| This 54 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 54 ( 1  ) || |
|Dont game, cheat!|
is this your only route?
| 10:17 am on Apr 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Having looked at the sites that dominate my area of serps on yahoo and the comments made to me about my site there is but one conclusion i can come to. Do not think about gaming yahoo, you need to cheat. If you are open about everything you do, if its all their on the pages to be seen then you will be penalised by human review. They look at your site for 5 minutes and think oh, i dont like the look of that and youre history. However join the pros with hidden and offpage/site cheating and you are ok. Until they actually ask real users if this site or that site had the information you were looking for, if it was presented in an easier to use form than others sites and would you use that site again then a whole section of innocent webmsters have no chance in Yahoo.
| 1:37 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>on sidenote when branding don't use keywords in the brand!, never give an SE a reason for not been #1
I think we'd better read that again and let it sink in. ;)
| 2:10 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>on sidenote when branding don't use keywords in the brand!, never give an SE a reason for not been #1 .
I don't have anything like it. However, my domain (.com) name has a commonly accepted derogatory term. The mega-firm it is directed against has bought the .net and .org versions long time ago to prevent others from starting sites like mine. Yahoo! sells its big-budget product and my guess is that it makes a few million dollars annually from their deal that includes hundreds of listing in it directory. Hey, it's a no-brainer, now I can see why my site should be penalized. ;)
| 3:08 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hey IITian, I do not know what your site is about, but you are kinda describing a hate/bashing site, derogatory terms in domain name?
Perhaps it is not the kinda sites I want to see when I am searching. Depending on the derogatory terms, I do not want my grandchildren finding it either.
So, really with the site you describe, is Yahoo doing you an injustice, or the surfer a favor?
Perhaps Yahoo thinks along the same lines, it is their index. They do have the right to control what content is in it.
| 3:14 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i think thats called censorship..they are quite fond of it in china!
| 3:27 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I put on my site what I want people to see and act upon, You put on your site what you want people to see and act upon, Yahoo puts on their site what they want people to see and act upon.
I link to sites I think my traffic wants to see, You link to sites you think your traffic wants to see, Yahoo links to sites They think their traffic wants to see.
I would think that censorship is anyone, goverment or otherwise, being able to tell me, you, or Yahoo what to show surfers.
Just my point of view.
[edited by: thumpcyc at 3:39 pm (utc) on April 19, 2004]
| 3:38 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
if i say search the web and then hold back sites that dont fit my personal prejudices or opinions i would be guilty of censorship. I dont say that on my website, you may say it on yours, i dont know. If the information exsisted on my website and i then removed it to prevent its contents becoming wider knowledge i would be exercising censorship. The defintion of censorship is: (did a GOOGLE search :-))
counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to others
deleting parts of publications or correspondence
Legal or social practices aiming to bar the creation or dissemination of disapproved forms of artistic expression.
broadly, any restrictions on speech or writing;
The prevention of thoughts, feelings or actions from reaching consciousness
Not allowing certain information to be disseminated.
The practice of suppressing material
| 3:39 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
As has been stated Yahoo is more profit driven, hence some obvious inconsistencies, Yahoo therefore is never going to curry as much favour and respect as say Google. Look not to Tim or Mike for guidiance, look to yourself, hedge your bets. If Yahoo wants to change the goalposts during play kick more balls at them a few will go in.
Let Yahoo get on at building a better SE and let us get back to suppling the content that is best for them.
| 3:51 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to others"
so say i had a site which i built up over the years got 247 backlinks in google, nice ranking for "city keyword" but i wanted to protect my url so register the .com .net and maybe a few other keyword loaded ones, then point them all at one site.
should Y! show all my urls or just one, answer we are all looking for "is which one should they show"
| 3:56 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
For me this discussion reinforces the importance of developing traffic sources that don't depend on the search engines.
| 4:01 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I cannot argue with your definition, so that makes all of us guilty, you, me & Yahoo, in one instance or another. I can live with that. We censor what we wish, and so do they.
On topic, Don't Game or cheat, might get caught!
I do not know enough to do either, I just create pages to sell widget parts, and hope someone finds them, and does not notice that I censor the widget parts I would not use or trust on my widget.
| 4:31 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>So, really with the site you describe, is Yahoo doing you an injustice, or the surfer a favor?
Which site would you like your children to see - one that shows a widget going up to 160 *** - more than twice the legal limit - to attract your children, or the site that points you to Department of Widget site that shows how unsafe those widgets are, or how many people are complaining about this widget?
| 5:29 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I link to, and are linked from sites that advertize and sell things to make widget riding safer, and they have reports of the laws on their widget hats for each state, and my children and grandchildren see them, as they should.
