| 12:54 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Great! From #12 to #5 for my main keyword.
| 1:39 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Can these threads get any more clichéd?
My site goes up --> I LOVE it, they FINALLY figured out their algorithm.
My sites goes down --> I HATE it, they are rewarding spam and black hat SEO.
| 2:01 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
LOL Woop. I don't hardly pay attention to Yahoo or MSN and we do quite well--have been for quite some time. Maybe I should just start ignoring Google too.
| 2:29 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I used to have 3000 pages in Yahoo....now only the home page and it doesn't show for any of our usual search terms either.
Seems to be a common problem this does...is it a penalty, a bug or what?
| 3:22 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Strange one for me.
One of our websites now ranks number 4 out of 536,000 from nowhere so I'm pleased.
But, number one is a new site too - someone who has bought a domain name to cash in on a possible future event (unrelated to my field) and has slapped up a very basic homepage stuffed with keywords relating to my field. For no obvious commercial gain either!
So I spends hours building a unique content site when I might as well have spent the five minutes numero uno spent on his!
| 3:39 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Even though I don't monitor my rankings, the traffic for the main site I work on went up... over 20% which is rather nice.
| 3:42 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What i think is that all these major changes ...in indexing policies of google and yahoo have taken palce due to msn search as google and yahoo see sfiff competition ahead you guys must acceot that msn bot is much more hardworking then the others he can be seen more often crawling then others
what u think?
| 3:45 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
With the sandbox still stopping my new sites I've focused 90% of my tome towards Y! & MSN.
Looking at these results I don’t think I'm the only SEO doing this.
So through the sandbox Google has moved the SEO's focus off them and onto the competition.
Y! and MSN are now about to experience the power of the SEO community
If Y! keep their head above the obvious SPAM and continue to index fresh sites I think they have the opportunity to take some of Google's market share. However at the moment Y! looks like it might drown.
If they do drown it'll be a victory for Google & co.
| 4:56 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo does not have as good filters as G. You can get many pages of similar content with Yahoo. Google is more advanced when it comes to this.
| 5:49 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Looks like a spam update to me. The past spam was getting a little stale so they added a whole new batch of it. I'm seeing individual sites completely dominating many keyword searches. The things that place sites high in Google seem to be the opposite in Yahoo especially links, which probably penalize or ban many sites. Small sites with few links and little history plus large sites that can sustain the daily dropping of pages by Yahoo seem to rule the roost.
A site not appearing in Google but doing well in Yahoo and vice versa should tell people something. The core services are all that is sustaining Yahoo now. I can't see people exploring their index much outside a top five keyword listing. Ask results are better.
| 8:04 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm in the UK and as mentioned by internetheaven I don't see any changes since those a couple of weeks ago.
In my competitive affiliate KW SERPs it's still more or less the same sites as it was a year ago.
| 8:35 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Yahoo's rankings have very little to do with link patterns, or even the amount of links
Add me to the list of those who agree with this statement. Based on current experience. I might take small issue with the "link patterns" part, depending upon what one means by the words "link patterns." ;-)
BTW, even more true with MSN beta...but at PubCon, I believe it was one of the admins who suggested that that won't last long.
| 9:07 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
According to many people here, Yahoo looks like having more smappy site than before due to vigorous work by SEOs who have been frustrated by Google Sandbox. Well, I guess, then my site is less spammy than others or they do better job in optimizing for Yahoo. :)
I lost my positions for a few main keywords and lost half of my Yahoo and MSN traffic. I'd better wait for the official MSN search Launch in late January. I am doing better there now. ;)
I was #1 in Google, Yahoo, MSN for my keywords. After I moved my domain and 301ed, I lost all my rankings in Google. Now I lost my rankings on Yahoo and MSN from this Update. I didn't spend enough time to optimize my sites for long time, so I guess the Yahoo's algorithm has changed...
I hope either Sandbox is lifted or MSN launches its search for now until I have time to SEO my sites again.
