homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Yahoo / Yahoo Search Engine and Directory
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Yahoo Search Engine and Directory Forum

This 86 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 86 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
"The Search Technology Provided by Google" Logo is gone
A hint for a new provider

 1:23 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

The Search Technology Provided by Google Logo is now replace by text when you make a query. Who will be the provider tomorrow ?



 5:57 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>Actually no, I just verified and both are using the google results from (www.google.com). They also both have the Powered by google logo.

Yes they do have the same results and logo.
Did you notice some slight differences before?

From heini :

The differences you're seeing may have to do with slightly different databases etc. There are several possibilities as to why Google serps slightly vary, like location etc.

I think this can explain, it did for some while ago.

>>You also like Poutine I guess.

I love poutine with sauerkraut on top. My Boss thinks it's better for me. ;)


 5:58 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

Oh sure - all of this does not prove either Google is in or Google is out, really.
The only thing we have right now, is the changes discussed earlier, like increased use of Yahoo descriptions. Plus the change from a linked reference to Google to a unlinked reference.
Basically the speculation on who's feeding Yahoo tomorrow is still open.


 6:07 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

A good hint will be to know when Yahoo "pure spider", as ScottM post, start crawling your site. If they start in June, the month Yahoo/Google contract was ending, they are good chance Yahoo will manage is index alone with the technology of Google !?!

I'm also from montreal ;-)


 6:09 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

The changes I am seeing in the serps..

Yahoo returning Google results of a few days ago. None of the new fresh pages are present.

Search terms that usually default to the directory are now returning the older Google results.

No Google Logo or link

<< It could be they were bolstering their directory in the areas they thought it was weak >>

Is it possible they could be going to get rid of the directory ranking system and return the directory sites only, but ranked using the Google technolgy. No Back-fill

This would force sites to pay the $300.00 anualy and would return reviewed sites only.


 6:11 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

My guess is that they bought their algorithm and will be creating their own index.

I'd agree that it looks like Google might be playing some role in the future of Yahoo, but there is no way Yahoo is going to be crawling the web and building their own index. that would br about the dumbest decision they could possibly make. Why on earth would the invest in the hardware/infrastructer necessary to build a large scale database?

Yahoo is looking for ways to cut cost and improve margins. Building their own crawler doesn't fit into that.


 6:11 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

[yahoo.google.com...] no longer resolves. I don't think that fares well for the pro-Google group.

Remember this?

My guess: Fast never had a chance- Inktomi will be back in (groveling :)).


 6:17 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

>None of the new fresh pages are present

Hmmm I have pages in there indexed yesterday.

Anyhow, comparing searches brings some rather strange results. Mostly they are pretty identical between the Google dbs and Yahoo. But sometimes they are very different in ranking and number of results found.


 6:22 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

Very slightly off topic.... what sort of effect on googles PR do you think loosing the yahoo links will cost them??


 6:25 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

There has always been a difference between "Web Pages" and Google.com.


 6:29 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

Is this new?


 6:38 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

It would make a lot of sense for Yahoo! to deep spider the directory sites and show them as web page matches, it also brings more value to a listing.

No sense in creating brand for other engines, just farm out the technology.


 6:55 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

Just want to add that the descriptions and title change happened over a week ago.


The link to goo was gone today. Again, I don't know the significance.

PS. The link to that thread is wrong on the WebmasterWorld home page: it's showing 843.htm.


 6:55 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

If yahoo are going to introduce their own search service (using google tech) I hate to think of the tweaks they will make to the algo!

possibaly ppc?


 7:00 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

Ok i just did a yahoo search for "search" no mention on any of the serps of google the serps now look like google serps only thing different is whre the odp cats would be displayed there and now y! categories.


 7:08 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

My guess is that they bought their algorithm...

LOL. That was good laugh.

First, I believe the technology belongs to, the Board of Trustees at Stanford. Who I think are fine for $$, and are not looking for methods of funding such as, selling the algo to Yahoo. It cost about $30k/year/student to attend Stanford.

Second, I think Google would rather put a lock on its doors and send everyone home, before they gave out their algo.


 7:19 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

"LOL. That was good laugh.

First, I believe the technology belongs to, the Board of Trustees at Stanford. Who I think are fine for $$, and are not looking for methods of funding such as, selling the algo to Yahoo. It cost about $30k/year/student to attend Stanford.

Second, I think Google would rather put a lock on its doors and send everyone home, before they gave out their algo."

Hey! I was just guessing there. At least it's nice to see that it made you laugh. :)

Instead of putting sarcastic remarks, search engine genius, what do you have to say about the "Search Technology Provided by Google" comment on the web page searches? What are your thoughts?


 7:37 pm on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)

When its out of my control, and Im not sure... I wait, watch, and react. :) Or should that be watch, wait and react?


 1:26 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

I dont see what the confusin is about. The wording says it all. "search technology provided by google" aka yahoo have used the search technology but are not using google to provide the actual database???

am I right?


 1:45 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

Yahoo "fall through" results labeled on Yahoo as "web pages" HAVE BEEN provided by Google since early July, 2000.


From the announcement, "Google will provide its underlying Web search engine to serve as a complement to Yahoo!'s popular Web directory and navigational guide (www.yahoo.com)."

Prior to Google, "fall through" results were provided by Inktomi.


 2:01 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

I agree but it also used to say something along the lines of "the following results are provided by the search engine google and are not controled by yahoo"

The link has also changed from search provided by google to technology provided by google. that change seams to be a key note for me???


 2:53 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

Is this new?

Very interesting. So, Is this new? I'm guessing google doesnt have to go through the "front door" to spider dir.yahoo.com, but, I'm curious..

Admittedly I've never looked at dir.yahoo.com/robots.txt before now :)


 3:25 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

I do belive that is new. If so and if google respects that ..does that not remove the most importaint reason for a yahoo listing?


 3:40 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>>I would also improve the odds now of TWO providers: Google providing the 'technology' for ranking the directory pages; another SE providing the backfills (Ink/FAST/Google).

Napolean, that's a very intelligent solution, the best I have ever heard! With all the spammy domains being submitted to Yahoo, what better way to rank them by than Google's algo???? Then use backfill accordingly.

This way:
1. advertisers are satisfied to still submit quality content to Yahoo (and not be buried). This will maintain their PFI model (if not making it much more important for advertisers at the same time)
2. directory sites are ranked MUCH better by Google than by how many keywords you can cram in the URL/Titile/Description
3. users get a much better surfing experience.

Ingenious :)

Black Knight

 3:45 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

This could be a sign that Google is to continue to be a partner with Yahoo more than a sign of the opposite.

Google have grown immensely since they first signed the deal with Yahoo, and it could well be that one of the things Yahoo most wanted in the renegotiation was to stop placing direct links to google (who could easily be termed a rival).

This could easily be simply a matter of Yahoo removing the link to plug a traffic leak, as part of the renegotiations. If so, then it would have to be seen as a sign that Google will continue to provide Yahoo search results in some way.

Oh, and lets not forget that tweaks were already made to the google results for yahoo as part of the original deal, which will still explain many differences seen between Yahoo web pages SERPs and Google SERPs.

Ammon Johns


 3:47 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

mack that is my main curiousity! :)


 3:58 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

Recap :

- We all know Yahoo have to make a decision around september after extending his deal with Google ending in June. We also noticed that Yahoo like to shoot us new things in public holiday (Labour day).
- We notice the change from "Powered by Google" by "The Search Technology Provided by Google" and they also removed the link back to Google. Here is lawyer and copyright terms.
- We supposed that Yahoo leaving Google entirely with no other index provider will put Yahoo results likes Looksmarts. A close market with a big decrease in popularity and visitors.
- Going back to Inktomi seem to many a big step back. I personnaly agree.
- Going with Fast/Alltheweb was a not so bad alternative. For now it is almost the only one who support foreign country caracters and txt and pdf files. But on a politic, time zone and cultural approach, it is hard to follow.

Here I see only one answer : Yahoo make a deal to implement some Googlebox inside the directory of Google to give better results from the old search engine Yahoo got. They this way can collect the Business listing at 300$, and give more than 5 to 30-35% of their directory results (depending of the language use and number of keywords) to the searchers.

The only things is not fitting my arguments is somebody seen new "pure Yahoo" spyders on theirs logs with no site list on there directory. We probably know in a few hours !

Excuse my bad english writing ;-(


 6:27 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

This could be a sign that Google is to continue to be a partner with Yahoo more than a sign of the opposite.

I agree with you BlackKnight that this is the most likely explination to what we are seing now.


 9:12 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)
Seems like this is pretty similar to the setup they're using for the internet search at BBC.co.uk - it's basically Google but the results are slightly different (in the BBC case it seems there are different weightings so that hits on the BBC site appear higher than they otherwise wight, other news providers lower, family filter always enabled, and a focus on UK sites).

This would fit in quite well with the agreements Yahoo have with China since it would enable them to provide edited results (this is being discussed at http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/02/0246224&mode=thread&tid=153).


 9:18 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

This my take on the whole thing:

In order to provide better relevance from within their own directory results, Yahoo! must have bought Google spidering and ranking technology.

They would then use this technology to give rankings to sites withing the search in their directory. In case no results were found within directory, Google's results would show up.

On the question of Yahoo! spidering sites, the technology they must have bought from Google might be customised to their needs. Hence, they might be spidering themselves. This might be a onetime occurence to sort the database properly. e.g., there are terms for which I have a rank #1 on google but am listed for those very terms at #299 on Yahoo!. Yahoo might be sidering to rectify such descripencies.

Where does this leave us ?.

It is still very worthwhile to have a Yahoo! directory listing and the results they would generate would be a lot more relevant and spidering by Google would be a lot quicker.

imo, it would take a couple of days to get into the Yahoo! directory and just a couple of hours after that to be reflected in the Google database. This very fact would make a Yahoo! submission very wothwhile indeed.

On the question of spam getting into the Yahoo! directory, though it might get approved by editors, the search results would be like what Google treats spam. PR0 - no show - months of indifference.



 9:19 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

Welcome Sthen... and straight in with a very good observation.

I have been wieghing up how the result presentation could work with a merge of Directory and backfill - and you have hit the nail.

The BBCi model would fit the bill very well, weighting the Directory results to the top yet producing returns when there are no fits WITHOUT the big brand jump to Google (which I am sure Yahoo is keen to remove).

I suggest another slight shift to Google in those odds I keep quoting.


 11:02 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

The "web pages" now return 900 odd results for search engine optimization, something strange is definitely going on.

This 86 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 86 ( 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