I sell the widget parts that will make widgets run WAY over 160mph, and use some of them myself, with my children, and grandchildren watching, but I do not make the 160mph, closer to 130mph, on my street widget, but it is done in only a quarter mile.
I link to, and am linked from sites where people discuss both the good and bad aspects of widgets, and their associated parts. My Children read them, (grandchildren are too young).
So, in answer to your question, the site I would want my children to see on this widget subject, is mine.
I choose who I link to/with, I base these decisions on the content of the sites, and the net neighborhoods they are in, and what they offer to my traffic. So do you, I, and everyone else, it is each of our own choices, no different with Yahoo.
| 5:56 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>I cannot argue with your definition, so that makes all of us guilty, you, me & Yahoo, in one instance or another.
If you can't argue with it, then I will.
|Legal or social practices aiming to bar the creation or dissemination (e.g., the publication or public display) of disapproved forms of artistic expression. |
When a government passes a law saying they will throw you in jail for the act of creating the content on your website, then you've become a victim of censorship.
When the Yahoo Delta Force kicks your door in and unplugs your servers while they hold you at gunpoint, in order to prevent you from disseminating the information on your website, then you've become a victim of censorship.
Anything short of that is simply other people excercising their rights to freely choose what type of content they wish to disseminate to their audience.
Freedom of speech gives you the right to write and say whatever you want. However, it doesn't give you the right to force others to provide you with an audience. That part is up to you.
So rather than sitting around whining about how Yahoo has somehow violated your rights by censoring you, why not spend your time working on building your audience?
| 7:02 pm on Apr 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|So rather than sitting around whining about how Yahoo has somehow violated your rights by censoring you, why not spend your time working on building your audience? |
with what? its been said before but yep, i'll say it again. When your toast your toast and they dont let you slip back in past a filter. I never actually said what you have quoted but i must say its become a theme for some to winge about the whinners when it comes to Yahoo. Funny how they started off by joining the whinning when it was their sites that bit the dust. Its noted that those that once joined the chorus remain strangely silent after reinclusion. But hey, if you want to winge about my whinning thats your right.
BTW if you read back the thread you will see i was backing up another member, i was not talking about my own site. Censorship was talked about because of the suggestion the site simply had information that Yahoo may not have wanted seen. I have no idea if thats the case or not but i said if it was then that was censorship.
| 1:56 pm on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Not to open a new post.
Today I searched Internet as an user.
I needed an receipt.
The best result was number 1 from yahoo, better than google, but the rest in yahoo.......number 2 till number 7 at least, was diferents domain with duplicated pages and diferents titles. But the worst was that on clicking the url, an dialer was istalled in my pc without asking me.
Btw, I did report yahoo, though this is Real Spam.
Itīs hard not being in seing these kind of stuff.
[edited by: helenp at 2:14 pm (utc) on April 22, 2004]
| 2:14 pm on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
this has been my point. How marginal sites have come to be pulled and real spam flourishes. Makes no sense to me.
| 11:10 pm on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|How marginal sites have come to be pulled and real spam flourishes. Makes no sense to me. |
Yahoo have made very clear that as regards Site Match, it is good for good sites and bad for bad sites. In other words it is an invitation to be banned. If you are marginal do not go near it with a barge pole. Get the spider to pick you up and then you stay under the radar.
Any chance we could have a ban on all discussion of ethics in this forum - it is just a case of round and round in circles and at the end of the day most people are here to pick up tips on how to beat the system.
| 11:24 pm on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
soapystar all you ever do is whine. Every time I see a negitive Y! thread you are right in the middle of it. Can't you just get to work making money.
| 7:23 am on Apr 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Mr Ogletree... DaveN stands up right beside you there.... soapystar sit down ;)
| 8:16 am on Apr 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
you'll miss me when im gone!
| 8:30 pm on Apr 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Please Soapy, stay on, SOMEONE needs to help put these arrogant ---s in their place. Don't succumb to their intimidating tactics, claiming you're just a whiner. Is Y! paying (or threatening) you guys to defend them since they don't have enough time to cover it all themselves?
