| 6:19 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have discussed this with people before. I know for a fact that there is a large relationship between Yahoo ranking and Google PR/ranking.
Our site sat in the #3 and sometimes #2 spot, with good rankings in Google and a PR of 6. Then our site got hit with a penalty, our PR got wiped and we were out of the DB for 3 months. Our Yahoo rankings instantly plummeted to below 200.
Now our Google rankings and PR are back, and guess who followed along?......Yahoo rankings back to the top 5.
I am not sure why this has never been publicly discussed before.
| 6:47 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
We have discussed it before, but many people just don't won't to believe it. It became quite obvious when the PRzero penalty hit. all the sites I looked at that got the penalty, also dissappeared from Yahoo SERPS.
Yahoo is absolutely, without question using PR to sort directory results.
| 7:11 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Oh boy, rather scary... It should be called "double whammy penalty" then.
| 7:43 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Pays to play clean, doesn't it?
| 8:29 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>> PR directly influencing Yahoo directory results
Ree-lee?? Makes sense if you think about it, Y! are already pulling a feed from Google for their google.yahoo results. Why not pull the PR too? It makes the Y! results look more like GG results ;)
Google have demonstrated a tendency to strong-arm trheir partners (anyone think the ODP green ball link was ODPs idea?)
| 9:04 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Not wishing to beat drum - but didn't I point this out [webmasterworld.com] quite a while ago? It has been pooh-poohed many times - but obvious facts are obvious facts! Nice to see people starting to agree (at last).
It is seen regularly, if you handle a lot of sites - especially if a few of them get banned/PR0 and then unbanned/PR1+.
(edited by: makemetop at 9:14 pm (utc) on Mar. 21, 2002)
| 9:09 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>bit didn't I point this out quite a while ago?
Yes, but at the time it wasn't true :)
We need much more data to be sure *and* there is a huge difference from saying that Y! penalises sites with PR0 compared to Y! uses PR to rank it's SERP's.
I have a guy working on collecting the data now, give it a month and maybe things will be clearer.
| 9:17 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Oh, that's a bit unfair. I'll accept it was/is a theory not proven or was/is in doubt - but I believe it was as true then as I believe it is true now.
Looking forward to the research though :)
| 9:21 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hey Makemetop, don't feel bad, I was right with ya! It was only a theory of mine back then, but now I know it is a fact.
| 9:22 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
| 9:28 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>but I believe it was as true then as I believe it is true now.
We will have to disagree on that one. :)
This worries me:
If Google were providing the tech to rank the Y! SERP's then I feel that it is a core area of Y!'s business. If that is the case then surely they would have to declare their "reliance" on a third party provider in their SEC filings. They don't according to filings dated the 15th of this month.
| 9:41 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Now that IS really interesting.
I have a site that was accepted into Yahoo 5 weeks ago and ranked in the top 5 for a highly competitive phrase. Normally I expect the site to sink down after about 4 weeks until it gains some sort of PageRank when it then rises again. The site was accepted into the ODP a week later and was spidered by Google. Due to certain things not to be discussed here - the site was removed a week later from the ODP and got hit by a PR0 a week later in Google. Though we SEOs often talk about our sites having no spam content - this one really does not! (Sticky me for details). No links out (apart to a Government site) - no links in - apart from Yahoo, L$ and the (abortive) ODP listing.
Yahoo UK then moved the site to last position overnight and I expect the same thing to happen on main Yahoo within 48hrs of the next Google update (it is still in the top 5).
Having told the client my theory they are VERY interested to see if Yahoo are taking Google's idea of a 'quality' site into consideration - rather than being a directory ranking sites on merit and popularity (via click-through) or other things in their own algo.
I'm now even more interested in any forthcoming research (apart from my own)!
| 9:46 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Though we SEOs often talk about our sites having no spam content - this one really does not!
Does the IP belong to a C class that you also promote?
| 10:16 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Does the IP belong to a C class that you also promote?
No. Completely different host, different country , different C block :)
Once bitten (or thought I felt a yapping at my heels) twice shy.
| 10:33 pm on Mar 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The PR thing has never been as obvious as it has in this last update/algo change (thanks for the rundown dave83, that is nice work). Before we thought it had to do with click pop but even that was very sketchy. The algo seemed to be rotating or had some factors that just couldn't be nailed down. PR was one of the first things looked at but could not find any exact correlation every time (I am talking a few months ago - November - [webmasterworld.com...] ). But again, as dave had pointed out, there it is.
| 12:01 am on Mar 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I hate to throw a wrench in this but one of my clients has a pr0 site that has a ranking of #17 on page 1.
<added>A little more history on this is probably appropriate. The site was firmly entrenched in the #1 spot for more than a year. Then, late last year, they received the pr0. Then a month ago the site dropped to #200 or something. Then a couple of weeks ago it rose to #17, still with a pr of zilch. I have to say that the 16 in front of us include a few legitimate sites for our keywords, but a few of them are far off target.</added>
| 11:39 pm on Mar 22, 2002 (gmt 0)|
a number of our sites got pr0 and since then have been at the bottom of yahoo. not 100% correlation, but as much as u can get for a theory in search engine land.
what makes me quite mad is that u pay $300 for a listing, then another company decide your site is crap, and then yahoo use that external decision to s**t on your $300.
Thats worse than ink, overture and av put together!
| 12:57 am on Mar 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It all depends on the search term. For some 1 word keywords, they rely on Google's PR for rankings. When you get into 2 or 3 word keywords, especially the less competitive ones, they rely a lot more on the title and description.
| 10:33 pm on Mar 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>For some 1 word keywords, they rely on Google's PR for rankings
Maybe it is Google relying on Y!
>It all depends on the search term
They either do or they don't. imho
| 7:06 am on Mar 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This topic got me checking... All of my first place Google rankings hold similar rankings on Yahoo. I though, the rankings are not identical with Google's for the sites directly below me... there is a different order there.
| 11:23 pm on Apr 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This was complete news to me but after checking my competitors I am sure it is true. Another reason to stick to my plan of buying links from pages with high PR's to boost my Page Rank.
Thank you Dave83 for bringing this up.
| 9:06 pm on Apr 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for bringing up this important Yahoo! topic Dave83
Has anyone begun to understand the interval that Yahoo! queries against google and refreshes it's own results.
I'm almost positive that it isn't live time.
| 12:07 am on Apr 25, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I have a guy working on collecting the data now, give it a month and maybe things will be clearer. |
A month has passed, have you got any interesting results that you would be willing to share?
| 11:50 pm on Apr 25, 2002 (gmt 0)|
How do you explain sites ranked top 5 in yahoo serps for the most competetive adult search terms and these sites are NOT even in Google at all?
| 8:32 am on Apr 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Waiting for this update to settle BUT a penalty at Google will transfer to Y!. Make of that what you will.
>these sites are NOT even in Google at all?
Going to play about with some aspects of that.
| 5:10 pm on Apr 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
<comment deleted by egomaniac to start a new thread>
| 8:20 pm on Apr 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I am a new member, so if this has been discussed elsewhere, please accept my apologies. I read above that there is a direct correlation between Google PR and Yahoo! Directory listings. However, my site has a pr of 4, yet I have been watching it's Y! rankings go down. This month alone, my site went from position 58 to 69 under a popular search term in Y!. There are at least 2 sites with Google PR0 that have higher rankings than mine under the same search term. Any ideas why this might be happening? Again, my site has Google PR4.
| 9:46 pm on Apr 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>there is a direct correlation between Google PR and Yahoo! Directory listings
Some think there is, some don't.
The key is it doesn't matter....the tactics don't change. If they do or don't are you going to shoot for a lower PR....no...the game is the same, build that PR...let it flow.
The advantadge will only come if you think out of the box...keep the faith and look for the advantadge...the advantadge won't come from following the herd...play the PR game enjoy the fruits of your labour at G! and if it happens to flow through to Y! too...that's cool! BUT what advantadge is there?...none...the game remains the same.
Look hard at Y!, find reasons to disagree with the PR angle and go with them...[the PRO is a whole different game, common business practice is to pass round lists of the "bad boys"]...think on this..
Does click tracking on the Yahoogle results affect rankings in the Y! search?
| 2:40 am on Apr 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>However, my site has a pr of 4, yet I have been watching it's Y! rankings go down. This month alone, my site went from position 58 to 69 under a popular search term in Y!. There are at least 2 sites with Google PR0 that have higher rankings than mine under the same search term. Any ideas why this might be happening?
I would have to think that this was due to yahoo adding new sites in above you that haven't been indexed by google yet. Yahoo usually adds all new sites in a relatively decent location for the first few weeks and then makes an adjustment to these sites.
| This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: 45 (  2 ) > > |