came in and small players suddenly found themselfes getting run over by the two big players.
If we are to look for one main culprit for eliminating the competition in the websearch area, than this would of course be Google. In the beginning they were simply better, and when OV had created and pioneered the perfect way of making money out of search, Google was clever enough to emulate that very model and making it even better, striking the perfect balance between selling serps and still aggressively pushing search technology.
In Europe, within less than two years local SEs were nearly completely extinct, replaced by Google. In the US and the UK things were only slightly better.
In this climate Inktomi, ATW and AV realistically didn't see any chance to compete any more. Other players, like Northern Light had thrown in the towel even earlier.
The only company who had the courage, and the cash, earned through OV listings, and the necessary user base, to take it up with Google has been Yahoo.
| 10:43 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>>>>>>>>>It contributed virtually nothing to mine or my client's traffic.
So the fact that they will both be using Y! won't have much impact either way because no one uses them. (And for the record, I, like many others have many sites not showing up in Y!)
I see, you say your clients...supose you have many, so thatīs not your life and makes you earn money for living.
You have many clients, if some of them arenīt in,.... no problem for you.
But for that company I guess it is an big problem?
You right, I keep having e-mails, I lost maybe 10% from yahoo, maybe 3% from ATW, and next altavista, and whatever comes.....
actually would like to add,
our clients, before letting us take care of there properties check if we are well positioned, and only being in google, not to good, even if nobody uses it, "or almost nobody", so there are a lot more in it.
[edited by: helenp at 10:55 pm (utc) on Mar. 26, 2004]
| 10:48 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I guess I'll add my voice to the general outcry. Alltheweb had good results. Tim, are you reading this? |
Alltheweb and FAST Web Search were my passion. Read my profile... I am not sure what reaction to reading this you are expecting from me. Are you complimenting me or criticizing me?
| 10:59 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|wouldn't you prefer these companies developing their own search results. At least this means they have a chance of one day becoming popular. Now they are confined to the scrapheap. |
Of course I would. You can dig through many past threads and find that I've always been a huge supporter of both ATW and AV. Both companies had more than enough time to "become popular." Unfortunately, most people were too caught up in the Google Love Fest to give them a chance.
|The impact to me is great, no competition for Yahoo, which means they can in the future do what they like. |
And how is that anymore dangerous than Google having an 80% marketshare? They've been able to do whatever they want for quite awhile.
|And who do you trust in the longrun, Yahoo or Google. Google is a company who uses free lsiting from Dmoz to populate it's search, or Yahoo who charges Ģ200 for anything approaching commercial. |
I don't trust either in the long run. Why is it everyone forgets that Google is a private company and Yahoo is a public company? That is a huge difference that goes far beyond apples & oranges.
|Even presently the Yahoo results page is worse from a users point of view. |
Obviously, that is a very subjective statement. You may not care for it, but that doesn't make it worse. But lets pretend for a moment that everyone's in total agreement that Yahoo's results aren't as good. So what?
Google started in '98. The didn't land their primetime deal until 2000. That means they had two whole years of working well below the radar to improve their algo before it was put under any large scale scrutiny.
Yahoo on the other hand launched a brand new system that was instantly being used by millions of people from day one. And that took place only one month ago.
That being the case, I would absolutely expect Google to have an edge at this point in the game.
| 11:23 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
With Yahoo trying to dominate over Google's domination, its becoming pretty useless for users.
I mean, god, where can I not see Ink results? Its on ATW, MSN, Hotbot, Yahoo Search, and soon will be on AltaVista.
Does Yahoo! ever think what goes through a users mind?
I mean, before when there was ATW, users had one more avenue to search on, one more advanced engine, one more close-to-google competent, but now, who would want to search in ATW when you can see the same results in Yahoo?
This was really a bad move for Yahoo! to do IMHO, if I owned so many search engines, I'd keep them, you know why? Because if the user (for example) does not like AV, he/she will search in ATW, both owned by the same company, so no matter which SE he/she chooses, it will benefit only Yahoo.
But, if a user does not like the current Yahoo! results, why would he want to search in ATW when it gives the same results?
| 11:25 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I don't trust either in the long run. Why is it everyone forgets that Google is a private company and Yahoo is a public company? That is a huge difference that goes far beyond apples & oranges. |
hopefully most ww members trust. Google whole philosophy has been free submission and free results
I think over the years Google has earned mine and and I can't ever see this changing. Whereas you cannot state this about Yahoo.
