| 7:49 pm on Sep 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Looks like it started late Sun. for us. Doing a happy dance here too..
| 8:15 pm on Sep 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I see changes. Results seem to just have moved around some... some good quality changes, some duplicate junk doing good.
The clear negative thing is the number pages indexed from a site seems to have dropped a lot in every case I track. Yahoo doesn't need a new front page. It needs a new bot. Six months now and Slurp still is non-competitive.
| 8:26 pm on Sep 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
True, the "agressive" crawling and timely indexing that we were promised at the last SES I went to in NY has never materialized. They're still a distant fourth behind MS (crawling only), GG and AJ.
| 9:51 pm on Sep 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
err. bad news for me. one of my site got totally dropped. banned. anyone else sees that?
| 10:03 pm on Sep 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I also see changes. SERPS for some of my keywords are now dominated by blog / guestbook spammers and redirected sites.
The #3 site is a new domain, one-page-site registered on Sept 7, 2004. It has 1,940 backlinks already showing in Yahoo, all backlinks (that I could stand to look at) are off-topic blog spam. The #6 site for this competitive keyword is essentially the same. The #1 site is a redirect.
Keep up the good work, Yahoo!
| 10:37 pm on Sep 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm not seeing changes with mine except for one page. But I posted here on the 22nd
and I had seen update at that time, I could tell by the "last modified" dates I put on the pages. So if they've updated again this soon then maybe it's once a week.
>>Yahoo likes whatever it is I'm doing. I'm ranking everywhere in Yahoo
Me too, it's nice to be loved. ;)
| 11:49 pm on Sep 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo has been consistently dropping pages for one of my sites for the past few months. I'm glad to see that most of the pages returned without having to get new links.
Unfortunately, another site with many more links and a much higher PR lost a few hundred pages.
| 2:36 am on Sep 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Adding pages, but not very deep.
3 month old site went from 1 of 200 to 10 of 200 indexed.
Kind of a yawn really.
| 1:01 pm on Sep 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo just changed majorly on one of our serps for the first time in months.
| 1:10 pm on Sep 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
For competitive SERPS I check it looks very much like google results but without a sandbox (new sites starting to rank well and interleaved with the "standards").
| 1:17 pm on Sep 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Slurp doesn't seem to get any more efficient. My site is crawled every week yet only about two thirds of the pages are indexed. And one of them is my favicon.ico. It's even cached, but in binary format.
| 3:15 pm on Sep 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
For those of you who are ranking, have you submitted your sites via Site Match? Directory? I'm trying everything. I've read in some other places that the free submission is working well. Does that hold true for you?
I'm trying to figure out if I need to go old school in optimizing for these sites. I'm seeing quite a bit of spam.
| 7:39 pm on Sep 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Freebies, not even 100% sure I bothered submitting though I generally do just as a routine thing. They'll get a site pretty quickly if it's linked to from a page or two that gets crawled frequently.
Yep - plain old-fashioned on-page optimization 101 is good to go. Links from quality sites are always important, always have been and always will be, but even massive link pop can be competed with very effectively, with just an overall efficiently optimized site and a modest number of links.