| 9:37 am on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I wasn't complaining about steveb at all - I respect his opinion he is almost always spot on.
Surely I am allowed to chuckle at his search engine cheerleading though :-)
| 2:00 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It feels like the only way to be competitive in Y! is to use spammy techniques nowadays. |
This update is yet another disappointment.
What a joke Y! has become.
|Still seeing waaaaay to many keyword/spammy domains and domains with keyword dashes. This is still playing to important of a role in their algo. |
I couldn't agree with these two statements more.
| 3:38 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The update was an improvement for us, but I am just amazed at the amount of straight redirects, and sites with hundreds of hidden text links doing very well. Just roll your cursor over the very bottom of the page!
Makes you wonder if the sandbox is about keeping spam out. Maybe the only way to fight it off is to just shut the door. In fairness to Yahoo lots of spammers have moved on from Google and now are really bearing down in Yahoo.
Link farms, cloaking, and redirects seem unchecked in Yahoo right now.
| 4:04 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I would have to agree with randle on this one. Today's set of results is just strange. There are lots of redirects, hidden text, etc and what is more we keep seeing sites in the top 10 and even more in the top 20 for comepetitive terms that are just not on topic. It is like searching for a well known car company and getting back a result on gynecology in Uganda. Webmasters can complain all they want about SEO techniques - and some of those complaints may be valid, but when a major SE can't bring back on-topic results that is a problem. This makes me think that this set of SERPs won't last long. As I said in another post, this is now the 6th set we have seen in 10 days.
| 5:59 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The results in our categories look much better than before. Many more spammy sites before the update. The affiliate sites also took a hit in our categories.
I guess you will never make everyone happy. For now we are very happy.
| 8:57 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have to say that I'm very pleased with this update. Most people I'm talking to say the same thing.
| 10:07 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Reverse engineering Y! is quite simple: |
Spam more than your competitor.
Link farms and spammy interlinking are still king from what I'm seeing.
I waited 2-3 months to see if this was just a temporary issue, and hoped that Y! would eventually clean out extremely heavy domain/sub-domain interlinking. Since nothing has improved in that matter, it's time to start getting dirty!
| 10:18 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>I have to say that I'm very pleased with this update.
Most absofrigginlutly. Whoa baby.
| 11:07 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Edited to protect the pure.
| 11:42 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I couldn't agree more about Yahoo and link quality issues. There's a site ranking highly for a competitive money term whose links seem to consist completely of guestbook signings.
Some of them are shameless (from one guestbook):
|Why bother lying, I am a spammer and I am here to ruin your guestbook like all the other schmucks selling Viagra to help me refinance my mortgage while staring at ... porn. Anyways, on with the spam. If you don't like what I am doing , well delete your guestbook - after all it is open for public forum. |
| 11:53 pm on Dec 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well look on the bright side, I used to rank top 5 for nearly every UK county and hotels as KWs. Since about 2 weeks ago my site has all but disappeared.
Do I care? Not much as my revenues have gone up. It makes you wonder if the general public have worked out Y isn't too clever.
| 12:13 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Spam more than your competitor. Link farms and spammy interlinking are still king from what I'm seeing."
I agree 100%.
LOL: Two Top 20 sites with address keyword-keyword-keyword-keyword-widgets.com .
Give me a break!
And also, a Top 10 300k plus homepage with a bunch of copied content from other sites.
[edited by: martinibuster at 12:23 am (utc) on Dec. 18, 2004]
[edit reason] Edited for language. [/edit]
| 12:21 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Link farms and spammy interlinking are still king from what I'm seeing. |
Yahoo's rankings have very little to do with link patterns, or even the amount of links. I have one website in the Top 3 for a fiercely competitive money phrase with only a single backlink. One.
If you think it's about links, or that links matter at all, you need to seriously reconsider what you think you know.
| 1:00 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You using sitematch martinibuster?
| 1:13 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I concur, MB, and Im not using sitematch.
| 1:23 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If you think it's about links, or that links matter at all, you need to seriously reconsider what you think you know. |
Ya know, I've re-read your post about a dozen times....trying to decipher if you're being serious or if you're kidding.
I can't tell.....so, seeing that you are a WebmasterWorld moderator, I will assume that you are kidding.
| 2:00 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My site fell from #3 to #6. Two of the website that beat me are spam. They have different domain names but esentially identical content (they are supposedly "local news" sites for two cities).
| 2:06 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"I have one website in the Top 3 for a fiercely competitive money phrase with only a single backlink. One."
Good hack! :)
I have a Web site in number 42 with 100 plus pages of good content and no deceptive tactics. I basically used the recommendations at [webmasterworld.com...]
Those recommendations won't get you in today's Top 10 in Yahoo. That's for sure. OK, I know the recommendations are for a good ranking in Google.
However, Yahoo should get serious about providing results that don't compel a serious Webmaster to use hacks to get a good position.
| 2:19 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
straight keyword density? Surely not?
| 3:02 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If you think it's about links, or that links matter at all, you need to seriously reconsider what you think you know. |
Martinibuster seems right to my experience.
I have a content site with a hand full incoming links jumping up in the Y! index last days.
After a long time they now really seem to have solved out the 301 issue with Slurp.
3) Yahoo and also MSN jumped up this month at least Y! outperforming Google in this relations:
BTW: Yahoo and MSN are crawling out GoogleBot since more than a half year now in quantity (farming power).
I only curious about AskJeeves as they are in the some crawling league but not coming up with SERP till now. :-)
| 3:14 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sorry but I'm not seeing anything different from the past two weeks. I'm in the UK and across 10 sites I spot-checked I can see no change in ranking and/or number of pages indexed.
It's late/early here in the UK so I'll do a longer check tommorrow but right now there's nothing. Strange, I've never really thought of this before but: does Yahoo hold all worldwide information in one database at one datacentre? Only, UK searches are still done on the yahoo.com domain, only under a sub-domain.
| 5:06 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am very pleased with this update as well. I had a site that used hidden text that used to rank well on yahoo that now ranks poorly. This is contrary to what everyone else is saying about the serp's at the moment. My other site that has not one shady tactic is ranking nicely on yahoo now when before it was ranking poorly. This is also a dynamic site which for one amazes me is getting the kind of rankings I am getting at the moment. Google on the other hand has simply put my sites that are dynamic in a supplemental results index to never be found.
Lick my bum Google! Google's results are the most irrelevant results I have ever seen to this day of any search engine I have ever used! MSN beta is producing amazing results for my sites as well! Realistically, even the search engines outside of the big 3 I have great rankings on.
Google? Laugh...Sandbox..Lick my bum! Buy adwords or die! Install our adsense if you want a chance in our SERP's. G'Bye now webmaster, we are tending to our IPO.
Bring the heat MSN and Yahoo!
Google deserves it!
Note : Obviously I am a disgruntled with google search. This is an opinion and nothing more. Take it for what it's worth but google is pure BS now IMHO.
Note : Pro Googler's...I am glad you love Google! Hopefully you will still love it when it becomes the next AltaVista! :>
| 5:52 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I had a site that was getting visitors from Yahoo for several months. On the 15th and 16th of this month traffic from Yahoo doubled... then at approximately 5pm on the 16th it all stopped. The site is completely gone from the index. This happened last yahoo update with another site I have too. They get you all excited and then they pull the rug out from under ya.
I deserve this traffic. My site is awesome. I can't believe they would do this to me!
| 6:40 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think spammers will pay for spam with yahoo very soon.(some have experience it with recent Update)
I can say this because one of my site get #1 rank for keyword and I am amazing that I have never agressively optimised this page as this earn me $0 in last 9 months.
But as yahoo indexed it for #1 I expect some nice traffic (sale) in coming days.
I am not happy with yahoo & google in past, but now yahoo makeup me by indexing fair SEO (black seo beware?)
So hope in coming year more and more white SEO enjoy there works , SE give important to real work and not spam.
Thank you yahoo to keep my trust in good seo,
Merry Christmas to all
| 7:40 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I like it simply because of the 301 issue being resolved. Now I can't wait for the next update.
| 8:37 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This update looks great, they cleaned house and improved SERP's, really impressed with Yahoo so far.
| 8:46 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We have 8 out of the 10 results on the 1st page. That wasn't meant to happen.
>>If you think it's about links, or that links matter at all, you need to seriously reconsider what you think you know.
Well, what else is there? One too many martinis no doubt :)
| 10:39 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
what bad results. All kinds of irrelevant and junk sites dominating top 20. No deep indexing.
If this is Google's competition, I'm hanging onto my Google stock!
| 10:55 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"or that links matter at all"
yeah, stupid links, who needs em!)
| 11:54 am on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm sorry, but Yahoo search has turned into a total joke. For my most important keywords 2 companies who are basically the kings of spam have totally taken over the category. One guy runs 2 Yahoo stores that aren't related, but which he's crosslinked on every page of both sites with a series of hundreds of keyword stuffed urls that are text links at the bottom of the page. If you do a search on marketleap.com it shows that he's literally got hundreds and hundreds of these urls that all take the user to the exact same site. On most keywords in my category he's got at least 5 of 10 slots with different urls, sometimes up to 8.
Then there's the hidden text. He literally has more hidden text than actual text - huge swaths of text on simple item pages! On some pages he has the keywords in hidden text repeated over and over and over down the page - upwards of 60 times with singular and plural versions! I mean it's literally SE Spamming 101 - and the kicker is he gets completely rewarded for it! I've even passed this on to a Yahoo contact and NOTHING has been done. I think he's actually moved up! Why people like this aren't banned is bewildering - he hasn't even been penalized. Meanwhile, folks like me who even run Yahoo stores as well but play fair can't get a foot in even though I've been around twice as long!
I forgot to mention that he's also a guestbook spammer!
| 12:54 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Great! From #12 to #5 for my main keyword.
| This 120 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 120 ( 1  3 4 ) > > |