| 5:18 pm on May 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Have you changed anything?
When did your SERP position change?
| 8:10 pm on May 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
menton - how active is Yahoo in spidering your website? What is the ratio of page hits to robots.txt hits?
For example, AWSTATS shows 1,684 page hits and 283 robots.txt hits as of yesterday.
| 10:27 pm on May 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Many of us have been having issues with Yahoo! since they began their updates using their "improved technology". Many of us have found our sites either de-listed or dropped down the serps. You can catch up with this thread and see if it applies to you as well :
| 4:42 am on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone got a contact URL for Yahoo - they've ignored the last 2 requests on this.
We've had a problem with our home page on Yahoo for some time - perhaps 6 months. The inside pages are mostly fine.
There is no description, the title is being pulled from a link and if you have a look at the cache of that listing, it is blank.
This means we are ranking on the strength of our inbound links alone. If we can get Yahoo to cache the page properly, we would shoot into the top 10 – at least.
Can anyone let us know how we can get some action happening - it seems to be a fairly widespread problem.
| 4:59 am on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
hmmm .... i got a bit frustrated so I have submitted it through the Yahoo Add URL page – whether this will help remains to be seen.
Also i took the risk of paying for inclusion in the Yahoo Directory, which is $US299 / year:
which might unplug it.
Does anyone have a better or suggestion or have i just burned my wallet :)
| 6:56 am on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well i paid my $299 to the Yahoo UK directory and the problem is fixed!
Talk about fast , only a few hours, ..... previously i was hanging on for 6 months or so.
Hope this gives you all some clues. [ If only Google was as responsive I'd gladly pay!
Paid Google Support [webmasterworld.com]]
| 7:31 am on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just hold off on this assumption - sorry my SEO re submitted the site which may have cleared it.
We're going to try the same for another site with the same problem to identify if the URL submit [ and not the directory ] is to be congratulated.
Sorry for the confusion.
| 7:57 am on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Having read your post I tried to see the cache...
In the first searches there were no cache for several sites, but doing the same searches few minutes later everything was in order....
Probably a temporary glitch...
| 8:22 am on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo was that fast? Well, I'm definately in if that's the case.
Money well spent IMO.
| 9:03 am on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Its worth noting that our Yahoo Paid Inclusion service has our paid URLs updated every 48 hours and therefore Yahoo do not include a Cache for our paid inclusion pages.
I think this is standard practise - why bother caching if you update the page every 48 hours.
| 12:51 am on May 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ellio - Could you clarify the above.
Are you saying that if you submit to the "paid" submission there is no sense in concerning oneself with the regular caching?
For everyone's information, we submitted our other sites on Fri [ 4 days ago ] on the regular submit [ not the paid submit ] and nothing yet has happened.
| 9:21 am on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Our .com & .co.uk sites are now showing the meta title and are cached. On the .com site we did not pay for the directory listing.
On a 3rd site .com.au we paid for a directory listing & applied the normal submit URL process and have not seen any change.
Therefore, my conclusion is that the regular submit process is probably sufficient and fast.
| 12:36 pm on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How long did the regular submit process take? I have submitted a couple of sites but haven't seen anything yet.
Thanks for your posts on this topic... really helped
| 2:14 pm on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Are you referring to paid inclusion into the search.yahoo search engine index, or the Yahoo directory?
Paid inclusion is a gamble, since they offer no guarantee your site will be included. They can take your money and give you nothing in return. If they offered a money-back guarantee, I would feel much more confident about using their service.
| 2:32 pm on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Is the UK directory not free to submit?
| 4:52 pm on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Paid inclusion is a gamble, since they offer no guarantee your site will be included. |
You're thinking of the archaic paid inclusion - which, to my knowledge, doesn't even exist anymore.
| 11:13 pm on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Menton - How long did the regular submit process take? I have submitted a couple of sites but haven't seen anything yet. |
Around 2-4 hours for a regular "submit URL" to clear.
But .com.au still hasn't cleared
| 11:16 pm on May 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Webdetective - Are you referring to paid inclusion into the search.yahoo search engine index, or the Yahoo directory? |
We used the regular "free" submit to search and the "paid" inclusion to the directory.
| 3:37 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If I already asked yahoo about my yahoo troubles, and they replied back to say there is no indication my site is under any penalty, should I consider writing them the old-fashioned way, via US mail?
I even inquired about demotion penalties and they said I'm not under any penalty, so maybe there is a technical glitch with their cache that only they can fix. Only my homepage is being cached, and I am not getting any hits from yahoo.
| 9:48 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
webdetective - yesterday our site on .com.au was finally restored after 4 attempts at re submitting the site and an email exchange through Yahoo's search support.
They indicated that robots.txt had been applied in the wrong place [ which was wrong ] and we had several email exchanges before they [ may ] have restored the site.
Subscribing to the directories made no difference as far as we can tell.
The 2 other sites were restored earlier in the week [ within 2 hours ] with the normal submit.
Hope this throws some light on how best to handle things
| 11:32 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Actually I rechecked Yahoo's April 16 reply and they said there are no current indications that my pages have been blocked from the Yahoo! index.
My robots.txt file is in my root directory, same location as my homepage so it should be ok. I have in there an exclusion for slurp not to spider my reciprocal links pages. (some claim Yahoo dislikes reciprocal linking)
I have read a few people's posts from other threads warning that sending Yahoo too many messages regarding penalties against their sites made matters worse, while others have claimed success.
Last time I emailed Yahoo was in mid April, so maybe it's time to bug them again. I probably should not use the re-review link, since that's for penalized sites.
| 12:37 am on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Are you a regional URL? [ not that it may make a difference ]
Which URL are you submitting through?
Irrespective, I'd persist with your Q's and not be put off if you believe the answer isn't accurate. My experience is that they are human and capable of making errors in their judgements.
One thing, when you receive the reference in the return email, it may be in your interests to both reply to that email, *and* submit a new request.
Different operators at the other end often see things differently, however there's no harm in referring them to the other message/email.
Hope this helps ..... please let us know.
| 2:09 am on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No, just a .com domain.
Everytime I ask Yahoo a question, either a new one or reply to their message, they always give me the standard reply about robots exclusion protocals, and never address my real problem. It always comes from the same person. My last communication with Yahoo was Apr 17.
| 9:00 pm on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Some folks have sent me a sticky for the correct submission url - here it is :
Yahoo Submission [add.yahoo.com]
| 10:00 pm on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo is just having problems and there is nothing that can be done right now. On the site:mysite.com search they are showing 4 unrleated urls that utilize a 302 to my homepage. If I click on the "cached" link, it says you are viewing the cache of the unrelated referring url. I thought Yahoo had matured beyond this 302 problem 2 years ago.
I have posted about this in another thread, but no one shows any interest. I guess I/we have to wait their indexing problems out, or just ignore it and move on.
| 10:17 pm on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If what I'm experiencing is Yahoo's indexing problems, they are sure taking a long time to fix it. This problem has been effecting my site for 9 months.
Last year, Yahoo was my biggest source of hits and business. Google has been next to impossible to get anywhere with both then and now. MSN is easy but it's such a small marketshare why bother?
| 3:49 am on May 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just got a reply back from Yahoo today.
It has been determined that your site may not comply with Yahoo!'s Content Quality Guidelines located at:
Now I must figure out what they don't like. I suspect my "resources" reciprocal link directory pages is likely the problem, but I'm not 100% sure.
I checked over my site with copyscape.com and found no duplicate content on my main site, however I found a ton of it on most of my reciprocal links pages all coming from my link partner's titles and descriptions. I'm not sure how to approach this. Maybe I should I severely weed out my reciprocal links, and keep only a tiny handful of the highest quality related links. I think most people here would agree I should get rid of all unrelated links Ie: pharma, gambling, travel, etc..
| 4:17 am on May 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The words are "may" and operators can often give mis information.
I suggest that you seek out a professional and reputable SEO in your area to give you some feedback as a 2nd opinion, tidy up your site and then put a reinclusion request in.
$500 should cover an initial look .
Be also careful, because "may" might mean other simple things need to be addressed as well.
btw - I'm no SEO, so please don't ask me :)
| 12:03 pm on May 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
That's true. Both Yahoo and Google alike give only vague answers that leave you guessing. It's as if you're supposed to already know exactly what you did wrong.
In fact I did exactly that. I hired a professional SEO trainer last month for quite a bit more money than that. She told me yesterday her supervisor looked at my site and claimed my entire blog is the problem, and spiders hate it. She said I need to "write my blog in my own words." I disagree. When I checked it at copyscape, I found only one post contained a few sentences of duplicate content, so I completely rewrote it and corrected the problem. I didn't find anymore duplicate content there for now.
I think my reciprocal links directory is likely the problem. The reason it shows lots of duplicate content is because link partners naturally use their same information all over the net, so this is unavoidable. Apparently, putting in a robots.txt exclusion to these pages for Slurp isn't good enough for Yahoo.
Some people both here and other SEO sites have claimed Yahoo hates reciprocal linking, and some have gotten back into Yahoo shortly after having removed theirs entirely.
| This 42 message thread spans 2 pages: 42 (  2 ) > > |