homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.43.155
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

This 63 message thread spans 3 pages: 63 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Pay $300 for Yahoo inclusion
And another $300 annually!
ggrot




msg:821559
 3:29 am on Dec 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

Yahoo Tos [docs.yahoo.com]

Looks like new submissions now require that you pay to be re-reviewed every year. Haha. It's still worth it for some sites, but thats a little much IMHO. For most, its money better spent on goto. And as soon as next year's renewal fees come in, they'll probably change the entire SERP's to PPC. Lol.

 

Laisha




msg:821560
 4:31 am on Dec 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

I swear, I live for the day that the surfing public decides Yahoo is useless so we don't have to deal with them anymore.

Arrogant and rude, if you ask me: Arrogant to think that they can continue to rape submitters into perpetuity based not on quality, but on the lowing herds of uneducated consumers who use a directory based on their advertising; and rude to make such a change with no notice to anyone.

*looking for a voodoo doll*

Liane




msg:821561
 2:11 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

From the Search Engine awards thread:

>but I'll add that I think Yahoo is in more trouble than most think. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if its gone or bought out by year end 2002.<

I stand by that statement. Perhaps it will happen sooner rather than later.

littleman




msg:821562
 2:36 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

I had a feeling it was coming, but man that is some steep costs. That is $0.82 a day just for placement below the GoTo results. That's it for the niche sites, the only folks who are going to go for it are folks in high converting e-commerce -- viagra, and fat loss drugs.

ijan




msg:821563
 3:01 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

This is a big bad joke, isn't it? So mighty Yahoo speaks: "If you don't pay us $300/year, we will remove your site regardless of how good it is. We don't care about our visitors either. The only sites they need to see are shopping sites in one form or another." It is only natural that they don't have any motivation to accept or even visit sites submitted free. As I mentioned in other threads before, my site hasn't seen a single Yahoo editor for the last 9 months although I submitted it a couple of times during that period. But it did have the honor of serving a couple of Yahoo employees arriving from search engines (all from Google) who were looking for something else of course. At least, honest players are prospering (e.g. Google) while Yahoo is sinking.

littleman




msg:821564
 3:07 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

So, now all that is left is for yahoo? to dump google and go with Ink -- then they will have monetized their entire listings, and the money they will loose in submissions will be made up by the ppc and ink kickbacks.

Watch for more Yahoo? ads running as they try to grab new/stupid web-users to click and make them cash.

Tapolyai




msg:821565
 3:30 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

The biggest kicker is how "fresh" Yahoo is. I have a site that died, oh, about 5 years, no 6! years ago, the listing is still there. Of course my new sites are rejected.

chiyo




msg:821566
 4:06 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

My view is that Yahoo is milking the original loss leader before it dies completely. Yahoo has basically been downgrading search for many months, and moving towards a portal model where people will pay an annual fee to access their portal features (Which are much better than their search). stock quotes, web space, email, messenger, yahoo groups, email list services, yahoo site services (hosting), yahoo shop, games, news etc, all with the one password.

It suits new browsers very well. Yahoo is continuing to improve quality of these offerings with a view to making their target demographic so reliant on the system that when fees are intriduced, they have a choice of paying, or having to go out an search for anothe free portal or lots of separate services all with their own username/password/intricacies etc.

Its not a bad model, really pitching to dominate the personal portal brand space with MSN being the major competitor and maybe a couple more. Their aim, I think, is to become as synonyomous with portal services as they were in the early days with Search.

They have given up on search as a revenue model. Yahoo knows they will not make enough money to survive through search so they are downgrading it, and don't really care about the quality of it. And they are going out with a bang and some nice revenue for a dying service. Thie results have been bad for a long time. Agree with previous poster. Our listings from 6 years ago are still there - abandoned pages full of dated material.

Only a few biggies will make money out of search - that is being left to Google and Overture right now.

Vishal




msg:821567
 4:45 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

I was wondering, what if SEO community stops promoting Yahoo, how many submissions would Yahoo loose every day/month/year.

Also, I don't think, this new policy will help Yahoo getting any small businesses listed within their directory.

I personally believe that this new policy is going to have a very short life - and if not, then Yahoo will !!!

Hunter




msg:821568
 4:56 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

One of the first Usenet postings by Yahoo! co-founder Jerry Yang

groups search [groups.google.com]

SuperSoup




msg:821569
 5:01 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

Its my opinion but i think yahoo has lost all of its quality! Didn't it get popular because it was human edited, well now only the sites that have the $$ will make the cut there goes quality out the window. This new move stinks!

chiyo




msg:821570
 5:34 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

What a great look back into history Hunter!

It almost made me shiver. That wonderful simple text page which communicates so much better than the grpahic wonders of today.

