| 10:05 am on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Charlton: As I've brought up before, returning Yahoo directory titles in the crawler based serps puts those sites that are listed in the directory at a competitive disadvantage. You'd mentioned it would be addressed. What's the status of this?
Seems is being fixed, manually? or bit by bit, rolling?
Search for reviews hotels the top company has their page titles in. The rest still their directory title.
About the new design, I like it more than the old,
only that the "button" images, web etc, arenīt easy to see, maybe the need some color or any border around them, itīs sort of to many small things at the top.
The light blue color is very nice.
| 3:32 pm on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Very slow at times.
Too many sponsored links.
What's with the powered by HP logo? Do I really care?
I really don't care whether Yahoo looks like Google or not. The bottom line is search results, and I really don't see any improvement over Google. If that's the case, why use Yahoo? Most people must think the same way. My sites are indexed in Yahoo, but 95% of my search engine traffic still comes from Google.
| 3:41 pm on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
anyone has a url for the Freeaddurl , I looked but could only find one which requires a yahoo email address to be added.
Last time I used it this didn't happen. UK address would also be nice.
On a positive note Tim, if Yahoo decreased ad space and sorted the indexing problem I think they would be very close to equaling Google. But beating them is a different matter.
The fact Google are totally dedicated to search puts Yahoo at a disadvantage.
| 9:28 pm on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>In total agreement, all Yahoo ever does is copy Google and other original thinking web companies.
I know it's a bit off-topic, but just for fun, lets recap all of Google's "original thinking" ideas.
1. Using links to determine relevancy. - You can find several papers written before Google's time that talk about using hypertext to determine relevancy. And Alta Vista was already doing it when Google started.
2. Google Groups - Purchased from Deja. (I wonder who's original thought it was to write a check)?
3. Froogle - Hmmm, a shopping search engine. Now that's a new, clever iadea. I wonder why Yahoo never thought of doing something like that?
4. Auctioned Based PPC Advertising The idea that put them on the map.
Please send all monetary donations to:
Google Patent Infringement Defense Fund
2400 E. Bayshore Pkwy
Mountain View CA 94043
5. Free Web-based Email - Hopefully, Yahoo will copy that soon. It sounds like a great idea.
6. Social Networking - Couldn't buy it, had to steal it.
(please use the address above for all Orkut defense related donations as well).
7. Blogging Software. - Bought it.
Semantic Analysis Technology - Bought it. (But still can't figure out how to make it work).
| 9:39 pm on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You forgot Adsense. Also, 1 GB search based web email is pretty revolutionary. It completely shifted the whole industry over night. Very very few companies have ever done anything like that on the internet.
1. Using links to determine relevancy. - I think it's more like hiring the smartest PHDs in the business, building real grid computing, and focusing on extremely high quality search.
2. Google Groups - yeah, they bought it. It's called smart money.
3. Froogle - this is still in beta.
4. Auctioned Based PPC Advertising The idea that put them on the map. - CTR*CPC .. not entirely PPC advertising.
5. Free Web-based Email - search based email is probably the most revolutionary thing to hit email since .. well, since email was born. This and adsense are probably two of google's most impressive contributions.
yeah OK this is pretty OT, but hey he started it..
| 11:38 pm on Jul 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>You forgot Adsense
AdSense was developed by Apllied Semantics, not Google [google.com].
But I appreciate the help making my point. :)
| 12:17 am on Jul 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Whilst were off topic;
Google built a decent search engine and for most of the time has played a fair game with us although some of the twists int heir development has bitten most of us at one time or another. They have also balanced payed results with organic results quite nicely and found a way to present the results in a way that almost strikes harmony between those that can't afford or won't pay and those that do.
On the other hand .........
Yahoo anounces their new beta shortly after MSN posts details of their new search engine which to me looks like the original results with a few features thrown in on the entry page (although I am in the UK so maybe I get different results Tim), from my UK perspective the results look the same, which leads me to my pros & cons of Y & G from a guy trying to make a living on the net rather than pros & cons of the SERPS served up by each as both do pretty well but both have bugs to fix.
Bad mix of natural serps and adds, the results show too much ppc and I suspect that Y takes cash to show certain sites at the top for certain search terms;
Used to base their results on directory listings but switching over caused some of us a bit of heartache;
On certain search terms Y services appear at the top of the page which annoys ppc and organic people;
They manually ban good sites and allow all the crappy doorway paged and cloaked sites to stay in, many sites enjoying good placement in Y have PR0 on G (on a personal note I'd love to know how Y are policing this, if its just a case of reporting every site that has an automated link exchange programme, doorways and cloaking I could wipe out my oposition overnight, myself I use none of these (on my newer sites) but have seen 4 sites with the manual ban in the last two weeks);
Slower updates to serps when sites change;
Anal attitude to us.
No more quick updates, I loved the way you could ,make changes to a site and see the results the next day;
Sandboxing, it takes too long to get new sites listed now;
Crappy sites I built 4 years back employing all sorts of techniques that I wouldn't use today are ranking well;
Um nothing else.
Adsense, this was a no brainer and has given many webmasters a good income whilst allowing advertisers more exposure and lets G to make some money as well;
Good serps and relevant results most of the time.
| 1:30 am on Jul 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Miscellaneous on-and-off topic responses about on-and-off topic posts...
|1. Using links to determine relevancy. - You can find several papers written before Google's time that talk about using hypertext to determine relevancy. And Alta Vista was already doing it when Google started. |
Not sure of comparative dates here, but in a conversation I had with an Inktomi search engineer in very early 2000, like February or so of that year, he was proud that Inktomi had been using not only link anchor text, but anchor text context in determining relevancy. He was free to talk about it, he said, because that's what they'd been doing the previous year. In the same conversation, he was also complaining that Google didn't have to make a profit, so had a lot more computing hardware than they did.
|Yahoo directory titles in the crawler based serps puts those sites that are listed in the directory at a competitive disadvantage.... |
Seems is being fixed, manually? or bit by bit, rolling?
Nope, still there. What you might be seeing is that subpages of a site that's listed in the Yahoo directory will show their own titles and descriptions. The default pages of such sites, the ones listed in the directory, still get the pared down Yahoo title and description. Tim?
|I suspect that Y takes cash to show certain sites at the top for certain search terms; |
I would say absolutely not as far as the algo is concerned... I'd almost be willing to bet on it... though I'm not at all sure about what Site Match "support" might entail to help pages get tuned before they're submitted.
| 1:31 am on Jul 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
WebGuerrilla, with all respect me and everyone else who spoke about yahoo buying services and products did not say it is bad business practice etc.
However, presenting it original and taking credit for these companies work when they were independent as yahoo does it is a bad business practice to me. For example take Tims post which he later edited (deleted completly) claiming because Fast rep was posting here since 2002 it means yahoo has been here helping webmasters before googleguy started.
I dont remember such misleading statements from googleguy or anyone else from google about companies they bought.
| 3:46 am on Jul 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|WebGuerrilla, with all respect me and everyone else who spoke about yahoo buying services and products did not say it is bad business practice etc. |
I didn't say it was either. I was responding to the comment that Google is somehow a bunch of"original thinkers" while Yahoo is not. That statement is absolutely rediculous. Orville and Wilbur Wright were original thinkers. Google is not.
|However, presenting it original and taking credit for these companies work when they were independent as yahoo does it is a bad business practice to me. |
So let me make sure I've got it straight. Yahoo acquires independent companies and then unfairly takes credit for the ideas and products of those independent companies while Google does not?
Where on this page [google.com] does Google acknowledge the fact that their AdSense technology was developed and named by Applied Semantics?
And would this page [content.overture.com] be a good example of Yahoo's poor business practices?
| 8:51 am on Jul 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
News search does not support other languages, even when I turned on some other languages in advanced news search. It returns me several question marks on search box.
| 11:05 am on Jul 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
WebGuerrilla, obviously Google are not great inventers such as Orville and Wilbur Wright.
But in the world of search engines they are the closest to it.
Yahoo copied Google's search design with the news and picture search. This was an original design.
Google may not be totally responsible for all their technology, but they were the first search engine (ad-sense) to introduce it.
Whereas Yahoo just copy other search engines, but do it badly. Such as trying to copy Google's free serps but putting so much ads around you can hardly find it.
I didn't say Google were original thinkers on Orville and Wilbur Wright level (sure other people tried to fly, but their design wasn't as good). So was it an original idea to fly? didn't birds do that first?
I am just saying Google are better than Yahoo at free thinking.
| 1:40 pm on Jul 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo's strength WAS the directory. Where else are listings approved by hand? But Y! seems to be slowly dumping them... the same ones that PAY to be REVIEWED. Even the category suggestions are gone now.
Why not give more priority/weight to the Y! approved listings? These are unique to Y! And they are ususually better quality on-target sites.
Also when Y! approves a site, the title becomes the company name...as it should, but that takes away KW weight in that location.
| 1:57 pm on Jul 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|So was it an original idea to fly? didn't birds do that first? |
mikeD, you got it!
| 4:17 am on Jul 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It's now officially live.
| This 75 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 75 ( 1 2  ) |