In fact if I spent more time updating my site than spending reading posts here, I might have be in better position now.. Irony? yes. ;) ;)
But if I don't read the posts here, how would I know if I am doing ok or not? yes...
| 9:53 pm on Dec 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I'm in the UK and as mentioned by internetheaven I don't see any changes since those a couple of weeks ago. |
Seems the usual practice as with Google - not all datacenters are updated at time. So there is a nice chance to see the differences in the algo.
One of my main keywords:
I like they give a damn on links as this has become the main method of black hat SEO!
| 12:12 am on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Definate changes and for the better.
| 2:20 am on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo has figured out that my site is an authority site for its topic area [computer stuff]. Very nice. Number 7 for 19 million results, that's higher than I would have hoped, but definitely not an invalid result. #1 for highly targetted search terms, which is what it should be, 1-3, there are only a handful of sites that actually will give the searcher what they are looking for in this niche technical question, and mine's one of them.
I don't compete for junk money keywords so I can't comment on how it's doing when trying to deal with millions of restaurant, travel, etc sites. However, I do compete for keywords that are precise and technical, and which a properly functioning algo should be able to pull out of the dross. Google is suffering serious degeneration in this area, it's getting worse, not better.
| 2:38 am on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo is now a class search engine cos my sites are top
| 3:09 am on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We still see two sets of results. Are we the only ones. I will say one of them is very good. A lot of nice, relevant results. Some stuff to complain about sure, but not much. Trying to look at it as a searcher the results look good. On the other hand there is another set, that is coming up less frequently in the past 24 hours, that is just goofy.
| 11:28 am on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Can these threads get any more clichéd? My site goes up --> I LOVE it, they FINALLY figured out their algorithm. My sites goes down --> I HATE it, they are rewarding spam and black hat SEO."
This is exactly right. I feel bad for people who are new who come in here and hear all these people saying that Yahoo is a joke and that these results are so terrible. Veteran search engine marketers understand that what they're all really saying here is "My spam isnt ranking high so i hate these results."
I GUARANTEE you that if they're sites were ranking high after this update, they'd be saying how awesome Yahoo is!
Its funny how these SEO spammers come in here and post how terrible search results are when they dont rank high, thinking that the search engines actually care about their complaining. The truth is, Yahoo engineers are reading all these negative posts and they're laughing since it means they're beating the SEO's!
The more negative posts about the results from SEOs, the more the search engines know they're on the right track. Make no mistake... SEO's are NOT the search engine's friends. They're friends are the average users who SEARCH on Yahoo. They're comments are not completely biased by they're own selfish, monetary interests. All that matters to Yahoo is what the users think.
All self interest aside, these new results from Yahoo are good and easily comparable to Google in terms of quality. Does Google not have spam at the top of their search results? Spam is a real problem that all engines will always be struggling with. I believe that Yahoo, MSN, and Google will win that battle through technology in the end.
| 11:35 am on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Yahoo is now a class search engine cos my sites are top "
is that a joke?
| 11:58 am on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I like Yahoo enough now that I have started using their Toolbar more than Google's. Their results are quite good in my book. ;)
| 12:31 pm on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|"Yahoo is now a class search engine cos my sites are top " |
is that a joke?
| 2:53 pm on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It's no joke that Yahoo's results are fresher, and in many case, just plain better. Yahoo has been under a lot of pressure to create good results, because they are likely to get sqeezed in 2005 between MSN and Google. Yahoo good prove to be quite a surprise, and actually increase their share of search traffic.
| 7:13 pm on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Out of the billions of pages on the web some people's site results are down, which encourages us to generalize as "bad", and other people's site results are up, which it's easy to believe is "good". For me one thing swings the balance - Yahoo's results are up-to-date and Google, with it's overwhelming responsibility to hundreds of millions of users every day, are still unbelievably 6 months old.
I always use Yahoo to search, with Google being primarily a matter of interest as a webmaster rather than a valid search tool.
| 7:42 pm on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"All self interest aside, these new results from Yahoo are good and easily comparable to Google in terms of quality."
It really is bizarre how you guys define search engine results by how you rank. Why kill electrons posting such worthless nonsense? Nobody freaking cares how you rank.
It's always weird how the bottom fishing spammers will post how they like results when their garbage ranks well, as if everybody else, including Yahoo reps, will suddenly say "oh yeah, having redirects in the results is good, thanks for pointing it out."
If you like this update please tell us why it is good for Yahoo to rank redirects. No nonsensical comments please, just: why is it good to list straight redirects?
When the results on any search engine show a URL of keyword.subdomain.com but when you click them you are taken to affiliateparent.com/?82635, that is a bad search result, regardless of whether that keyword subdomain is your piece of garbage or not.
| 9:02 pm on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Steve B I couldn’t help but spot that post also. I judge Yahoo on some of the criteria below.
In my area there are three major keywords people go after. Under one of those keywords 63 of the top 100 results are mirror doorway pages with different domains directing to the same site. Each of the pages openly advertise they are spider bait and have loads of hidden text. The pages are pitiful quality just with a link telling you to go to the main site. This company and another pretty well occupy 40% of the listings with the other two keywords. They also advertise with Yahoo.
Because I am a researcher it is also bothersome to see the same meta titles repeated over and over again in the Yahoo results, just for ranking purposes. It tells you nothing about the sites and often you run into the problems you suggested.
I’m glad many people are doing well in Yahoo. But I’ve seen engine after engine utilizing the same principles as Yahoo over the past 10 years. Those engines are no longer even on the radar screen.
The biggest problem I see now is people want immediate gratification or quick listings. I remember when it was typically about six months to a year before you appeared in a major engine. If you’ve got worthwhile products it’ll sell even in a small engines until the majors pick you up. If it’s a vanity or hobby site why worry or step in the way of people trying to make a living. Your vanity is not worth it. If the site is pure spam, a screen scraper, bogus directory, or large site dependant on Adsense revenues you’ll assuredly want quick listing in Google or Yahoo because the smaller engines can’t help you.
| 9:05 pm on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If you like this update please tell us why it is good for Yahoo to rank redirects. |
I did not see the redirect issue as you state it here.
I had a real problem with Slurp recognizing redirects for some month as I changed my site urls. Slurp simply did not get it dawn and produced a whole bunch of 404 every month.
Now all of this is gone right away. For me, this looks like Yahoo! hackers did her homework - I like people doing their job right!
| 9:13 pm on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Because I am a researcher it is also bothersome to see the same meta titles repeated over and over again in the Yahoo results, just for ranking purposes. It tells you nothing about the sites and often you run into the problems you suggested. |
I actually see quite the contrary. Google seems to have more title spam than Yahoo in my key areas. I see "spammy" pages for both engines. I see more redirects for Google. As a matter of fact, there are many redirects on google that have been there for 6 months or more. At least yahoo has freshness that Google lacks.
BTW, I have plenty of sites that are doing poorly in Yahoo, so it has nothing to do with that, but I do have newer sites that are finally getting some traffic.
You asked what I like about Yahoo. Your answer is:
Not as many old redirects
Fewer spammy titles
Addition of new sites
[edited by: dvduval at 9:14 pm (utc) on Dec. 19, 2004]
| 9:13 pm on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
steveb, I think the redirect issue you're seeing is a side affect of yahoo finally having fixed their 301 problem, this might be a bug in their system, which appears to have just changed.
Agree on spammers complaining. All the search engines are having trouble with spammers, until they start doing human spam filtering they always will. First engine to realize this and implement a simple solution will probably win that game.
While seos are smarter than algos in general, they aren't smarter than 20 something temp employees being paid $8 an houor who can spot your spam within one second of opening the page and looking at it. There are only so many seos out there, and they can only generate so many sites, a human moderated spam filter would work very well.
| 9:29 pm on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>"All self interest aside
Not ranking well in the "new 'hoo" steveb?
Y! has never looked better if you ask me.
| 9:45 pm on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That's one I would definitely debate with you DVD. Many people who ignored Inktomi for years are now learning that the title tag is one of the more important things in Yahoo. You can't fool Google that well with just a meta tag and a few lines of text. I don't see that same type of repetition in Google. You’ll have to point me to a category in Yahoo where long titles rank high outside of phrases.
| This 120 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 120 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |