| 9:54 am on May 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i think you might have answered your own question there...
| 9:59 am on May 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
slurp is crawling and crawling and crawling.
Finally that bot keeps crawling. I have been waiting for it for a long time and since about last week that bot is hungry.
At current moment quite close behind googlebot :)
| 10:11 am on May 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The domains in questions, were heavily cross |
linked, and contained index pages with thousands
LOL. Yep, as otech said, you may have answered your own question.
| 1:40 pm on May 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"contained index pages with thousands
thousands of link in ONE page?
| 6:29 pm on May 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
yep..sounds like an editorial action on your sites. You can likely expect the visits to continue to drop until you receive none.
| 6:39 pm on May 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Bad practices >> Manual review >> penalty >> probably useles domain names now.
| 8:00 pm on May 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It may not be an editorial thing. My site has disappeared, this is the second time now, because for my KWís my domain comes up without the www in it. It has had the www in it for years with yahoo, and when I look up my site name, it has the www in it.
So either Y has a major bug that they have not fixed yet.
A competitorís SEO has submitted my site without the www and a bug in yahoo searches for that domain first, or yahoo has SEOís working internally and changing the database for their clients.
Those are the only 3 ways it could happen. See thisÖ
So if you want to screw you competitors, apparently you can just submit their site to yahoo w/o the www.
| 8:54 pm on May 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
in fact you only need to setup a single link without the www from any site of your choice. I have seen an example where there was over 100 hundred decent links inbound and only one, by mistake, had linkied without the www. Now that site is only indexed as a non-www site.
| 8:03 am on Jun 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think cross linking is the reason behind this.
| 12:47 pm on Jun 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
As of June 9th I had a well positioned site drop out of the rankings as well. My pages are still indexed but I am not coming up under the popular search terms I was before. Maybe something is going on. I hope it is not us.
| 5:02 pm on Jun 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
JimW, sticky me your URL and I'll take a look. I've had a similar problem with Yahoo lately. I doubt it's due to heavy cross-linking; it could be due to something as simple as missing the WWW on a link like someone mentioned, or maybe a irrelevant incoming/outgoing link (that's why I was penalized).
| 11:02 pm on Jun 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, I mean "New Questions," it won't let me edit that post now.
| 9:38 pm on Jun 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Itís not cross-linking. I only have one domain, so if it is cross-linking, then a competitor has done it.
After almost 30 days, the problem is still there. Either (Y) doesnít care about how their SE can be manipulated or they donít care if they have a bug, or they are NOT capable of fixing it. Probably the latter. (if they would get some real talent, then this problem would not have existed in the first place. What do they have, spaghetti code?)
The fact is that after I complained the first time, they deleted the URL w/o the www and presto-chango, I was back in, so this is the problem
I mean this is like a SE 101 problem. Their stock was up today, time to inform some analysis of what a big JR. mistake this is.
Apparently somewhere on the net someone has linked to an obscure page we have to update software, no doubt hoping it would not be found. Obviously a SEO did this. I know this because (G) shows that page in their SERP as well, but I had to dig to find it and I cannot find the page with the link, but it is in both (G) and (Y). Why is it that (G) knows how to handle such a JR problem and (Y) doesnít?
| 12:06 am on Jul 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've got similar problem, someone (competitor?) submitted a .us url of my site, and now we are down to pages 4 and 5 of SERPs.
| 4:17 am on Jul 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have a slightly different problem.
Google refers tons of traffic using around 15,000 different search phrases a month. Obviously the most popular ones appear in the first 10.
Yahoo has the very same pages indexed:
Yet when I search at Yahoo using any of the very same phrases, I appear nowhere in the first 100.
Got me baffled?
| 11:06 am on Jul 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes I've had the same thing happen to me. I can only conclude Yahoo have editors taking out commercial competition out the serps. Or have a malfunctioning filter.
Had a feeling this may happen when Yahoo first released their search results. Many people were applauding on WW how great they were.
Yahoo are a 100% commercial web portal, they couldn't care less about the small guy trying to make a living. They want it all. After them buying Kelkoo I've noticed any similar free submission sites have been wiped out. Websites which do very well on Google.
To sum it up
- Google is the small commercial webmasters friend (they do sometimes mess it up, but their hearts in the right place)
- Yahoo is the small commercial webmasters enemy
| 4:41 pm on Jul 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Why play the guessing game? Instead draft an e-mail to:
and ask Yahoo if they have found your site or pages to be spammy. I did and received an answer within a couple weeks.
It has been determined that your site does not comply with Yahoo!'s
Content Policy Guidelines located at:
The thing is that you can know for sure, try to do some cleanup and then draft another e-mail to them explaining anything that might be a misconception.
I don't think I would do this unless I was sure my site had been cleaned up. But the fact that a human being will review your message at least provides you with the opportunity of explaining why your site should be included in the database.
| 12:43 am on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Nobody sending e-Mail to Yahoo have got any replies from them except the general ones. The Yahoo penalty seems to be a great mistery. The reason mentioned before "manually removing comptetitors" seems to be as good as any. other reasons can be too successful SERPs, Adsense on pages in top 10 SERPs, illegal mirrors pushing original content into penalty and more and more.
Sorry, no reply from Yahoo support and neither have the representatives celebrating the "improved Yahoo search features" taken the time to discuss the penalty case in this forum.
| 12:47 am on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
With my problem, the site is there, just the www removed. There is someone out there that has a link to our site w/o the www. SERPs show in (Y) and (G). If bad site were a problem, why would they just remove the www? They have some Jr. programming problems and are very slow to correct them. Anything else and Iím sure they would have just removed the site, or at least would have the site consistent. (with or without the www)
This tells me that they are slow in handling all problems. Based on others having problems that have paid them, tells me that they better get with it or start to see market share disappear. And this is not the time to show that they canít handle problems, especially such Jr. SE problems, in a timely manner. Iíve lost all respect for them, and Iím sure others will as well sooner that later.
If they are trying to force people to pay them by removing them from the SERPs, it will not work. They aren't the biggest dog anymore and ticking off potential customers never works.
| 4:22 pm on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
jim_w, I see that I didn't understand the earlier post. Why would it matter to you that the www is missing? I thought your sites were gone.
bbonline, I agree you don't get a specific reply and I think this is deliberate. They likely figure that if you get a penalty, you know what you did wrong. If they spell the problem out too clearly, maybe they think they give you an advantage. All these SEs think all the websites out there are super-sophisticated SEO types. I know that's not true with me. I'm not entirely certain what I did to offend them.
And yes there are some junior programming problems out there but I don't think that is limited to just Y. The same can be said of G from time to time and I'm sure others as well.