| 5:13 pm on Nov 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yep, the 301 issue is the largest I think.
| 5:48 pm on Nov 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Related to the 301 issue is Yahoo's handling of meta refresh tags. Some of us had (or still have) ISP's that don't offer the ability to alter server behavior. If we move our site, our only option for directing folks to the new location is meta refreshing. It sure would be nice if Yahoo would recognize that the site had moved and replace the old URL with the new one. (In my case it kept the old URLs and cached the new pages as if they were located in the old spot -- at least until I turned off the old domain altogether.)
Also, could you speak about Yahoo's update cycle? There has been some recent speculation in this forum.
| 7:41 pm on Nov 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
How about inquiring about the relationship of past Inktomi listings to Yahoos current listings. EG -Discuss sites that had previously paid for inclusion into Inktomi and after not renewing / purchasing the new service have been placed on do not index list!
| 10:38 pm on Nov 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have a few questions:
1) If you particpate in SiteMatch for your main domain, but not sub-pages, will that stop the free spider from spidering the rest of your pages and listing them?
2) Does Yahoo search consider a listing in Yahoo Directory results to boost rankings? If not, are there any plans to do this? I would think it will be to Yahoo's benefit to do this as far as listing quality sites and also giving incentive for people to order a listing in Yahoo directory.
3) Could you talk a little about what Yahoo currently considers spam and any new spam criteria that have been added to Yahoo filters as of late...anything new since last PubCon.
Thanks and see you next week :)
| 1:27 am on Nov 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm with arkyt. I've been obesessed with the Ink PFI situation for 3 or 4 months.
| 6:11 am on Nov 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Arkyt and Mastervisa,
I am speaking on a PI panel Tuesday AM and will answer those questions then. Thanks for the suggestions,
| 7:48 am on Nov 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
How about suggesting webmasters what they could do if their sites are vanishing from Yahoo search?
It would be a great service yahoo could do for them.
| 8:15 am on Nov 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks eddy22. I think this is the most important question to be answerd.
| 8:48 am on Nov 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Tim I have one question which is not as important as those suggested already but I would be interested to hear why you haven't provide an API like Google's?
Or better still it would be great to hear all about its immanent implementation :)
| 9:01 am on Nov 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
1) How will Yahoo improve its handling of expired domains, and particularly expired/hijacked expired domains listed in the Yahoo Directory?
2) Pure redirects currently do very well on Yahoo search. Do you think Yahoo will soon be making progress removing most of these from its serps?
3) Slurp is a poor bot. It can visit a (non-index) page many times but never, ever crawl through links. This means Yahoo virtually never indexes a domain, even as small as 100 pages, as well as Google normally will within a week. Both Google and MSNbot are vastly superior to Slurp in terms of both freshness of crawl and depth of crawl, making it appear that Yahoo devotes 1% of the resources to crawling that the competitors do. Is yahoo working on devloping a next generation bot to replace Slurp? And, if not, why not?
4) How long is a piece of string?
| 10:41 am on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
would be interesting to hear what the position really is with reciprocal links...on the one hand you have posted to get links to your site to help with indexing..and yet we have also been told not to engage in link swaps....since some people have been told to check there inbound links by Yahoo editors the implication being these have a detrimental impact and so some clarity on this would be helpful...
| 10:17 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
1. how can I see the SERPS on all yahoo data centers
2. why does directoty listing gets priority in the SERP
3. how can a webmaster check if a site was banned from the yahoo index
| 12:39 am on Nov 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>2. why does directoty listing gets priority in the SERP
They dont, but I wish they did.
| 12:47 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I hope we'll be updated in this forum on what has been discussed?
| 11:00 pm on Nov 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 3:01 am on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 5:40 am on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
From presentation "Search Engines and Webmasters", slide "Redirect Handling":
- - - - - - -
* Improved redirect handling launched Thursday night
* Many sites will see improvements in the next few days.
All sites should be handled by the new rules within 30 days.
* Redirects from one domain to another will index the “target” rather than the “source.”
* Meta Redirects:
... >1sec. treated as 301s
... <1sec. treated as 302s
YST assigns connectivity and anchor text to maximize results relevance, and reduce spamming.
