homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.94.76
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Yahoo / Yahoo Search Engine and Directory
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Yahoo Search Engine and Directory Forum

    
Fast Bad Results Report Response!
WebFusion




msg:822951
 6:28 pm on Oct 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

Talk about a fast response...

I spent about an hour today submitting a report via yahoo's search feedback form detailing a number of sites that were appearing in the serps I monitor that used cloaking/redirects, etc.

I also found one comepting merchant who occupied no less than 11 of the top 20 results using copycat sites (i.e. slightly different appearance,but same products/title/descriptions), incuding the #1, #3, & #5 for a VERY competitive phrase.

I submitted my (tattletale) report...and upon checking back in about 20 minutes later...all teh offending sites I reported had been zapped! ALL OF THEM!

Way to go Yahoo!

Ah.. the power of actual human intervention, I wish google worked that fast ;-)

So....keep on spamming, spammers....I'm gunning' for ya...

 

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:822952
 9:12 am on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

These were probably WW member's sites but well done anyway :) Let's root the spammers out!

bcc1234




msg:822953
 10:07 am on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

This is so sad...

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:822954
 10:43 am on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

What's sad?

If you are clean and your competitors are using methods that are banned to beat you in the SERPs do you think you should just grin and bear it?

Liane




msg:822955
 10:51 am on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Huh? are you sure they are out? I've reported several sites for cloaking. One is actually cloaking, using my copy to beat me and then redirects to their own site.

Still there after three reports! I figured that spam report was hooked up to the man behind the curtain who's just yanking our chain!

sidewinder




msg:822956
 11:40 am on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Nar, they just personalized his results to not include those sites. Keeps both parties happy then.

The power of personalized search!

bcc1234




msg:822957
 12:11 pm on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

What's sad?

Cause he wasted an hour of his time screwing a bunch of little guys who were trying to make a buck. I could bet money those were independent affiliate sites, all made by different people.

The sad part is that the merchant is not the one who gets hit the hardest -- those affiliates are. And any given affiliate did not do anything "wrong" by himself.

cleanup




msg:822958
 12:12 pm on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Just goes to show what a loser company Yahoo! is.

...So you got lucky with one email (perhaps) what about
all the 1000's of other mails they ignore.

They just have no 'PROCESS' over there at Yahoo! its all so hit and miss.

Google on the other hand does at least have a 'process' of algorithm tuning (for better or worse).

Well done anyway for nuking some SPAM!

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:822959
 12:18 pm on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

I could bet money those were independent affiliate sites, all made by different people.

Independent spammers sites are still spammers sites.

petehall




msg:822960
 12:26 pm on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

He's done nothing wrong, I report people on a weekly basis.

I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I used dodgy techniques to achieve positions...

internetheaven




msg:822961
 12:47 pm on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

I also found one comepting merchant who occupied no less than 11 of the top 20 results using copycat sites (i.e. slightly different appearance,but same products/title/descriptions), incuding the #1, #3, & #5 for a VERY competitive phrase.

If they were sending users to relevant pages then why should Yahoo be bothered? They are trying to get "relevant" search results, not "results that are fair and proper to all webmasters". Also, you say that they had the same products/title/descriptions but it sounded like a GUESS that they were all by the same guy. If I copied your content and made ten sites that looked exactly the same and then reported all of them to Yahoo and got you removed - would you think that was fair?

I submitted my (tattletale) report...and upon checking back in about 20 minutes later...all teh offending sites I reported had been zapped! ALL OF THEM!

My results change every five minutes, let alone a twenty minute index shift. Let us know if they don't appear for the next month and then we'll know they have actually been removed.

One is actually cloaking, using my copy to beat me and then redirects to their own site.

In my opinion Yahoo should have a dedicated response team for this kind of thing. If it was dealt with quicker then it wouldn't be so popular. Most regular spam reports are based on "they're doing better then me and aren't playing fair" - people tend not to complain about spam that is below them in the results.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:822962
 1:30 pm on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

... people tend not to complain about spam that is below them in the results.

But then we seldom look at those who are below us in the results.

WebFusion




msg:822963
 2:58 pm on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Cause he wasted an hour of his time screwing a bunch of little guys who were trying to make a buck. I could bet money those were independent affiliate sites, all made by different people.

The sad part is that the merchant is not the one who gets hit the hardest -- those affiliates are. And any given affiliate did not do anything "wrong" by himself.

If the only way you can make a buck in this business is to spam, then you have no business doing it in the first place.

I RUN a very successful affiliate program, and pay out thousands every month to my affiliates. Having said that, I remove affiliates almost everyday for violating our TOS, whcih state:

Marketing Restrictions:

Affiliate agrees NOT to utilize any web site design and/or marketing practices that violate legitimate search engine marketing methods, to include the use of "doorway pages", "cloaking" , deceptive page titles and/or descriptions. Any affiliate deemed to be utilizing marketing methods that could be described as "Spam" either in email or web form will be immediately suspended and/or deleted from the [OURSITE].com affiliate program and all accrued/unpaid commissions forfeited.

Having said that...these were not affiliate sites. They were merchant sites all created by the same person/company (as proven by their whois info).

As far as I'm concerned, it's all about ethics. If you can beat me in the engines by playing by the rules (as many, in fact, do), then more power to ya.

If you have to cheat to do it, however....THEN (IMO) you have your hand in my pocket -prepare to get smacked.

Also, you say that they had the same products/title/descriptions but it sounded like a GUESS that they were all by the same guy.

See Above (all whois info was identical -apparently he wasn't as smart as he thought).

My results change every five minutes, let alone a twenty minute index shift. Let us know if they don't appear for the next month and then we'll know they have actually been removed.

I thought that too, but as of this writing, they are still MIA.

people tend not to complain about spam that is below them in the results.

True enough, but then again, those people who are (spamming) below me aren't costing me anything.

I always love the people who want to rise to the "defense" of the search engine spammers. I started in this business as an affiliate myself (which actually funded my startup), yet never seemed to have to "spam" to make a buck. In fact, all my "affiliate sites" are STILL online, STILL making money, and can WITHSTAND the scrutiny of any human reviewer.

The fact is, I don't care how you're trying to "make a buck", if your business model relies on "not getting caught" doing something you shouldn't be doing (i.e. spamming, cloaking, creating massive datafeed-driven affiliate spamming sites), then it's your business model that's at fault, not someone who is simply trying to insure all his competition stays on a level playing field.

internetheaven




msg:822964
 9:39 pm on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

If you have to cheat to do it, however....

Ah, the age-old question of "what is cheating"? Where does the "ethics" line get crossed? If I add keywords in a comment tag is that okay? I'm only doing it for the search engines, just like my internal linking structure, my Yahoo directory listing and so on. These things do not benefit my users in the slightest and they cause me to rank above my competitors.

I always love the people who want to rise to the "defense" of the search engine spammers.

I'm not defending spammers, I'm very much against spammers and don't endulge in what I consider spamming e.g. cloaking, search engine results pages, content theft etc.
I'm just saying that what you are stating as spam, may not fit into what many of us consider spam. I consider spam to be something that doesn't benefit the user, if these 11 similar sites get the user what they want then I don't consider it spam.

bcc1234




msg:822965
 11:22 pm on Oct 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

I RUN a very successful affiliate program

without a datafeed?

ROFL. If I didn't work as an affiliate manager I would buy your response.

WebFusion




msg:822966
 2:07 am on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yep, we have a datafeed, a product link builder, and even an XML feed.

I can't seem to find where I mentioned the specifics of the tools I make available to our affiliates (or are you one of those "Affiliate managers" that equates a successful program with the ability to get as many affiliates as possible to churn out datafeed-driven doorway pages by the thousands?

Since we use a custom system (i.e. not one of the networks), we can exact a much stricter control on how our feed is utilized (I generally have to suspend/delete 5-10 newer affiliates a month who are using those page-scraper/doorway builder programs - we don't allow that).

bcc1234




msg:822967
 2:23 am on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Your personality does not add up. It's like claming you are a math professor at MIT and then saying that 2+2=5, hoping it will slide.

There is no reason to continue this conversation.
Have a nice Christmas season.

WebFusion




msg:822968
 3:34 am on Oct 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Not sure what the heck your talking about...but no matter, I've really not got anything to prove...just thought I'd let people know how responsive Yahoo had been to spam ;-)

Enjoy.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Yahoo / Yahoo Search Engine and Directory
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved