homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.94.76
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Yahoo / Yahoo Search Engine and Directory
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Yahoo Search Engine and Directory Forum

    
Does a Yahoo over optimization penalty exist?
jaffstar




msg:828644
 6:50 am on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

We are all too familiar with a yahoo ban, where you site has only its homepage indexed, under the site:domain.com command.

What about this scenario:

Your site has all its pages indexed in Y, but suddenly dropped 300 positions in the serps.

Your domain name, title tag,h1 tag, kw density (onsite factors) are very similar, with very similar inbound anchor text.

Could this trigger it?

 

12scott34




msg:828645
 6:22 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes. Yahoo is getting smarter and smarter (even though the results don't show it : )

It depends also on what you mean by Over Optimization. Give me more detials and I can better answer the question.

12scott34




msg:828646
 6:25 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oops. Just ready your detials.

In short yes it can. But once again I've seen both sides of the story. I have a site that is so damn keyword and text link heavy it's rediculous. I did it as a test and the site ranks extremely well in Yahoo. I would penalize the thing if I were Yahoo but the site kicks but.

I also have seen several sites though that look to be banned from using the same technique as above.

I can't really give you a definitive answer other then I know you can get banned from this.

martinibuster




msg:828647
 8:29 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

12scott34,
heh. That doesn't make any sense at all... :(

Maybe it wasn't the keywords?

soapystar




msg:828648
 9:36 pm on May 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

12scott34

i see that all the time. The site that does well, does it rank only on limited terms?

Natashka




msg:828649
 6:11 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I had the similiar situation: my site was ranking well on my keywords, then suddenly dropped from index almost completely (though all pages remained in index, which indicated that the site was not banned, just penalized for smth).

My kewyord density was exactly as you described.

I didn't change a word on my site. What I did was:
I had like 9 links pointing to the different sections of my buddy's site. I removed 8 of them and left just 1.

After I've done that, my site returned back into yahoo serps in 3 days! I think you should carefuly check everybody you are linking to, but it's just one of the possible reasons. There are soooo many different reasons why your site may be penalized.

jaffstar




msg:828650
 8:19 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

My site ranked at 10.

My title tag was changed and I added "online widget at online widget.com"

I added a H1 tag "online widget"

2 days later the site sent 310.

The site has been growing over months now.

Natashka




msg:828651
 9:12 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

well, if you strongly suspect you've been penalized for that, return everything as it was before and see if it fixes the problem. If it doesn't, then put it back again and search further.

My site repeats my widgets 4 times in title: free widgets, online widgets, widgets at widgets etc... lol :)

Yahoo ignores my "widgets storm" though, and replaced it with the title from the directory, but still ranks me #3 on my beloved widgets.

robotsdobetter




msg:828652
 9:37 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I do think Yahoo does have a over optimization penalty. A few web sites I work on were both ranking in the top ten and than droped after a few changes to the site, after I added a h1 tag and changed the title tag. Later I changed everything back to the way it was before and got the ranking back in two days, so I suggest that you change it to the way it once was and see how it plays out from there.

jaffstar




msg:828653
 10:04 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

The great thing is it's a penalty NOT a ban :)

I have detuned the site, let's see what happens.

The strange thing, some of the top sites used the same forumlua as I did, however , I probably had too much so I triggered something.

soapystar




msg:828654
 10:30 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

your missing the point. Two sites, same structure, optimisation and links. One gets binned the other doesnt. Thats your starting point. Get two of these side by side and you will see it start to get intersting. A lot of the speculation above goes out of the window.

martinibuster




msg:828655
 2:44 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Two sites, same structure, optimisation and links. One gets binned the other doesnt.

Regarding message #3:
The reason I remarked that it doesn't make sense is that it was posted in the context of a discussion of an Over Optimization Penalty, which means an automatic function of the algorithm. If it's an automated process, then you will see it applied equally across the board.

It just doesn't make sense to claim that keyword spamming will get you banned, while admitting that a similar site that is doing that is doing exceptionally well. If you're seeing it both ways, then it's something other than an automated OOP at play.

If two related sites are keyword spamming and one gets booted and the other doesn't, then the logical assumption would be that it may be something else, like a manually applied ban.

So in the context of an automated ban, the above scenario doesn't hold water. Which is why I remarked that it doesn't make sense to claim it's automatic while simultaneously refuting the thesis by demonstrating that a similar site didn't get the ban.

It doesn't hold water in a historical context either, because Inktomi has always been partial to keyword density, and I might add, from where I sit, it still is.

I am not denying that it's possible to rank well in the algo then get a hand check that causes the site disappear. On the contrary, that's an entirely plausible scenario. But that's not an OOP. It's just quality control.

soapystar




msg:828656
 5:37 pm on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

mb thats not true at all. An automated filter that starts its filtering by going through (targetting) high achieving or over acheiving sites and comparing that to scale of other factors before carrying on the filter. So you could have two identical sites in terms of optimisation and structure but if one is being clicked on more, or they are in different sectors and one ranks for a larger number of terms because its slightly less competetive or a whole series of other factors one gets filtered and the other doesnt. The only point here is what the filter is actually targetting. If its only looking for over achievers then yes an automated fliter can handle two very similar sites differently. Thats just one example of how it can happen. There are many factors that are probably able to account for differences.

martinibuster




msg:828657
 5:00 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

An automated filter that starts its filtering by going through (targetting) high achieving or over acheiving sites and comparing that to scale of other factors before carrying on the filter.

Soapy,
You are talking about something completely different that has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. Let me explain.

OOP (Over Optimization Penalty) is a theory that came about with the Florida update. During Florida many members believed that Google was penalizing sites that were optimizing too much, and therefore looked less natural. When anyone talks about an Over Optimization Penalty, that is what is being spoken of.

You are talking about a scenario where a website that ranks well and receives clicks, and subsequently invites scrutiny because it is successful and is punished by Yahoo for being successful. That is NOT OOP. That is not what is under discussion.

The scenario you are talking about is the theory that Yahoo bans websites that compete with it, bla bla bla. That is NOT an OOP penalty.

OOP has nothing to do with how successful a site ranks, and how many clicks it receives. An OOP filter will wipe that website out BEFORE it even has a chance to rank- so it's not what you are talking about.

Let me repeat, a site caught in the OOP filter will never leave the gate, so it will never be successful to begin with. That is the nature of an OOP.

jaffstar




msg:828658
 6:56 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

OOP (Over Optimization Penalty) is a theory that came about with the Florida update. During Florida many members believed that Google was penalizing sites that were optimizing too much, and therefore looked less natural. When anyone talks about an Over Optimization Penalty, that is what is being spoken of.

Correct.

I will let you know if there is any change on this. I have taken out the the elements that could of caused it. We will see if anything happens.

soapystar




msg:828659
 8:47 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Soapy,
You are talking about something completely different that has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion.

Wrong. I am talking about oop in Yahoo and why two sites with the same optimization can be treated differently under different scenarios.


OOP (Over Optimization Penalty) is a theory that came about with the Florida update. During Florida many members believed that Google was penalizing sites that were optimizing too much, and therefore looked less natural. When anyone talks about an Over Optimization Penalty, that is what is being spoken of.

Yes I know that.


You are talking about a scenario where a website that ranks well and receives clicks, and subsequently invites scrutiny because it is successful and is punished by Yahoo for being successful. That is NOT OOP. That is not what is under discussion.

No Iím not. I was giving you an example of how an automated filter can treat similar sites differently in Yahoo. You missed my point totally. You guys are assuming the starting point for all optimization filters is the optimization itself. Im suggesting a filter can start by targeting a particular set of circumstances and use a reference index to decide if the site is organic or not or simply not in compliance with guidelines. All totally automated. For example it could run through a list of money terms looking for sites with more recips that one ways or linked from dodgy areas. It could use a whole set of reference points to decide if it over optimized or not. The balance being between the target of the filter and the optimization score. So a less achieving site could go unfiltered for the same stuff that sees a high achieving site binned. When I talked about clicks I was making a small simple example, it wasnít the basis of the whole idea. This IS OOP. It is under discussion.


The scenario you are talking about is the theory that Yahoo bans websites that compete with it, bla bla bla. That is NOT an OOP penalty.

Not at all. Where did I mention sites competeing with it? As far as I can tell it wasnít mentioned till you brought it up. Of course that wouldnít be OOP and thatís not what I set out.

the only reason i am putting this forward is because you said if two sites with the same optimisation are treated differently it shows the filter is not automated. I strognly disagree with that.

jaffstar




msg:828660
 10:14 am on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Site is detuned, still have not recovered.

Swanson




msg:828661
 12:49 am on May 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yahoo uses an automated filter for OO websites - I can prove this.

Every site that I have used too many similar internal content templates I have been reduced to the 2 pages listed syndrome (2 home pages) that others speak of. This is automated and I suspect quite tight a penalisation.

For the innocent guys out there - unlucky, a poor judgement call for you - but how do the SERPS look?

If you are reading these forums then don't do anything remotely similar in content if you want traffic from Yahoo long term - I say long term because short term any type of content can get a ranking.

jaffstar




msg:828662
 7:15 am on May 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

Good news Guys!

Removed the H1 Tag, Recovered 300 positions!

Happy again :)

soapystar




msg:828663
 9:15 am on May 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

swanson..agree with that except i dont agree its a straight oo filter...i think oo is weighed against other factors....thats also not to say oo penalties are totally automated either..clearly theirs a mixture of different things happening concurrently....

fiu88




msg:828664
 5:46 am on May 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Happened to me when I made all dynamic page titles display as the product description ....Funny, I went up in G after I did this...

Garya




msg:828665
 7:09 am on May 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Noone is talking about an age factor here. I have about 80 sites up, I have noticed all my older sites with old keywords move all the way up in yahoo and the newer bl's have move down.

jaffstar




msg:828666
 7:32 am on May 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

the way up in yahoo and the newer bl's have move down.

You mean new bl's to new or old sites?

caveman




msg:828667
 5:22 pm on May 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Very interesting thread. I also have noticed lately what appears to me to be the use of OOP filters by Yahoo.

Some ranking changes seemed to be triggered by page changes (tweaking of SEO related page elements can certainly be viewed as attempts to manipulate the SERP's).

Some ranking changes seemed to be triggered as new filters were apparently instituted, where no site/page changed occured, offering clues to the sorts of things being targeted.

Of course, this all broadly speaking falls under the category of algo evolution.

IMO, Y is getting more like G over time ... not always in the end results (as reflected by the SERP's) ... but rather more in the way Y approaches their algo development over time. Y seems to take pages from G's book from time to time, just applying different choices and values than G does.

My 2 cents, and probably worth about that much. ;-)

jaffstar




msg:828668
 7:51 am on May 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am now at the point where have an H1 tag made me #2 on Msn, but out of Yahoo.

I am playing things safe, this is a fine case where cloaking would be beneficial.

BillyS




msg:828669
 12:39 pm on May 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am now at the point where have an H1 tag made me #2 on Msn, but out of Yahoo.

I'm not sure what else you have on your pages, but based on my experience H1 (one per page) is not a problem on Yahoo.

caveman




msg:828670
 6:47 pm on May 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

jaffstar I agree with BillyS. H1 by itself surely isn't an issue. Maybe too much overall use of one or two kw's though, including H1, might be. H1 might have tipped it all over too far. Or, it could have been coincidence.

jaffstar




msg:828671
 9:55 am on May 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree, its not just the h1, the h1 seems to be the straw the broke the camels back.

The site is highly optimized. One other point, I experimented with duplicate keywords in the title tag.

widgets at widget.com , this could also be an issue.

arras




msg:828672
 10:06 am on May 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

i believe there is not any filter in Yahoo,they just remove pages that they don't like or are competitive mostly travel pages manually.If was possible and not against the TOS i can show you white sites but top in Google only index indexed in Yahoo because they are just competitive to Yahoo travel.And i can show you spam pages on top of other searches that have no penalty or filter,come on guys if yahoo does not like you ,removes you manually.All philosophy about filters are flying pigs.

Galtego




msg:828673
 12:13 pm on May 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Does a site's showing up using a quoted unique search with the first form at [add.yahoo.com...] mean that a site is not removed? Is there another way to tell if one is banned?

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Yahoo / Yahoo Search Engine and Directory
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved