| 6:49 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|So which would you chose? Admit that you are technically inept, or allow everyone to think you are cruel and cold-hearted? |
|This has been a huge problem with yahoo from the beginning and they can only say so many times that they are trying to fix it. There are at least fifty threads on this. It's a disasterous issue for them so it will be fixed when it can be fixed. |
Another vote for 'technically inept'.
|have several old domains that I have not done anything with so I have them redirected to my main site. Google has never had a problem with this. They have no backlinks and the main site has many. I have found several places where these parked redirect domains rank better than the main site. This makes no since. Yahoo is broken. They need to fix their dup filter. |
This has been addressed with Tim as well and is part of the problem. Y! ranks the parked domain ahead of the content filled domain. The funny/sad thing is that in many cases the snippet reads "Under Construction" or "This domain is parked at &@@@@@.com". These constant reminders in their results are enough to prod Y!, so unless you add "They dont care how their serps look", then the obvious conclusion is "technically inept".
| 7:10 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Parked domains is one problem. But the problem that I started this thread about is far worse. Basically, I and many others are getting killed by directories who link to us using cgi or scripted links. The problem is Yahoo drops the valid domain in favour of these redirecting links. I believe many are complaining about this issue for quite some time, but Yahoo doesn't seem able to come up with a solution. So my question is does anyone else have solution.
Either we tell Yahoo how to fix the problem or we figure out some way to get the real domains ranked instead of these crazy links. I don't believe that many of us can sit and wait.
My business is fading day by day as more of my sites and pages get dropped and replaced by these silly links. I feel like I have to act but really don't know what to do to resolve the problem at Yahoo.
I thought that by bringing up the issue I would get someone at Yahoo to take action, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
So I feel we should take action. Let's focus on solutions.
Are there any programmers that could offer Yahoo a solution?
Let's work together and get things fixed!
| 8:24 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo's silence on this is deafening. It would be nice to get some answers on this that provide a glimmer of hope that the problem will be resolved. Like I said earlier, Yahoo is loosing credibility as original/valid urls get dropped while redirect url's take over. Pretty soon, no original urls will remain. Yahoo will be one big database of redirects.
| 9:03 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo has not been silent, so it is rude and incorrect to assert that.
"Are we there yet"? Does it make anything better for them to say yet again, "it's screwed up and we are trying to fix it"? Would it be better if they said "it's screwed up and we look really dumb not being able to fix it, and Terry is really pissed"?
Give it a rest. There is nothing we can do about it (except maliciously target competitors I guess). They are not *trying* to look technically inept. They'll fix it when they can fix it. I suppose it is fine to keep the issue on the front burner here, but there is no point asking the same unanswerable question over and over.
| 10:12 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just checked my backlinks in yahoo.
Saw an strange link to my site, went to site,
that site donīt have any link to my site, and DO NOT think they ever had, actually they are an competitor working in my city,
even searched in the html code if they had hidden link an nothing, kept checking my backlinks, then again saw same company, but this time with an url from an directory,,,,, clicked on it and was redirection to their site.
As well several backlinks from an directory, but pages indexed is not real backlinks, they are from the searches done in that directory.
But what has this site to do with mine?
There are really an big mess, I find more and more things.
And searching for my domain without www or .com
the most relevant for mydomain is an page from alexa with trafic ranking, but this page is not in as an backlink.......If stated for my company as well should be an backlink, though they have an link to my site
[edited by: helenp at 11:11 pm (utc) on May 2, 2004]
| 10:17 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo has been pretty silent on matters. And yes, it may make sense for them to come totally clean, as Coke did with new coke, though Im certain that to Yahoo what they are doing is working well.
For webmasters whose sites have been penalized, Yahoo has given us the run-around. They have wasted precious, countless hours of peoples time tryin to make Yahoo "happy".
Yahoo let a few sites back in for the purpose of showing that they do let sites back in. Yet, aside from a handful, most will never get back into the results.
Yahoo's goal is to maximize eps. This is being accomplished by eliminating sites from their index,
so that SiteMatch listings do better. Yahoo by law cannot favour paid listings though they are doing it indirectly by removing plenty of great sites from their directory.
| 10:30 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'd love to know what they are saying internally about their goals for search. Here on the outside, it's hard to believe statements like these are common at Yahoo:
"We are contantly striving to make search better than anyone else by listening to our customers."
"People's opinions are important to us, and we listen, so we can improve."
I am convinced that listening to customers is low on the totem pole.
Imagine if there were a thread called "Big Problem at Google".
I just don't think Yahoo is paying enough attention to their customers.
| 10:38 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The defense of Yahoo that they are listening by participating in these forums is pretty pathetic.
Yahoo hands out a few bread crumbs by coming here and participating and we are supposed to be appreciative?
Wake up! Yahoo is a multi-billion dollar corporation that is increasing its profits at the expense of 10,000s of small companies.
