| 11:11 pm on Apr 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The update is not over... I've had another 10% increase in pages today. I also noticed the other day that Yahoo appeared to have 4.3 billion pages in their index, today it looks more like 4.6 billion.
| 1:46 am on Apr 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've noticed that Yahoo has been extremely active spidering my site in March.
I have a 6 word keyword phrase that when searched comes up with 56,000,000 results.
This site is an information site that does not sell anything, but I've been experimenting with it since it was put up about 9 months ago.
I've been on the first page in 7 and 10th position until I made some changes about a month and a half ago and decreased the number of times the kw phrases were used. I also decreased the word count to under 300. The results became worst.
Then I added the 6 word kw phrase about 4 more times and found after this update I was showing a number one. The phrase is repeated throughout in title, heads, beginning and end plus a link to a page with the same title.
After this update the kw phrase is at number one. My trial is finished. :-)
| 3:52 am on Apr 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Two of my sites dropped a lot in indexed pages. one from 2000 - 200, the other from 800-150. Anyone has the same experiences? |
One of my favourite sites went from having 199 to 2.
| 4:14 am on Apr 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
have anybody found the reasons why their sites are dropped by yahoo at this time update? Duplicate contents or affiliate sites or....?
| 4:31 am on Apr 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Funny. I have a site in position number two that beats a Yahoo subdomain (foo.yahoo.com) that is in position three, but is bested by a SiteMatch listing in position one.
This website is listed in DMOZ, has a ton of unique content relevant to the topic that was hand made by myself personally, and contains decent (but just decent) backlinks. Lots of unreciprocated outbounds, too.
On another new site with varied clean backlinks and a bit of original content (emphasis on spider food content) it's doing pretty well too.
Another site I checked on is doing ok, still in top five or ten for important keywords, but I haven't done any link development on it, nothing significant. But the content is really good, answers the questions of the queries it's ranking for.
Anybody want to share what they think is ringing bells for Yahoo? To be perfectly honest, I haven't studied this too hard. But it seems like decent links and decent content helps (although in some sectors I'm seeing heavy cloaking).
Is Yahoo filtering scraper sites? I don't recall the last time I saw one in the Yahoo serps.
| 8:53 am on Apr 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>Anybody want to share what they think is ringing bells for Yahoo?
There are a few things that definitely seem to wind their clock, just plain old garden-variety optimization - it's a matter of how and where keywords and phrases are used.
>>Is Yahoo filtering scraper sites?
I'm still seeing some scraper sites, though they're a little less prevalent; one I've seen for a while even still out there with the scraped content in an iframe. But they're not in a space that would be prone to hand checks unless attention was drawn to the particular searches, which apparently hasn't been done.
There have been a lot of reports about subdomain "illegitimacy," with some from the same party (or parties) taking up the whole beginning of the SERPs - including blog sites. I know it's the new YST, but the old Inktomi had a thing about subdomains. Mind you this is outdated on a few points, but gives some historical view worth looking at
To subdomain or not to subdomain [webmasterworld.com]
What I'm just starting to look at is whether the percentage or proportion of links coming from the same IP has any bearing.
| 3:07 pm on Apr 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing wildly differing results when using yahoo.com and yahoo.co.uk and selecting "the Web" search.
The UK web results have a couple of scraper sites, the remainder are mostly valid.
The .com results have two valid results, the rest are scraper or totally invalid.
I've tried this across several of my keywords with the same two scraper sites in particular featuring all the time in the .com results whereas the other two results are returing mostly valid results...including my competitors which for my widget sites has to be on target:-)
| 3:17 pm on Apr 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Huge jump for my main site. 400 pages, all static html. I'm in the top 4 for almost every keyword phrase.
I haven't done that well in Yahoo in the past, as I mostly concentrate on Google. We'll see how this converts this week.
| 4:22 pm on Apr 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The scrapers are out in full force in my area and Y! buried one of my sites for dup content because of it.
Y shows 50mil results when G shows 3mil, thats 47mil scraper pages clogging up the works per keyphrase. I monitor about 50 phrases showing this.
| 4:37 pm on Apr 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Had > 200.000 entries from my site in Yahoo. Now they are cut back to ~30.000. Seems a little more reasonable now than before.
| 9:23 pm on Apr 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Some serps seem good but others went from good to terrible. The 2 main money terms for this industry now have 10 out of the top 20 results going to affiliate doorway pages, all on different domains, but all pointing to the same company.
| 10:53 pm on Apr 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"One thing that really bugs me is the high rating for "google-ad Spam-directory sites", not the major sites, the little junk sites, with google ads at top and my stuff and YOUR stuff below."
I disagree. I have a site that has a number 1 on a very good phrase now on yahoo. It also has 8-12 other major phrases now in the new yahoo.
What I notice is that the phrases are on topic, but the pages they link to are the ones *without* the Google adsense. It's almost as if yahoo favour pages without adsense. So I have pages targetting "fluffy green widgets" that have adsense on them but I have other pages that only mention those terms in passing (and without adsense) and some of those 'buried-non-targetted' pages now have top slots on yahoo.
So I have a suspicion that Yahoo favours pages without adsense and your suggestion (of yahoo returning a lot of scraper sites with adsense) doesn't fit my hypothesis.
BTW right now, I have the most referrals from yahoo, then msn, then bbc.co.uk search engine, then scraper sites, then google so I'm considering going with my hunch and dumping the adsense to see if it makes a difference to my other pages ranking on yahoo.
| 12:12 am on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>The 2 main money terms for this industry now have 10 out of the top 20 results going to affiliate doorway pages...
What do you mean by doorways? Pages optimized for a particular keyword phrase or a page cloaked for that phrase that redirects to a landing page?
In general I don't think aff sites being in the serps has anything to do with an algo, I mean, is Yahoo supposed to filter affiliate sites? Sounds logical that the serps would have heavy competition from affiliate sites simply in terms of sheer number.
Here's another thought
Another of my sites is only two weeks old and is already ranking for relevant phrases, although none of the hot competitive phrases I really want. Just a bunch of phrases revolving around the popular phrases- which is fine in this particular industry.
What impressed me though was that my site was only two weeks old.
Anybody have an idea if Yahoo likes, dislikes or is indifferent to websites with, among other things, a Run of Site backlink?
| 12:27 am on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
so it seems that:
IF you are in Yahoo directory THEN you are guranteed to be fully indexed.
note 1: i am talking about being indexed not ranked
note 2: it is not 'if and only if'.
| 1:06 am on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
They are not cloked or redirected. Let me explain in more detail. 5 of the top 10 results are for this same company using seperate domains. EVERY one of these 5 pages has the same content and all are on the same ip. just different domains.
Add to that, another 5 seperate pages / domains from the same company in the same top 20 all on the same ip.
They have some random keyword targeted content but all links are to the affiliate merchant.
While it is hard to filter out affiliates, having the exact same pages on different domains show for the same search is a big loophole in the Yahoo serp. I guess this goes to prove Yahoo has very poor or no dup content filters. Add to that they do not seem to take into account the ip / server domains are hosted on into account.
| 3:55 am on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Is it me or does it seem like a lot of the top positions 'happen' to be in the directory as well? |
Certain Serps are tuned that way. Those positions are usually very non-volatile after the onset of the manual/directory influenced tuning.
I see more and more use of the directory to hand tune in certain sectors. It causes a bit of decline in the ability to narrow your searches and find new results IMO.
|IF you are in Yahoo directory THEN you are guranteed to be fully indexed. |
Huh? Lots of sites to the contrary.
FWIW it looks to me like internal linking isn't providing as much ranking weight as previously. Perhaps it also isn't providing as much indexing power? Dunno, perhaps that's why many are saying their indexed page count dropped? On our sites with more deep inbound links they seem to have increased in pages indexed.
| 4:18 am on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I droppped from the #2 position to #4.
Some of my competitors came up from 30 or more to #5, right under me!
What is strange is that I have a 143,541 Alexa rank and 19,169 popularity rank, the highest of my competitors and a very high keywords density, yet I am at #4.
Competitors with 600,000+ Alexa and 100,000+ popularity rating are ABOVE me!
Looks like perhaps they are inserting SITE MATCH clients now. These people above me with high rank numbers (which is like a golf score) are PAYING to get there. Yahoo is going to squeeze every dime out of clients!
The best thing I can do is drop my prices, take all the client business and wait until Yahoo bleeds them dry and they have to remove themselves.
All's fair in love and war!
| 4:21 am on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Huh? Lots of sites to the contrary. |
you mean there are sites in the directory which are not indexed?
| 4:34 am on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Not the worst SERPs, but it's almost like Yahoo listened to the vocal few complainers who cried "I typed in my domain name and I wasn't even listed!" and decided to give them what they wanted. :(
| 4:35 am on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For months now, I forget how many, Yahoo had my site at position #18
for my best keyword. Now at long last, I jumped up to #10, bottom of 1st page.
This is the first change in all that time, and I hope it lasts.
I was stuck like glue to the old position. -Larry
| 4:35 am on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This was a major update. My number of indexed pages went from 400 to 14,100. They must not be ranking well though since my traffic hasn't really reflected the added pages
| 4:37 am on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Competitors with 600,000+ Alexa and 100,000+ popularity rating are ABOVE me! |
Alexa does not mean much. I wouldn't go by their rankings for anything... They are so easily abused. As well, if you are targetting a certain group not necessarily people within that group even know about Alexa except a select few.
| 5:45 am on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|you mean there are sites in the directory which are not indexed? |
You said "fully indexed". Yes, I have seen plenty of sites listed (multiple directory listings even) that are not fully or even close to being fully indexed.
| 5:59 am on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
thats true nuevojefe, i said fully. well your comment has me made think again, should i pay the $299 for a couple of sites or not, i almost did!
then what are the incentive(s) to be listed in the directory?! (beside people finding you there, of course)
| 6:43 am on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|then what are the incentive(s) to be listed in the directory?! (beside people finding you there, of course) |
Not to steer this thread too far off topic, but this may be relevant to some people's position in Yahoo serps... One of the benefits besides the traffic (which can be a big benefit if the directory page comes up for searches above your site on any of the major engines or if it's a very popular topic) is that it can help in certain niches to allow your site to be listed amongst the top ranking sites where it might otherwise be displaced by sites that are in the directory.
It seems that in certain niches the top X amount of results are derived by picking quality sites from the directory. For instance, we had a site receiving 3k uniques from Yahoo! for a few phrases - keyword1 keyword2, and a combination of one other word plus those two - which as soon as they did this manual shuffle was completely pushed down. The serps for all the keywords that we lost traffic for now are all 100% the same sites and see no rotation whereas just the day before that happened there would be a very consistent flux.
Another site which sat steadfastedly at #13 for a 15,000 searches/day (WT) query for months, went from #13 to #1 overnight after getting its first Yahoo! directory listing. Literally overnight and this was not an overall update.
So, there might be depending on your niche other reasons to be listed than the traffic. There are other reasons to value a listing too.
| 3:32 pm on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
On yahoo directory:
yes that's what has got me thinking if "It is worth a nickel to earn a dime" then i am more than willing to do it.
and as nuevojefe (thx for the comment btw) said, back to the update:
what bewilders me is that even my snow-white hat site has vanished from the index (200+ pages to 3 pages). The only 'bad' thing i can think of is that it is in the same IP range (c class) of a rather darkish hat site.
What do you think: is the update over or going on?
| 5:08 pm on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My ranks are pretty steady so I imagine its over, traffic has doubled for me.
| 6:51 pm on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
To those whose index dropped from thousands to hundreds, are you an affiliate site? do you have google adsense on it? why is Yahoo dropping you from the index?
| 7:12 pm on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The only site which I monitor how many pages are indexed by Y! consistently, jumped about 350 indexed pages (30% increase) and has no adsense nor affiliate ads. Also has no outbounds nor reciprocal links(obviously), has about 5 pages added daily about 35% of the pages don't update ever* but the rest has comments of a sort added to them every once in awhile.
*The part of the site that doesn't get updated though has however changed once in the last 2 weeks. The change was in the form of a tool we added that generates in-content internal linking based on keywords it finds and associates with other internal pages and it also includes words before and after the target word or phrase semi-randomly. This was done to automate the process of not having only templated areas (navigation, header, footer) and plain bodies of content.
No cloaking, has it's own dedicated server & IP.
| 7:41 pm on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It can not have Google Adsense (mine does but is NOT a junk directory site) and can not have any affiliation type links (my site refers people to other partner sites for product purchases).
My suspicion is that the April 1 update was to fully bring in all the customers who are now paying $49 per year plus being fleeced either 15 or 30 cents PER CLICK to be in business using SITE MATCH. All this is going to do is drive product & services prices up (again).
Consider the FREE internet a dying breed. You can no longer be listed for free and if you had a good listing in WEB RESULTS, you will soon be pushed out by SITE MATCH customers.
I used to get about 1000 unique visitors per day. My sales were about $150 per day. With SITE MATCH I can expect to hand ALL my profits over to Yahoo and sure as ever, there are NO guarantees where I'll wind up.
I'm not sure who is worse these days, the IRS or Yahoo!
[edited by: martinibuster at 9:52 pm (utc) on April 4, 2005]
[edit reason] Let's not get personal, thanks. [/edit]
| 8:03 pm on Apr 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Understand your frustration but this is total disinformation:
It can not have Google Adsense (mine does but is NOT a junk directory site) and can not have any affiliation type links
[edited by: martinibuster at 9:58 pm (utc) on April 4, 2005]
[edit reason] spelling [/edit]
| This 142 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 142 ( 1 2  4 5 ) > > |