I personally think of Google as more of a webmasters friend than Yahoo. I may be proved wrong and do hope Yahoo proves me wrong. I just don't always like the sound of Yahoo's press statements. For example they stated they didn't like affiliate spam sites or something similar. But today they buy in some webmasters opinion the biggest affiliate spammers of them all in Kelkoo.
I personally don't mind Kelkoo or well thought out affiliate sites, but I am unsure to Yahoo's stance. Their UK shopping section is pure affiliate content. It just seems like Yahoo like to earn from affiliate marketing, but want to block anyone else from doing it.
This current policy is one thats makes me worry what Yahoo may roll out in the future if they get Google's market share.
| 11:31 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google and Yahoo! have done a fine job at branding themselves. No matter how great a search engine might be, it's all about popularity. I must say that I never used ATW or AV. Sure maybe to check our ranking for business, but not for personal use. It's all about capitalizing, and Microsoft wants a piece of the action. Frankly I do too! Internet sells are on the rise and with it internet advertising investments. There's tons of money to be made and sure providing a comprehensive search result is important too- I agree.
Better get use to Yahoo! [for now :) ].. Yes it's everywhere, it's up to you to use it for your advantage.
| 11:54 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Anyone who thinks that the world can support more than four search engines that are peers of each other needs to take a business course. People go where people go, and people search where people search. When MSN actually gets in the game, having three majors is a reasonable future. This idea that a company that wants to claim to have the best results should keep other engines around that have *by definition* worse results, well that is plain goofy, not to mention the cost. Yahoo should present results they consider the best they can do.
| 4:13 am on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Yahoo should present results they consider the best they can do. |
Not true. Yahoo! is presenting the results which offer the best profits - specifically the previously monetized Inktomi PFI index that has been rolled into the new Yahoo Search Technology.
ATW = better results
YST = better cash flow
This is all perfectly within their rights. They obviously also bear all ramifications.
I don't think many here realistically think Yahoo! should support three seperate search engines in a commercial sense. I think some are just lamenting the fact that the superior product is the one meeting its demise. However, this isn't the first time (or last) this has occurred in the IT/software, etc. industries.
| 5:36 am on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You might want to look up "should" in the dictionary.
| 7:19 am on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This is a shame. I was starting to fall back on AlltheWeb when Google couldn't find what I wanted. I was even thinking about making ATW my primary search engine. This is destructive of Yahoo.
I say this despite the fact that I rank well in Yahoo and my site traffic is up quite a bit lately. The more search engines, the better it is for everyone. Competition (even within a single company) keeps people from getting too greedy and lazy.
| 8:25 am on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm starting to understand this now.
AllTheWeb had one thing that Yahoo! needs/want more: TRAFFIC.
..and remember, where theres traffic; theres Yahoo. So instead of closing AllTheWeb down, or keeping the old FAST results, Yahoo! decided to expand its current search technology and focus on only one thing, instead of three. Wise choice in a commercial sense. Not that wise in a "I give what users want" sense.
| 11:42 am on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> I was even thinking about making ATW my primary search engine
Well, I think you are far behind the curve then. ATW was hot in 2002. Then was the chance for a breakthrough. For several reasons ATW never made it, but Yahoo has absolutely nothing to do with it. It was Google, who killed all competition. At that point Google was an unstoppable train, rising to a worldwide dominance of the websearch space which in it's proportions is only comparable to MS dominance in the PC and browsers market.
Another point for all doomsayers to consider: Yahoo is really only in the US a big player. In worldwide comparison Google absolutely dwarfes Yahoo.
So portraying Yahoo as a big bad wolf trying to dominate the search space is wildly off the mark.
| 1:35 pm on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
From a webmaster point of view i would have preferred to see ATW survive , i am sure from a business prospective yahoo did the right thing but the one theme we hear on WW is more search engines needed not less , maybe what may have been nice on ATW would have been same Y data major difference in algo used to deliver serps
| 2:59 pm on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The handwriting was on the wall for AV and ATW as soon as Yahoo bought Overture. And from a business standpoint I think it would cost too much to try to maintain 3 seperate crawlers, databases and algos.