- - - - - - - -
:) I can happily report that my meta-redirected page is now being handled logically. Until the last few days, Yahoo! would report the URL of my old site, but index and cache the information at the new site.
| 4:44 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Seems pretty much like the same old stuff said for the past nine months. No mention of the problems related to old Inktomi customers being banned and other questions raised.
I noticed in the PP presentations the url's are incorrect for their own Yahoo help sections. We can hurt your business but excuse our own slackness. I certainly wouldn't fly to Las Vegas to see a presentation like that.
| 4:57 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Tim any insight in whats going on with yahoo results, lot of us are affected bc of the new change? I havent done any unusual changes in our site in last 8 months. Will appreicate any comments on that issue.
We have a whole thread going on that if you can please answer few of our quesitons there.
| 5:12 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|No mention of the problems related to old Inktomi customers being banned |
Count me in as another who wants to know the answer to this. One of my accounts is ending in January and I'm really nervous about it.
| 9:48 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|No mention of the problems related to old Inktomi customers being banned |
Not true. Tim did address that topic in Vegas when he was going over slide #18. "Approach to Spam"
On that slide they mention that they are "moving to a more inclusive content policy" and that their "spam approach is changing as the focus on comprehensiveness."
Translation: Old Ink penalties are being reviewed on a regular basis, and many of them are infact being removed.
I have personally seen dozens of examples of this taking place. Obviously, it will never happen as fast as some in this forum would like, but it is happening.
| 10:26 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That might address penalties already given, but doesn't tell us if the threat is still there for sites that haven't yet finished their Inktomi contracts.
My site is finally doing wonderfully in Yahoo though with only a few clicks attributed to PFI. Will my site disappear after my Lycos and Positiontech accounts expire?
| 12:23 am on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
WG, Yahoo employees have had ample opportunity for many months to address the same old questions posed to them time after time in these forums.
That's a big jump in reasoning to infer they’re going to do something about the Inktomi problems now. I said in a post in March that come 2005 the same Inktomi problems would still be in existence. So far that seems very true.
| 6:52 am on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I’m seeing some strange things that look similar to the hijacking problems that G has had recently.
Redirects replacing URL’s but keeping the title / snippet of the site.
This was not happening before Y started to address the redirect problem they had.
Whats a good email address to contact Yahoo for this problem. I've filled out a report on line but i'd like to get some sort of a response from Yahoo if possible.
| 12:17 pm on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i know you heard it first hand but from the quote you gave how do you interpret that as applying to ink penalties? Even further that penalty means dropping paid inclusion with INK. It has always been denied that doing that in itself incurred a penalty.
| 5:52 pm on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|i know you heard it first hand but from the quote you gave how do you interpret that as applying to ink penalties? |
The quote was from the talking points on the slide. My interpretation came from
A) Tim's comments while talking about that slide, and
B) My personal observations of several sites that did in fact have old Ink penalties and now have returned to the database.
| 10:34 am on Dec 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
and did he suggest there was a link between dropping INk inclusion and getting a penalty? or did he just talk about INk penalties? I dont see how he could say dropping INk meant you werent in Yahoo after all the denials!
your examples...were they sites that believed they got hit with penalties for doing nothing other than dropping paid exclusion?
its a shame i never heard this for myself but reading that slide and what it says..it could mean just about anything....
| 6:48 pm on Dec 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Dropping paid inclusion was not part of the discussion. What I'm talking about are all the old Ink penalties that were in place when Y launched.
| 9:40 pm on Dec 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Many people consider the missing Ink sites related to the old PFI programs. And based upon considerable anecdotal evidence I have looked at there does seem to be plausible evidence. Why Yahoo would prioritize returning penalized sites over clients of these resellers is a little perplexing. From the many forums I looked at there weren’t a significant amount of people complaining about extremely old Ink penalties isolated from the PFI programs.
Yahoo personnel has been given ample opportunity over the months to dispute that in any forum. Again I don’t think they will because many of the penalties effecting all sites are not listed in the Yahoo guidelines. I could accept a straight answer that we are having considerable problems with our search technology rather than leading people to believe people they are guilty of things they are not. Plus I don’t believe the vast majority of people are engaged in prolific campaigns to spam. You have to produce a lot of pages to convince me of that.
| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 (  2 ) > > |