Eliminating a certain percentage of free websites from their index is in fact part of Yahoo's strategy to increase earnings.
| 11:44 pm on May 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Don't come in to this forum where people are trying to get answers and start talking to everyone condescendingly. If you see no value in this thread, then stop clicking on it. If you have references to back up your claim that they have not been silent on this issue (as it pertains specifically to redirect urls moving to the top of the serps at the expense of the original urls which are being penalized/banned) then provide that documentation next time you try to shut down other members in this thread. Yahoo is being silent on this point, and hopefully they will make the necessary repairs before things get worse.
| 12:04 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
cabos this thread has nothing to do with penalties. Please don't confuse the issue.
crobb305, you have been GIVEN the answer repeatedly, and somehow you define that as "silence". That is just plain weird, okay.
Yahoo has a big problem that isn't fixed yet.
Yahoo still has a big problem that isn't fixed yet.
Yahoo still has a big problem that isn't fixed yet.
You want to rag on them for being techo-buttheads, fine, go ahead. But they have admitted the problem, and have said they are working to fix it. There is simply nothing else to be said about that part of it.
| 12:05 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|crobb305, you have been GIVEN the answer repeatedly, and somehow you define that as "silence". That is just plain weird, okay. |
Where is the answer? Which thread? I have only see the unrelated issue of 301 redirects addressed:
Sure, they admit they are working on this 301 redirect issue, but this is NOT the same problem being discussed here in this thread about redirecting links causing original urls to be dropped/banned.
While I do not believe Yahoo has addressed this issue, my assertion that they have been "silent" might be a bit hasty. This thread was only open April 30 (2 days ago) and those guys are entitled to a weekend off. Mike and Tim have been very helpful on other issues in my opinion. Maybe we will hear from them in the next few days.
| 12:54 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You may believe that the redirecting site is causing the site to be dropped. In fact its a penalty and you continue to believe it has something to do with the redirect.
Again, Yahoo is making people run around trying to solve problems that actually have nothing to do with why a site has been dropped in the first place.
| 1:01 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Before we loose focus... I want to bring the topic back to solutions.
Either we fix Yahoo or we get around the linking problem.
So does anyone have any ideas?
| 1:01 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Cabos, you are right. It is a penalty. My site has not been completely dropped. It is still in the index. Semantics aside, this is a serious issue and sites are being so heavily penalized because of multiple urls delivering duplicate content that they can't be found on any search terms.
| 1:02 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My vote is we go in and fix Yahoo.
| 1:05 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|So does anyone have any ideas? |
Perhaps list only the url that is listed in the Yahoo directory or do a cache comparison to see which url was listed in the index first. Redirect urls that come along later should not be able to outrank the original.
Ultimately, there is nothing we can do. It's up to Yahoo to find a suitable solution.
[edited by: crobb305 at 1:23 am (utc) on May 3, 2004]
| 1:05 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm impressed and somewhat amazed by Yahoo. If memory serves, it was less the a year ago when Overture acquired a few SEs and 6-7 months ago when Yahoo acquired Overture and INK.
Frankly, I expected to see Yahoo use Google results until at least June-July of this year. Rolling out a NEW engine as quickly as they did, aggressively spidering and growing their index, and maintaining decent quality (so far and IMHO :) ) are impressive feats!
One of Tim's presentations at the WebmasterWorld conference in Orlando discussed how they approached the problem of integrating a dozen technologies and the staff. I found it fascinating. Tim struck me as very credible too.
Are there problems with the new SE? Yes. Are they working on them? I believe so. Is Yahoo customer service poor? I don't know, never dealt with them. Is Yahoo trying to make money? Of course! Aren't you? ;) Are they deliberating screwing webmasters to try to make more money? I'm sorry if this offends anyone but I consider that one of the most absurd suggestions I've ever heard.
Bear in mind, if there are bugs in the new spiders or SE, it's unlikely that an official rep will admit to it publicly in our litagacious world...
Sorry allenp73, I'm off topic here. I just got tired of some of the ridiculous assertions I've seen all over the Yahoo forum recently. I'll shut up now, I promise! ;)
[edited by: DaveAtIFG at 1:15 am (utc) on May 3, 2004]
| 1:08 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
No offense taken. As you make a living doing SEO your viewpoint is totally understandable.
More SE products, more SE chaos.
| 1:49 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Sure, they admit they are working on this 301 redirect issue, but this is NOT the same problem being discussed here in this thread about redirecting links causing original urls to be dropped/banned.
Sorry to disagree here, but this is part of the same problem. The redirect issue and the link issue are related.
>Give it a rest. There is nothing we can do about it (except maliciously target competitors I guess).
