| 11:24 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, Yahoo doesn't care about your anchors as much as Google does.
| 12:43 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Is Yahoo now displaying your directory listing in the serps instead of your orginal index page?
| 12:57 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Half of it is a one line of spider results (line one) then line 2 is: Category: Blah, Blah
It used to read with 3 lines, the first 2 were spider results and line 3 was the RSS info.
The RSS info is no longer displayed.
| 1:04 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Yeah, Yahoo doesn't care about your anchors as much as Google does. |
I would think the rest of the SEO would hold it in the top 3 on it's own merit.
| 4:56 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Yeah, Yahoo doesn't care about your anchors as much as Google does. |
I been thinking..., so what is Yahoo! giving weight to?
| 2:33 pm on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Spam and sub-sub-sub-sub-sub domains and doorway pages full of spam keywords.
Yahoo cant get enough of them, thats why the results are so cr@p.
Ive given Yahoo examples of blatent spam techniques used by some webmasters and provided details of where they are in the index yet they do nothing about it.
Obviously Google doesnt have this problem and neither does the new MSN but Yahoo does.It loves SPAM.
So forget about spending time building content, quality pages, presenting your pages in a quality order and providing well researched quality that users of your site will enjoy and spend your time building yourself a doorway page with a redirect on it full of spam keywords and bingo it will rank 1 in no time. (it will get you banned in both Google and MSN but you will get all the trafic you need from Yahoo)
Also, If you want to get your site listed about 40 times out of the first 100 results in your sector in Yahoo then you need to do the spam technique above with the sub-sub-sub-sub-sub domain technique. I can give you superb examples of sites that use this and control over 30% of the SERPS doing it. Again Yahoo are not interested.
If the page that the bot sees is not the same as the page the end user sees it should not feature in the SERPS if you ask me.
I find this a dam shame to be honest. Quality sites dont get a look in whilst dross features well. Until Yahoo decide to address this im sorry but it looks like quality has little chance in Yahoo!
| 4:17 pm on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It would be real nice if we could get more signal and less noise in the Yahoo forum. Can we raise the bar on discussions around here? The Yahoo forum is not the soapbox for personal complaints, nor is it the drop in clinic for getting someone's attention from Yahoo.
I'm sorry your website doesn't rank but that doesn't mean angry rants will not be held to the same scrutiny as any other post.
|Ive given Yahoo examples of blatent spam techniques used by some webmasters and provided details of where they are in the index yet they do nothing about it. |
Tell that to the people who make the "Help I've been banned from Yahoo" posts. And while you're at it, tell that to the people who come here asking how to get reincluded after being banned.
|Obviously Google doesnt have this problem and neither does the new MSN... |
That statement is so far off the mark it's like saying the world is flat.
|Also, If you want to get your site listed about 40 times out of the first 100 results... |
That is noise statement #1. If you want to get taken seriously keep to the facts.
| 7:19 pm on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am not going the spammy route with this site.
For as much as those methods might get a spammy site in, it does not explain why I am not in. The other results are good results, I am the only one missing.
I am trying to look at it from a different angle, "from outside of the box" so to say.
My meta keywords were deluted..., hmm I can not believe I am even saying that..., but I reduced them down to 2 from about 40.
Is Yahoo even looking at the meta?
| 9:38 pm on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
if you look at their own metas i think the clue is there..they even have keyword comment tags in their metas...
| 12:14 am on Mar 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
KO, Rich has given you a plan of action. Judge the post on whether it has the potential to extradite you from your dilemma or leaves you stuck in the same position. Itís far from a rant.
Unfortunately many good sites are penalized in Yahoo while no other engines do the same. You can either ďwish upon a starĒ with Yahoo site reviews or do what others are unfortunately having to do. Much of what Rich says is right on the mark and I donít lambaste people for speaking their opinion. In ten years Iíve never seen any major search engine, nor smaller ones, with that much spam.
| 1:03 am on Mar 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Outland - im glad someone else is seeing the same problem with Yahoo as i am.
Martin - Im sorry if my post came over as a rant, it is not. Im telling it exactly as i see it and helping the poster understand what works in Yahoo.
Im sure that a few webmasters that have been removed from the index will want to get back in but i genuinely think that Yahoo are doing very little about this SPAM problem. Millions of Spam sites do very well in Yahoo due to the methods i have outlined.
The Fact is that spam door way pages work a treat in Yahoo (i can give you thousands of examples if you sticky me) and the sub-sub-sub-sub-sub domain method again pays off big style in Yahoo (again i can give you great examples if you sticky me)and i have seen a volume of sites taking up 30-40% of the SERPS index for their related keywords using this method.