I can't believe people like DaveN and %, especially since they are supposedly upstanding senior members and moderators, have the nerve to tell everyone they should cheat and spend ALL their time writing and rewriting numerous (which is against the SE policies to begin with) entirely new sites all the time. Some people have lives and have REAL, society supporting, productive businesses to run. They don't get PAID just for the act of making sites, they still have to sell something with it on top of that. Imagine what would happen to this country if everyone stopped running their businesses to devote every hour to rewriting websites? People like D & % wouldn't have anything to eat, anywhere to go, or beer to guzzle, because all the food producers and bars are too busy rewriting their websites to try to get to the top of the search engines and attract customers.
SURE! It's ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS for THEM (D & %) when Yahoo! changes their tastes! It's a virtual monetary windfall because they get to bill their clients for YET ANOTHER WEBSITE rewrite! No wonder they are defending Y! What would they be saying about it if their clients demanded "NO! From now on I pay you ONCE - YOU keep me on top of every search engine for the entire year, regardless of how they change their algo or I get a full refund". Hmm, what a novel movement to start... THEN we'll see who WHINES because they don't have time to chug stout!
I'm not necessarily on the "calling-it-censorship" boat yet, unless the one demanding it be censored has a LOT of money in Y!'s pocket. Remember Y! doesn't bother doing anything unless there's money in it for them.
Personally I think each country government needs to assign a Search Engine Committe (SEC :-) to re-regulate the web (how many here remember we sprang from arpanet?) and promote one single, totally automated, but regularly tweaked, regulated, national search engine with fully divulged and published algorithms. They can specify which no-no words will be censored, and maybe even have company specific loopholes like our tax code, for those megaliths of industry with the best lobbyists, I don't care as long as they are fully documented and available to ALL. And most of all no bidding for rank! All we're looking for is a level playing field, rather than playing football in the dark in a mine field.
In this scenario there can be other "Search Engines" of course, IF they manage to make it to the national SE index to be found. Remember excessive cross-links to other sites, pages just for the purpose of linking to other pages and 1000's of automatically generated pages could be AUTOMATICALLY penalized. Plus, no-one will probably use them since everyone "respects and trusts" their own gov. ;) I think search engines like Y! are a thing of the past and need to be replaced with simple, topically ordered indexes, of closely integrated vertical portals... which is where the net is going anyway.
BTW, I've reported probably 20 spam-ridden sites to Y! in the past few weeks, but naturally they never seem to do anything about them.
| 8:39 pm on Apr 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't think any of us are defending Y!. DaveN even said that he had problems as well. I have had problmes but I fixed them. We are just saying if something is in your wsy that you have no contol over don't just yell at it. Go aound it. Does anybody here think they can complain enough to change what Y! does. It's like all the MS bashing. They are an imoveable object. Y! will do what they want to do as long as they are still making money. They have enough momentum that if they see a decline they can just change and go back to what goes back forward. Most people could care less whats going on at Yahoo and Google. They still find things. People don't care if they buy their stuff at Joe's small website or Bob's small website. Shoot a lot people still type the URL in the search box. They think wow this thing is good.
| 3:46 am on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Soapy makes plenty of valid points.
I do not see his analysis of what Y does as complaining.
He simply points out the problems with Yahoo's current algo.
DaveN and % have a good gig going on which is great for them. No problem with that. Not all businesses can be run the way DaveN and % run their businesses.
There are other businesses who have justifiable complaints about Yahoo's search results.
Yahoo should pay closer attention to people who are critical of their search results. Yahoo's most valuable insights will come from critics rather than the people who simply say, change what you are doing to please Yahoo's new algo.
In fact, there are plenty of ideas on these forums that come from so-called whiners, that if taken seriously by Yahoo could be turned into profitable ideas.
| 6:50 pm on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Yahoo's most valuable insights will come from critics rather than the people who simply say, change what you are doing to please Yahoo's new algo.
Thatís a very important point. Simply changing your site for extremely vague penalties can hurt you with other engines while you still remain penalized at Yahoo. At present there is little feedback as to whether sites are penalized or there are significant bugs at Yahoo. Plus when I see people state I spoke to so and so and my sites back in the legitimacy of the whole process comes into further question. This is especially true when I see no mention of what penalized the site to begin with but instead a lot of ďloveliesĒ being dispensed. Yeah, anybody who puts your site back in whether penalized or not is probably a great guy to the recipient.
I have no problems with any methodologies people may use to overcome the penalties. When the rule makers donít play by the rules and ignore you by all means you are under no obligation to play by the rules. Its whatís in your nature though. Personally I donít believe there are a lot of quick fixes for people who at least tried to play by the rules. Create a new site for a specific business and they probably will penalize you for the past penalties.
| This 54 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 54 ( 1  ) |