But that is small comfort for a site that was getting AV traffic but was still waiting to be indexed by Yahoo. The search engine industry is still too consolidated for comfort but this is much better than having Google alone dominate 80% of traffic.
One person's disaster is another mans opportunity, hopefully this "thinning" will let some of the second tier engines find their niche as searchers and webmasters get tired of only having 2 - 3 databases for the top tier of search.
|troels nybo nielsen|
| 5:39 pm on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Yahoo is really only in the US a big player. In worldwide comparison Google absolutely dwarfes Yahoo. |
Yahoo? Ya-who? Those people who left Scandinavia because the competition was to tough? I seem to remember that they actually did manage to be the 4th biggest or something before they decided that they had wasted enough money in a fight that was lost before they began it.
It IS a shame with alltheweb. But for me personally the obituary was written in the moment that Overture bought them. The rest has just been a prolonged death proces.
| 4:26 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
LOL Heini, I don't care about being trendy... I'm just looking for quick accurate search results. Google has been failing me lately and ATW was a good back-up. It got to the point where I wondered if I might be better off searching All the Web first.
I remember when Altavista and Infoseek were good search engines. I liked Hotbot, too. If there are several good search engines, I'll use them all. I don't think I'm alone in that.
| 10:29 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If I try and access alltheweb at the moment I get Yahoo's 'This page is currently unavailable' error (on a Yahoo branded page) with a link to Yahoo.com for my trouble...
Sigh. Never known Alltheweb to be offline in a number of years. I always thought they would've given Google a run for their money with a bit of clever branding. Time to stop recommending it to people I guess.
| 11:08 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Are you complimenting me or criticizing me? |
Let me answer another question:
What's more efficient for us? :)
| 2:34 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"This is a stupid question probably, but if I remember correctly, Yahoo paid pretty good money for FAST and AlltheWeb. After all that, why did they just essentially pull the plug on it?
Am I missing something or does this just seem like a big waste of money on Yahoo's part? "
Actually Overture bought Fast/AlltheWeb (web search division) and AltaVista.
Yahoo then bought Inktomi.
Overture then sold off the AltaVista Enterprise Search back to Fast Enterprise Search.
Yahoo then bought Overture.
I am pretty sure that was the time line but I may be slightly wrong.
| 3:00 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Of course Yahoo was going to switch ATW to their own algo. You can't say "hey we have the best algo" and then leave a different algo on a property that you own. It doesn't make sense from a business perspective, it's like saying, yea we have it right, but we'll leave these search results just so you can have competition. Would you do that in any other business? When Wells Fargo buys out a company like Servus Financial, they switch everything to their systems, even if Servus was doing things well, because Wells thinks they are right. It doesn't matter to them that Servus then has to close because their partners no longer like the service, Wells already has the portfolio (or in this case, traffic).
| 3:01 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So now all we've got is a company thats gone the way of Northern Light (remember them?): [fastsearch.com...] they are for the enterprise only.
RIP Alltheweb. RIP.
And speaking of RIP-- what about [altavista.com?...] It switched over to Y! too right?
| 7:17 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I just sent my first complaint to AlltheWeb for giving trashy results.
In the keyword that I used, 4 different URLs -- all leading to one site -- are in the top 10 when they have no business being there (while distantly related, they are not on-target). Worse, adult sites are mixed in with the results, again when they have no reason to be present in that keyword.
Whatever algo they're using, it's definitely NOT working
| 7:52 pm on Mar 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo for sure on ATW now. Just noticed:
on a search on ATW.
Hmm, wondering why the av.rds.yahoo is in there on a ATW search?
..guess you're tracking the clicks that do come from AV/ATW, eh Tim? ;)
| 1:28 pm on Mar 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Hmm, wondering why the av.rds.yahoo is in there on a ATW search? |
I just checked AltaVista and it's not showing up there yet. Coming soon, though, I'd guess.
I wonder how long Yahoo will keep these sites open. In the short term they can keep getting whatever traffic the sites get from existing links and bookmarks. In the long term, though, I'd think it would hurt Yahoo's branding to have search engines with different names displaying the same results as its primary site.
| This 91 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 91 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |