| 9:17 pm on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
That's not a partial penalization. It's banned.
How many of those three million pages are rich deep content versus thinner pages?
| 9:28 pm on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The vast majority are product pages with not too much as ways of descrirption.
But even without the product pages, you'd expect more than the home page being indexed.
| 11:31 pm on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If you do a site search on your domain, and all you get is your home page, then you are banned.
| 12:16 am on Nov 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo thinks that reciprocal link exchanges in any form are link farms.
When you submit to Yahoo directory, they have a look at your site. They may take your $299 and put you in the directory but if they find something they don't want such as reciprocal link exchanges, the will assign a manual penalty and you will soon be gone from the SERP's (not the directory).
I hear their reinclusion process does work though if you clean up your site.
| 2:59 am on Nov 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I confirm the recip links theory. Basically, you have to take down all your recip link pages in order to get back in when you are ready to resubmit. They'll never let you back in if you have link exchange pages.
However, it's been 3 weeks since they ambigously said my site was okay now, and I am still not in. I guess it can take a real long time to get indexed by Yahoo - even if you are cleaned up and resubmitted.
It's always been hard for me to get new sites even indexed in Yahoo. This resubmit acception is getting painful. Guess I should find something else to obsess on.
| 12:01 pm on Nov 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
yeah they are only bothered about link exchanges if you are banned. Its only a criteria for reinclusion. Criteria for a ban and criteria for reinclusion is quite different.
| 1:41 am on Nov 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good clarification and accurate.
Quick question: When site match rolled out 1.5 years ago, they said you had to spend $15/month minimum for the first 100 clicks, - is there still a monthly spend fee? Or do they just bill you on clicks?
Looking through the Yahoo info, but they seem to be ambigious on this point.
| 1:50 am on Nov 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm supposed to meet with the client on Monday, so once I have more info I'll fill you guys in.
Thanks for the help.
| 2:00 am on Nov 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>Yahoo thinks that reciprocal link exchanges in any form are link farms.
I'm sorry buy this is not true.
Q: What's the difference between black and white?
| 4:40 am on Nov 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I also don't agree about reciprocals resulting in a ban. Real estate searches show many sites at the top with tons of recips.
| 5:24 am on Nov 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't buy the recip link penalty either.
But I agree with soapy to the extent that I wouldn't expect hugs and kisses from the reinclusion team for a site maintaining a recip link directory that rivals DMOZ in scope or has that links1.html architecture, etc. You know what I mean.
| 5:50 am on Nov 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Because the Yahoo search engine may not be able to (or simply does not currently) detect reciprocal links automatically, that does not mean Yahoo doesn't consider reciprocal links a link farm.
My comments earlier pertained to manual reviews of sites which would occur when submitting to the Yahoo directory or when requesting a reinclusion. If you don't think that reciprocal links are frowned upon by Yahoo, try submitting to the Yahoo directory a site which has a links page which requests reciprocal link exchanges. You may get into the directory but your search results will probably soon tank.
| 6:34 am on Nov 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> I wouldn't expect hugs and kisses from the reinclusion team
Yeah, I concur. Kinda sad though, isn't it? I'd give them a hug if I met them. They work so hard, and are very underappreciated. :-)
| 12:02 pm on Nov 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm reading this one with interest!
Yahoo penalized our site on March 16th, and for months we only had the index page listed. I tried to clean anything up that I could find, and asked for reinclusion a few times. We now have about 20 pages in the serps, but don't rank in the top 100 (even for our url).
We have a reciprocal links directory that we set-up, but never did much with. We have 12 pages and 26 outbounds. Although it looks like a standard resource directory, I never thought it would create a problem.
I started setting up an rss feed for Yahoo yesterday to try to have them give me a second look. After reading this I am thinking about a new approach.
What do you guys think of moving my 26 outbound links onto a single page, and change the rest of the existing pages into articles
I don't claim to have any understanding of Yahoo's results, but I'd sure love to be back in them!
| 3:23 pm on Nov 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think reciprocating links is okay (although I don't see much use in it.)
If you mention 'reciprocal' anywhere on those 'resource' pages, I would remove that wording as that is what I think gets one in trouble.
[edited by: arbitrary at 3:27 pm (utc) on Nov. 7, 2005]
| 3:26 pm on Nov 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
THe only way I could get my sites BACK in was to take them all down and have no mention of it.
| 3:36 pm on Nov 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
what is the procedure to follow to get back in? Is there a yahoo link someone can provide?
thanks in advance.
| 9:20 pm on Nov 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You can use this link:
| 8:55 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I had my site re-included in Yahoo after receiving a penalty. I had some irrelevant links on my links page and after removing those, they let me back in.
| 9:48 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|When you submit to Yahoo directory, they have a look at your site. |
I think submitting to the directory (for free) prompted a look at my site and subsequent penalty. That being said, I sent a request, got back in and never removed my link directory.
| 10:25 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
a total hit and miss system. You are told to remove some links. Others are told to remove any link page BEFORE they will even look.
Im sure you wrote a nice email. This seems to be key. A nice email seems the one constant. A skill i need to learn :)
| 12:12 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't think it has anything to do with a nice email. Yahoo workers are looking at a lot of emails every day. They appreciate the infomation delivered in a short, precise matter.
[edited by: martinibuster at 12:38 am (utc) on Nov. 10, 2005]
[edit reason] TOS. [/edit]
| 3:37 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I don't think it has anything to do with a nice email. Yahoo workers are looking at a lot of emails every day. They appreciate the infomation delivered in a short, precise matter. |
Everyone's different, but this was not the case with me. I wrote several emails / request. It was the final and longest one that did the trick. I know because each letter was about 2 months apart (yes, 2 months!).
| 9:47 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I hear their reinclusion process does work though if you clean up your site. |
It, "may work"; re-inclusion is definitely possible. What percent gets back in is a good question.
| 10:02 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|What percent gets back in is a good question. |
What percent deserves to get back in is also a good question.
| 9:20 pm on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
how sites that were reincluded with no changes came to be banned is an even better question.....
| 2:39 am on Nov 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I explained this in more detail here:
I'm not making this stuff up. I was completely out of Yahoo for about 4 months altogether. I explain what I though happened, but never changed a thing on my site.
| 9:06 am on Nov 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i dont doubt you at all. It highlights the question of how many sites came to be banned.
| 12:35 pm on Nov 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree, there are probably many sites that are removed that never should have been in the first place.
| This 47 message thread spans 2 pages: 47 (  2 ) > > |