I have no issue with a sub domain where its a specialist area of a large site. I have a number of sub domains on my own site. But it is one thing having a site about widgets and then a few sub domains showing Red-widgets, Blue-widgets, Green-Widgets and another where its taken to stupid levels ie:-
And again i genuinely think that the page the slurp bot sees should be the same as whats displayed in the SERPS. I do have an issue with this. Yahoo should not be encouraging webmasters to build doorway pages just full of spam keywords to feature high - they should be spending the time building content and rewarded for providing quality content the end user wants to see, this is the point im making.
Its not a rant its an observation
| 1:40 am on Mar 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well, Rich, I try to look at this objectively. Not all of my websites are superstars on Yahoo. Some of them work well some of them don't, I don't really take it personally.
Just today I was looking at some serps I want to conquer in another search engine and laughed because they were dominated by cloaked websites.
Spam is endemic to all of the search engines. Spam is to the search engines what fleas are to dogs. Each search engine has it's loopholes that spammers jump through. And of course, all of them are fighting it the best they can.
|i genuinely think that Yahoo are doing very little about this SPAM problem. |
You're entitled to your opinion but I think it is based more on personal frustration than objective observation of the entire search landscape- otherwise how to account for your statement that spam is confined to Yahoo?
Outland88 rarely has anything to say beyond the usual bitter remark against Yahoo, and I certainly resent the mischaracterization of my post as berating you. I only pointed out the weaknesses in the logic of certain of your remarks. That's it. Nothing personal toward you as outland88 describes it.
Furthermore, outland88 is usually opining that Yahoo's anti-spam tactics are so heavy handed they sweep up innocent websites that can't subsequently get back in. So I'm surprised to see you cheerleading someone who claims Yahoo isn't doing enough.
The whole notion that Yahoo is brimming with spam in every search is absurd. I don't doubt that you might be bested by spam (or by what you characterize as spam). But that doesn't mean the whole thing is spammed out.
So what I'm saying is, let's cut the noise, especially the bitter resentment cracks that piss all over the threads everytime someone wants to talk about reinclusion, how to get unbanned, or complaints that Yahoo doesn't ban enough people.
[edited by: martinibuster at 2:13 am (utc) on Mar. 26, 2005]
| 1:58 am on Mar 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You guys shake hands now - OK?
Let's get back on topic.
Spammy is not an option with this site.
I might have neglected to mention that I own all of spammy results for my term, (and they do well) The spam was too easy.
But it is THIS site that I want there, the right way.
| 2:48 am on Mar 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>Furthermore, outland88 is usually opining that Yahoo's anti-spam tactics are so heavy handed they sweep up innocent websites that can't subsequently get back in.
MB, I've never made such a statement. I think quite the opposite. You seem to be making up very questionable assertions to bolster your arguements. In the Google forums there were hundreds complaining about the Allegra update but God forbid we say negative things about Yahoo. That's a part of free speech.
Rich gave the poster an alternative (though not the best) and I seconded it. Perhaps you can contribute something that solves people's problems and makes them profitable without ridiculing everybody. People are tiring of your behavior. Let's give it a rest, ok.
| 3:03 am on Mar 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
KO, I reconize you don't want to go the spam route on your main domain and I hope you don't have to. But few viable options have been offered to solving people's problems. I'm as white hat as they come but I see what is working well in Yahoo after years of experience. As one professional spammer pointed out to me Yahoo is offering an opportunity of a lifetime to spam a major engine. They catch a few but ignore most.
| 4:32 am on Mar 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
ME: outland88 is usually opining that Yahoo's anti-spam tactics are so heavy handed they sweep up innocent websites
You: MB, I've never made such a statement.
You (message #11): Unfortunately many good sites are penalized in Yahoo
Me: Case closed.
Airing personal grievances and making swipes at Yahoo does ZERO to help the original thread poster understand why his website can do well in Google and MSN and not so well in Yahoo.
>>>Perhaps you can contribute something that solves people's problems
My post in Message 2 stated one reason why a site that is ranked well on Google will not rank so well on Yahoo. On topic. I was hoping others would come along and provide some helpful advice instead of me doing all the talking. FWIW, I've been helping KO by sticky.
>>>and makes them profitable without ridiculing everybody
I have not ridiculed a single person- read my posts and pick out a single instance of abuse.
>>>People are tiring of your behavior.
Quite the opposite. People want answers- they don't want to hear the same four people hijacking the Yahoo threads. If these four people are tiring of it then fine with me.
| 5:06 am on Mar 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<NCAA BASKETBALL AIR HORN - VERY LOUD>>>TIME OUT<<<
The sticky info has been great, keep it coming from all. As for this thread - everyone need to calm down - cool out - relax...
So, How does one that owns a real site that is not doing well in Yahoo! correct that situation?
As a side note. My spammy sites that are doing well in Yahoo! are old sites that I had given up on 2 years ago. Much to my surprise they are doing well in Yahoo!
But again, this is not my objective.
Trust me - I need no help on building spam.
[edited by: kamikaze_Optimizer at 5:51 am (utc) on Mar. 26, 2005]
| 8:36 am on Mar 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Google and MSN put my site at number 2, where it should be |
Everyone says their site should be at the top. May I ask what it is about your site that makes it so deserving of the top spot?
| 8:41 am on Mar 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i have reasons to believe that pages are removed from Yahoo manually ,i know a few very spamy ones in my topic that doing very well for a few years now ,that is against the theory of a spam filter.
| 3:54 pm on Mar 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Everyone says their site should be at the top. May I ask what it is about your site that makes it so deserving of the top spot? |
Because I say so. :)
Would you like the url in a sticky?
| 3:57 pm on Mar 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|So, How does one that owns a real site that is not doing well in Yahoo! correct that situation? |
They subscribe to Overture.
| 3:02 am on Mar 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
what evidence do you have that an overture member gets better yahoo treatment?
(incidentally, that's not meant a confrontational challenge, just an innocent question, in case it's not clear.)
| 3:21 am on Mar 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|what evidence do you have that an overture member gets better yahoo treatment? |
I do not think he meant that. I believe he was suggesting a solution to being on the top of the page.
I have done Overture; problem is my keyword is $9.00 a click :(
| 9:28 pm on Mar 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As a fellow white hat SEO/designer spam is not an option and was never needed. The problem with Yahoo has nothing to do with Spam. I does have to do with a flaw with their index and robots. They shouldn't drop pages from their serps and they shouldn't get confused with scripted links. I hope that there is a way for Yahoo to do a major update and re-index all the lost sites and pages. If they don't do this soon they will lose their reputation as a reliable resource. Also, they will lose their fan support from good site developers who have been affected.
Please help us Yahoo!
| 12:10 am on Mar 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Running a quick check for pages included in various engines, using some of our domains:
- GGL/AOL: 208
- HotBot: 177
- MSN: 498
- Yah/Fast/AV: 1
- GGL/AOL: 168
- HotBot: 159
- MSN: 242
- Yah/Fast/AV: 1
- GGL/AOL: 89
- HotBot: 87
- MSN: 352
- Yah/Fast/AV: 1
In fact, for every one of our nearly 100 domains that I checked, Yahoo/Fast/AltaVista showed only 1 page in their index.
This is pretty new, as the numbers used to be very similar for GGL/YAH.
It's funny because Inktomi Slurp visits my domains with alarming regularity ... last month fetching 115MB and this month fetching 7.2 GIGABYTES of data from my servers. And for what? Googlebot only collects around 150MB of data each month. Even MSNBot, which punished our servers mercilessly when it first rolled out, is down to around 125MB per month.
If Slurp can't find interesting pages to add to its index from the 7.2GB of data it slurped, then what kind of bot is that? I guarantee there is not a lick of spam content on any of these sites ... all good stuff (as defined by various web research companies that use our sites for benchmarks in the 'content', 'link popularity' and 'keyword distribution' sectors).
<edit>PS: We are ~$45,000/month Overture PPC subscribers and have entries in Yahoo's directories, as well, so there's no connection between spending money for those programs and getting into the algorithm results.</edit>
| 4:09 am on Mar 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I do not have that problem StupidScript.
These are my numbers:
Now, the real interesting part... at 2:00PM EST today, YahooBot (Slurp, inktomisearch.com) had over 600 Bots on site at once. Damn near crashed my server (along with my normal traffic), the load hit 25 cpus.
Let me say that I was happy they were there :)
| 5:17 pm on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Facts: Google and MSN put my site at number 2, where it should be |
I agree with a previous poster - what makes you believe you are entitled to a specific ranking? Just because you think it should be at the top doesnt mean it will be.
At least youre listed - I have sites that have been totally removed and/or only the index is listed much like the gentleman above my sites do get crawled they just dont get indexed!
| 5:48 pm on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I was there when the keyword was invented.
My site has 18K+ pages indexed in Yahoo, close to 200K in Google. It is the number one resource/support site to the number one site (number one is keyword.com, I am keyword-forum.com).
I have hundreds of "natural" back links, from major news organizations, large publishing companies, blogs, forums...
It is just very simple. If I lost the number 2 spot to someone like news.com or cnn.com, I would be ok with that. But today I sit at number 30, with "RSS Feeds + PHP scripts + AdSense = Content" all in the top 10.
That is wrong.