Y! has to be concerned about the side effects. This threat alone has them working overtime on this issue.
| 2:10 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Sorry to disagree here, but this is part of the same problem. The redirect issue and the link issue are related. |
You are right that they are related, indirectly. But the fact that Yahoo has apparently instructed the algorithm to heavily penalize the original url just because new redirect urls come along is a different issue than the 301 problems. Furthermore, the penalty is presumptuous. It seems that the purpose of the penalty is to "punish" the owner of the original url based on an assumption that he/she is responsible for the multiple redirects that appear. For a given page, I am seeing 15 redirect urls rise to the top and the single, original url penalized. That in-and-of itself is flawed logic. Why not penalize the 15 new ones?
I am sure they will get it all worked out, but at this point we are going in circles. Have a good week. :)
| 3:58 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Apparently on Zork when someone drops a glass on the floor and it breaks this is called a "penalty".
| 5:29 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
They are both different but related issues (meaning the link and redirect) we have known about them both and are working on fixing them as WG said. These issues have nothing to do with any sort of penalties. I am not sure that we have been silent on these issues but we have been working hard to fix them and improve our systems.
| 7:21 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Tim - Thank you for jumping in. I've seen lots on the 301s, but, as mentioned, I hadn't seen anything from Yahoo (or from Google) on the directory link/redirect issue, and simply wanted a confirmation that you were aware of it and also considered it a problem. As far as I'm concerned, we've now gotten that.
I'm a bit embarrassed that pushing the question forward brought up so many conspiracy theories and worse. It's a shame that some members seem to get their jollies from knocking you guys. Thanks for wading through it all.
| 9:19 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It's a shame that some members seem to get their jollies from knocking you guys. |
Now let's not be hypocritical. In the second post of this thread, you were the first to say:
|The silence on this situation, both from Yahoo and Google, is deafening. |
I don't think anyone here is intentionally trying to knock Yahoo. They are working hard to make things better. Many of us are just concerned, and anxious to figure out what is going on/what to do.
Thanks, Tim for the feedback. Have a good week.
| 11:15 am on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i dont know about anyone else but i do find it amusing the number of members that keep moaning about the moaners..:-)
so i guess you could say im moaning about the members moaning about the moaners...
at least we all have one thing in common...we are all moaning!
| 1:14 pm on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>These issues have nothing to do with any sort of penalties.
I figured that out by playing around with a few parked domains and watching the results - thanks for confirming.
| 1:46 pm on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"I figured that out by playing around with a few parked domains and watching the results - thanks for confirming."
I thought the problem was a result of a mis-conception of a duplicate content. That Yahoo is interrupting the redirecting link and the original site as having the same content and therefore it chooses to drop one. I noticed that it always seems to drop the original site in favour of the redirecting link.
I wonder if there could be a simple solution which forces the crawler to look at the format of the URL then simply drops the correct one. These links all have common parameters which could actually be tested for.
Tim, thanks for your comments. I hope you realize that the majority of us are on your side. We want Yahoo to provide the best results because it is our goal to provide the best sites.
| 2:19 pm on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I hope you realize that the majority of us are on your side. We want Yahoo to provide the best results because it is our goal to provide the best sites. |
sides? you make it sound like a football game. Why would anyone need to be on one side or the other? Being happy or unhappy with Yahoo does represent a lining up of affiliation. I would question your assumption that you represent the majority view. There is plenty of evidence that many members are reluctant to post because they feel critism could mean they have no chance of reinclusion.
>>We want Yahoo to provide the best results because it is our goal to provide the best sites.
i think you mean you want Yahoo to index your own site which you have worked hard on. Would be interesting to see your posts if it was banned and you had no idea why and couldnt get it reincluded.
| 2:52 pm on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Tim: They are both different but related issues (meaning the link and redirect)>>>>>>
I just found an third issue.....
If you want it sticky....just tell, but suppose you know these issues as well.
Checked my backlinks,
I have several backlinks to mysite from anothersite.
There are no links in that site to my site, and donīt think ever been, they are an competitor, travelrelated company same as my site and for the same city as mine, not on same host. Ever seen that site before.
And even worse, Have one backlink from same company but with redirect url from search directory where both are indexed.
Descripcion and text anothersite..........................
is an redirection to anothersite
Donīt know if that is domains mixed up or backlinks problems.
| 5:34 pm on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Many of us are confused by your comment that
|These issues have nothing to do with any sort of penalties. |
It sounds as though you are saying there would be no penalties (or filter) for multiple urls pointing to the same site. Why would this be true? Why would any search engine want their index to become full of redirect urls. It sounds like you are admitting there are no penalties for such a well-known spam technique. This is just confusing to me, and somewhat hard to imagine.
Thanks for your feedback, Tim.
| 6:34 pm on May 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i think there is a lot of confusion over the mixing of filters, penalties and bans. It would be helpful if Tim or Yahoo_mike could make clear that when they are talking of penalties are they talking about filters or something else. Do they also make a distinction between INK imported and Yahoo handed bans when using that term. Since the two things are becoming thought of under the same terms when they are clearly (to me) different, can we know that their use of the word 'penalties' does not include sites affected by bans?
| This 80 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 80 ( 1  3 ) > > |