| 5:36 am on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
From my perspective as a searcher I agree with you. Some people's view is that it is query dependant. From a content providers perspective I have heard many times that they do not like the directory T&D. We had the same problem with the Looksmart directory listings in the Inktomi Index. People unsubscribed from Looksmart just to get rid of the T&D in Inktomi.
| 6:25 am on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm really glad to see someone posting on this. The problem occurs just on the url listed in the Yahoo directory, generally the default page. Inside pages return their own titles and snippets.
I mentioned this in the Supporters Forum, when Tim asked for feedback there, and the consensus was that no one liked it.
Tim - Thanks for your responses on both threads. OK... now what can we do about it? It's a real problem. Why in the world is Yahoo continuing to do this?
|People unsubscribed from Looksmart just to get rid of the T&D in Inktomi. |
Right now, there are four sites that I've been keeping out of Yahoo until this is cleared up, and there are several more where I'm on the verge of suggesting we just drop the listing.
| 11:43 am on Apr 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The directory titles are killing me. While all the SERPS around me have the phrase folks are searching for, I get the title of my site :(
| 11:23 pm on Apr 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Tim or Yahoo_Mike, can you folks at least assure us Yahoo! is working to change this?
Folks are ignoring the best content top search result sites because your directory descriptions & titles are absolutely truncated and displayed in an inferior way to the rest of your SERPS. (And, again, ironically, your detailed descriptions, excerpting and ordinary display approach is one of your competitive advantages over Google!)
Seems like this will hurt directory renewals bigtime!
| 4:09 pm on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This is an interesting thread. I have to agree that directory titles are inappropriate for the general serps.
Directory titles work great in the Directory because all the other listings are similarly ordered (Site Title, Site Description). All else is more or less equal.
Mixing the Directory titles into the regular serps doesn't work because the Directory Titles are inappropriate for the context. Like putting a round peg in a square hole.
| 4:38 am on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree that mixing directory descriptions within the regular serps is a bad thing. I pay $299/yr to be in the directory, and my description is not competitive compared to the surrounding natural listings in the serps. Iím beginning to wonder if being in the directory is actually doing more harm than good.
| 7:24 am on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i posted something along these lines about a year ago, nobody seemed too bothered then.
| 1:47 pm on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<<doing more harm than good.>>
Absolutely. Actually, I have yet to hear a Yahoo! rep give ONE SINGLE reason why someone should bother with the directory assuming that you get zero traffic as a direct result of it with the exception of Tim saying that you will get crawled :)
| 6:08 pm on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Love to hear Tim or Yahoo_Mike weigh in on our concerns? Can't we at least ask Yahoo! NOT to use our directory listing in the SERPS. (An elective opt-out. I mean we paid for the listing.)
This would be the best for both Yahoo, the site, and internet visitors at large. There would be some value in our listing with the directory (PR value, separate listing in directory) but it would not hurt us in the SERPS or reduce our visibility and usefulness to folks accessing Yahoo's WEB results.
How about it, Yahoo! Do you hear our concern?
| 9:54 pm on Apr 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes, if you are in the directory, we use that information in the Search Results listing. We are reviewing this process to provide additional ways for sites to be listed rather than always using the directory information.
| 12:30 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|We are reviewing this process... |
Yahoo, Yahoo_Mike! That is good news. Without pushing you folks on this, any guess when we can expect a decision? My listing situation right now really is on the brink of whether to pull some sites out or not.
I'd include pulling out all references to the Yahoo directory listing on the crawler-based serps. I have some clients with local listings doing international business, because that's the way the directory is structured, and the local category names appearing in the serps are definitely hurting them too.
| 3:59 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Yes, if you are in the directory, we use that information in the Search Results listing. We are reviewing this process to provide additional ways for sites to be listed rather than always using the directory information. |
This is not always true. I have a site for which I pay for SiteMatch which is in the directory, yet it always displays the meta title and description.
| 8:10 am on Apr 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just an idea
Perhaps what is required is a review for paid listings in the directory - fee based or complimentary!
Either way it could improve the directory listings and bring them in line with the current page/site content
| 6:16 pm on Apr 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Does anyone know if you were to go in and remove your site from the directory, would that cause the directory descriptions in the regular serps to go away too?
| 2:12 am on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Does anyone know if you were to go in and remove your site from the directory, would that cause the directory descriptions in the regular serps to go away too? |
I have a site I stopped paying for to be listed in the directory over 6 months ago. Guess what? It is still there. Their directory is a mess. I wish I had a nickel for every dead link I could point out in it.
| 9:37 pm on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Anybody had any success changing a directory description? If so, how?
| 10:12 pm on Apr 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Most of my directory listings are exactly what I wanted so I've no complaints although I can see the advantage in having the ability to change your title to reflect the content of your site better if the directory listing was not right.