| 1:59 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Same here. Up until now my Yahoo traffic was steadily increasing. Suddenly this month it dropped to less than half of last month and my overall traffic is down 10-15%. This has been partly compensated by big increases in Google and MSN traffic though. Hopefully it's just a hiccup
| 11:21 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't know if this is what is happening to your pages, BUT here's what I've noticed at Yahoo for a few weeks
I couldn't find some pages ranked at Yahoo at all, and when I typed in the domain to pull up yahoo's listing and looked at the CACHE, the cache had NO HIGHLIGHTING of the keywords, no highlighting at all.
In last couple days, 2 domains that were ranked #1 for a keyword dropped out of sight. I checked Yahoo's cache on these two pages, and no highlighting in the Yahoo cache of these 2 pages now. Has anyone else noticed this? Looks like this is kinda hit and miss as I checked other pages and those pages are highlighted. Maybe Yahoo has a Glich?
I don't know whether this is common at Yahoo or whether this is new. I really never paid attention to the cache on my pages before.
| 2:15 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I watch Y! most of the time.
They have been making all sorts of chances of the last couple of weeks.
In particular they have been running at least two sets of SERPS.
This recent update was made (IMO) to address the number of SEO'd sites in their index.
My theory is that they have realised their only competitive advantage is their directory so this new update is heavily bias towards site listed in the Y! directory and consequently those sites linked to by Y! directory listed sites.
| 2:30 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Anyone else "see" Y directory influencing listings more now? This is new to me
| 2:36 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
try some of the big SEO terms.
e.g. dating, casino, Viagra, credit card
| 3:07 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Still looking good over here!
| 3:15 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Still looking good over here! |
Do you mean the results look:
like Y! are not using the categories?
good because you've moved to the top spot?
| 3:35 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Anyone else "see" Y directory influencing listings more now? |
Yes, most definitely.
And the problem with that is that in my keyword focus, two of the sites in the Y directory are 301 Redirects for having moved to new more relevant domains (e.g., a former subdirectory site moved to its own domain URL years ago). But the Y directory still links to the old domain URLs. Because those old URLs are not being linked anymore by any current sites, they do not get SERP placement. And because the new URLs are not in the Y directory (exactly), Y has now reduced their placement in these latest SERPs.
Y really needs to fix that aspect of the Y directory, especially if they are going to rely that much more extensively on it.
Plus, considering that Y charges way too much for new directory placement, the directory is a bit outdated, still having links from its old original directory from back in the 1990s.
So, now we are seeing sites in the top of SERPs simply because they are still in the Y directory, even though they are not as relevant anymore.
It is also ironic that it appears the Y might be using its directory MORE at the same time that G$ seems to have possibly taken the G directory offline. :)
| 3:47 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm not seeing any significant, or even noticable changes in our categories. Same ole same ole.
| 3:49 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
They've devalued blog links. That's interesting.
| 4:11 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|They've devalued blog links. That's interesting. |
I wouldn't say that - I'm still seeing plently of blog linked sites ranking well.
Even better if the blogs are Y! listed :)
| 5:08 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>I'm still seeing plently of blog linked sites ranking well.
But are the blog links the reason they're ranking well?
Incidentally MSN updated last week, they seem to be quicker than Yahoo. Pages that went up on the 6th and 7th of this month are pulling MSN traffic, that's how I happened to notice.
| 5:52 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There is a sudden increase in the traffic from yahoo mine is a new site but suddenly the traffic from yahoo increased and same is the case with one of my friend . Definitely some change in Yahoo algo
| 6:18 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
GerBot you are right -- I think its related to the Directory.
a client's site is #1 in the directory for keyword-keyword.com in a very competitive area and was buried in the main index until today they are #9.
| 7:07 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps Y is about to join G$ and M$ as requiring a $ after their nick >>> Y$.
It might be that Y is planning on capitalizing the directory as their method for profits. Like G$ already did with their dishonest natural SERPs, Y could be distorting their natural SERPs too (but this way, Y might be choosing to tie SERP listings to Y directory listings), as their way to force webmasters to pay the excessively-priced annual Y directory listing-inclusion recurring fees.
Y's "freebie" offer at their suggest-a-site URL (below) never gets a site actually listed in the Y directory.
(Just change the number in the query-string for other Y subdirectories.)
Y actually seems to currently think that it is reasonable to ask $299 per year per site listing in the Y directory -- and even then, there is no guarantee of even being listed in the Y directory.
One can only hope this is not Y's plan. If Y is taking this route, though, then they will truly be Y$ indeed.
| 7:57 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Over the past two months Yahoo has slowly been removing pages from the majority of my sites. Some used to have around 5000 or so pages in there and now only have 100 or so. One went from 100 pages to 1 overnight!
I'm not paying for SiteMatch no matter how hard you push me Y! You can't tell me that it is my site's fault as I'm using the same scripting, the same servers, the same domains and my domain registrations never skipped a beat. You've had them in your index for almost two years so you can't tell me "they couldn't be found by your spider" either ...
| 8:23 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What are dishonest natural SERPS?
| 8:32 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Look at G$ and see.
Im must admit im getting a little cheesed off by all this.
| 8:46 pm on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|What are dishonest natural SERPS? |
Natural SERPs ("Search Engine Rank Pages") are supposed to be the untouched algorithmicly-determined results of an honest algo, that proven authority sites obviously end up in high SERP positions as a matter of their proven authority in any legitimate search engine SERPs.
A dishonest search engine company, even as they seek to deceive people into believing that their SE algo and SERPs are legitimate, and as motivated purely by unlimited and unfettered greed, actually manipulate the SERPs in order to blackmail proven authority sites to pay to be found or not be found at all. The search engine actually TARGETS such proven authority sites, reduces their SERP position to a point of uselessness, and then such authority sites are more or less blackmailed to pay the search engine for advertising ---or not be found.
Companies are legally free to list any site in any order they choose, that is their right. There is no such thing as a "right" to high SERPs, of course.
But while it may be within the rights for a search engine company to manipulate their SERPs, it is an outright lie --total dishonesty-- for them to say or to allow the false impression that their manipulated SERPs are actual natural SERPs. But the SEs which do such deception want users to believe the lie because they know that if users knew the lie, the search engine would lose users.
Hence, they turn supposed natural SERPs into "dishonest natural SERPs."
| 12:40 am on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I thought the only reason SEs used algorithms at all was because it was quicker than sorting by hand. Until Altavista came along I thought no-one was going to catch up with the Y! directory.
Back to the topic of this thread, I've noticed my Y! traffic increase slightly. That's good news. Perhaps I've finally shaken off whatever Inktomi ban I picked up somewhere along the way.
| 3:56 am on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|A dishonest search engine company, even as they seek to deceive people into believing that their SE algo and SERPs are legitimate, and as motivated purely by unlimited and unfettered greed, actually manipulate the SERPs in order to blackmail proven authority sites to pay to be found or not be found at all. The search engine actually TARGETS such proven authority sites, reduces their SERP position to a point of uselessness, and then such authority sites are more or less blackmailed to pay the search engine for advertising ---or not be found. |
What's your definition of an "authority site"? And how many authority sites would find it economically worthwhile to buy PPC ads even if a search engine's management were foolish enough to risk losing their audiences by manipulating search results out of "unlimited and unfettered greed"?
| 12:03 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't see a directory listing be a magic ingredient .. one of my clients sites has been seriously demoted in the serps and they have a directory listing yet I've seen a few site gain without a Yahoo Directory listing....
| 3:15 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Can someone just say whether Yahoo has actually updated, or is in the process of updating?
What is going on with Yahoo and Google? Lots of talk but no one seems to be able to answer the most important question.
| 3:35 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I don't see a directory listing be a magic ingredient .. one of my clients sites has been seriously demoted in the serps and they have a directory listing yet I've seen a few site gain without a Yahoo Directory listing.... |
Remember that Y! don't have all the cool G semantic tech yet. So for sites to really benefit they need to have their category closely matched to the target search phrase.
Without a close match you can expect a smaller increase in rank.
Also because Y! use category descriptions you could actually be handicapped if you have a bad description.
So if your site about ‘widgets’ is in the ‘widgets’ Y! category then your doing well for a search on "widgets"
However, if you target ‘online widgets’ then don't expect the same boost - especially if you don't have 'online' in your description.
Perhaps this will come in the near future.
| 11:12 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't buy the directory reasoning at all. I know exactly who many of my competitors are and know that 95% of them are not listed in the directory and that the one at the top are old fashioned SEO'd sites still.
From my experiences I think it's something less subtle/clever than this and just some sort of filter.
My site had pages in the top 5 for a host of KWs for the best part of a year. Now they are all gone NOT JUST MOVED, but gone. If I look hard enough I will find my home page 8 or 9 pages down. If I look at the similar pages from here all my pages are still listed - but not in the SERPs.
There just aren't anywhere near enough sites above mine in the SERPs that are directory listed to credit the directory theory. I reckon it's a filter - possibly on larger sites?
| 3:01 pm on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think not related to large sites necessarily, I've seen a couple of 20-30 page sites take big losses with this recent Yahoo update
| 3:29 pm on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I still see newer results on other SE that are powered by yahoo, like overture, but on yahoo search still old results.
| 2:17 am on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Site was #4 for widget (singular) and
#2 for widgets (plural)
Just noticed I'm still #5 for widget
but dropped to #153 for Widgets (plural)
| 5:05 am on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i am seeing some movement for the positive. I am getting some position for niche 4 word keywords and hoping that translates into some 2 word keywords.
of course my main site continues to be banned by yahoo.
| This 65 message thread spans 3 pages: 65 (  2 3 ) > > |