It brought back memories how the Web developed in the early days with USENET a key part, and normal guys just having a go and being creative. Now some of these guys are millionaires, but struggling to survive while the Web continues to develop at high speed.. continually having to adjust revenue models...

NeoN




msg:821571
 5:56 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

Buy, yahoo!
They either change this stupid quote.. Ot they will vanish from the search market!
yes, they are focusing on other services now.. BUT !!! But only because Yahoo! is the most popular site, those services can live! I mean, SEARCH is the thing, that drives traffic to them..
When they lose the search, there is no need in free gosting and e-mail and so on..

Buy,Yahoo!

Robert Charlton




msg:821572
 6:19 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

I'm concerned that the fortunes of Google are perhaps in some ways linked to the fortunes of Yahoo. I like Google....

Lothar




msg:821573
 6:37 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

Aye Carumba! I had a feeling Yahoo would do this someday. That recurring price increase will definitely hinder my ability to promote a site through Yahoo any longer. At $299 as a one-time fee, I could justify the cost but at $299 a year???

I'm starting to get very discouraged with the search engine world as of Dec 2001. With Google dropping/penalizing sites, Overture/Goto basically dominating, and Inktomi's price increases... It simply is getting harder and harder to promote via search engines. I hate to say it, but there will come a day when small businesses can't compete on the search engines and that day is coming really soon. Similar to the small "corner" hardware stores that all got put out of business by your local Home Depot. It's no different on the net unfortunately.

TMK




msg:821574
 8:08 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

Yahoo. Come on $299US thats about $584 AUD, for a listing.

Sounds a little too rich for my liking.

tigger




msg:821575
 8:27 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

CRAZY!

>Sounds a little too rich for my liking

I think it will be too rich for most people! Yahoo takes yet one more step towards jumping off the cliff, Oh I look forward to that day so much :)

chiyo




msg:821576
 8:28 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

Apologies to those who have been exposed to my rambling missive on this before, but I feel that the concern about small, non-commercial, sites not being able to compete is justified just now, but not for long.

People WILL need to search for the individual, targeted and unique content that makes the Web the Web. As these sites get pushed down the SERPS, other mechanisms will evolve for making content like this available and with good exposure.

At the same time people WILL tire of the commercial content served up by mainstream engine SERPS - not all, but certain important groups such as hobbyists, amateur and professional researchers, and those looking for high quality original content in a very specific field..(My dad has a strange disease - what does it mean? - Iid find it on the Web -) These people will move to a new set of tools already evolving to fill the gap for non-commercial, uniqiue and quality content.

There are many things happening - on top of the head just now-
* subject related vortels built up by communities with similar interests,
* an increase in givernment and NGO web guides and content,
* Weblog communities
* RSS style news distribution (see newsisfree where all sites can resgitser their news headlines, daypop, etc. etc.
* We will probbaly always have places like ODP

All assumes that people will tire of the commercial web, and at least a part of it will remain true to the Berners Lee vision.- an interrelated set of documents where democracy rules and those pages most linked to rise to good exposure. Google is helping too with Pagerank

The main problem is getting these new breed of search facilities known. There is no value in it for people like MS/MSN, AOL/Time-Warner, Yahoo, which are at present driving the commercialization of the Web. They will use their money to drive people to sites that sell or brand their publishing and other properties. They aim to blanket out non-commercial community use of the Web with massive online advertising budgets.

My feeling is that there will be a backlash against the commercialization and big business domination of the Web - broad based - Somehow that will need to be taken advantage of - I dont know how yet, but I still hold up an overly optmistic hope for some form of micropayments to finally happen (it didnt happen earlier because big companies saw that it could reduce their influence).. for systems like PayPal/amazon-donate/ etc to mature.

The key is not to create a "free web" which was the "big thing" 2 or 3 years ago, - the little guys still needs to make money too - and a "free web" idea is logically flawed.. but one where anybody with the ideas, dedication but not necessarilly a budget can compete effectively against publishing and commercial oligarchies...

In summary, I'm not pessimitic.. but dont know yet how it will be achieved. Then again anybody who has followed the Web develpment from its inception will know that things happen fast in the medium.

angiolo




msg:821577
 9:27 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

300 $ per year is not so expensive considering the trafic from Yahoo: I hope we can have the opportunity to refine title and description too.

For several sites it is less expensive than Inktomi or Altavista paid inclusion.

I am curious about how they will manage it; this rule should apply only to the new submissions; they must honor old contracts.

What about the old free accepted listings? Will Yahoo send email notification to the web pioneers to pay or to be fired?

I think that soon DMOZ will become the best directory on the net. It is not unusual to find better quality information in DMOZ than in Yahoo.

Napoleon




msg:821578
 9:40 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

A great shame... more so for Yahoo.

The increase to $299 made the investment edgy in many cases. At $299 per year it is just not justifiable in 99% of cases. The net result is that my submissions will shrink (actually they will all but disappear)as I find better places to invest.

The unethical method of introduction (ie: slipping it in the T&C, and at this time of year) speaks volumes about Yahoo and their attitude to customers.

I too will now be glad to see them go. They've brought it on themselves.

markd




msg:821579
 10:24 am on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

This is the last straw for me.

I can't reasonably run a business which includes Yahoo as an option when they reject sites IMHO based on the whim of an editor, up their prices without notice (with the knock on effect on my business) and then decide on an annual fee.

I have been pointing out to clients that Yahoo is now a 'speculative risk', which will pay off if the site is accepted but will be money wasted if you are not. There really are better things to spend an web-based promotional budget on these days, particularly if you are an SME which is looking for a good ROI on their investment.

Particularly as the SERPS seem to vary as much as Yahoo's pricing policies.

Even the most optimistic pundit is saying that the next 12 months will be 'hard', both in the UK and the US. But Yahoo sit in their 'Canute-like' throne putting up prices and adding no additional value, no doubt thinking that their 'importance' to the SE landscape will stop the tide.

Yahoo is now officially classified as 'a second tier option' by me!

pgsbs




msg:821580
 12:13 pm on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

We must remind that the visitors of Yahoo are not crazy. Only big companies will buy a listing on Yahoo. Smaller sites will not do so, but for the visitors at Yahoo that's not good. They're searching for certain information and I'm sure that "commercial sites" won't provide that information.

An example is ateaseweb.com (I hope this link won't be removed, it ain't my own site). The biggest Radiohead site on the net. But made by a "simple fan" with no commercial interests. The Yahoo public must miss sites like these... And they won't accept that on the long term.

dwedeking




msg:821581
 3:49 pm on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

Should cut overhead. They will only need a handful of reviewers now.

dwedeking




msg:821582
 3:59 pm on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

Just found a bright side. Here's the scenario. You submit to Yahoo! and flub it. Get in but poor rankings. Cancel the subscriptions and let it fall off next year. Then resubmit with a fixed title/description.

Napoleon




msg:821583
 4:03 pm on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

Another upside is that the declining relevancy will drive more searchers directly to Google, which is free.

Laisha




msg:821584
 5:00 pm on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

>Cancel the subscriptions and let it fall off next year.

Is there a way to do that? I tried to find something.

Prior to this, I have included submission fees in the cost of our service and then charged it to my credit card. Since my longest contracts are for one year, I am certainly not going to take on a client and obligate myself to paying for their listing after my contract with them has expired.

tigger




msg:821585
 5:12 pm on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

Laisha

I was thinking the same, yahoo is going to have to offer SEO's an option to renew otherwise we will not be submitting any sites. Which I think will be the case anyway, most of my clients are small and donít mind paying $299 but they wonít pay it each year

dwedeking




msg:821586
 5:15 pm on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

According to their information you submit a faxed request to cancel the charge. I was thinking that a invoice goes out 60 days prior to our clients and then I will fax over the request for cancel if not paid 30 days prior by the client.

john316




msg:821587
 5:20 pm on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

Courts normally frown on the "if we don't hear from you, we'll take your money" form of renewals.

[edit] it's called "negative option marketing"[edit]

I'm sure they will change the policy.

Laisha




msg:821588
 5:28 pm on Dec 29, 2001 (gmt 0)

>...most of my clients are small and donít mind paying $299 but they wonít pay it each year.

Same here.

I'm thinking my Fortune 1000 and government sites actually wouldn't have a problem with it. They're usually looking for money to burn, particularly around this time of year.

But my little and medium-sized guys -- the sign shop, the lady who sells birdfeed, or the guy who offers hot balloon rides -- if they were coming to me just now, I'd steer them away from Yahoo entirely. I think I'd tell them about it, but would suggest a strategy whereby we attack GoTo (with its other perks) and Google as an alternative.

Eventually, Yahoo users will realize that they are being shafted in that they are only getting either old (pre-December 2001) listings or those belonging to big businesses.

As a consumer, I object to the nearly total relevance void on the major search engines. If I'm looking for information about poodles, I quite likely won't find it on Purina's site. I would find it on a dog hobbyist's site, or a groomer or breeder's site. And those people aren't going to get the ROI to justify their outlay of this ransom to Yahoo.

As a professional, I object just as strenuously, because my favorite clients are the struggling little guys, and Yahoo has joined LS and AltaVista in forcefeeding those people yet another slice of s**t pie.

This 63 message thread spans 3 pages: 63 ( [1] 2 3 > >
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