| 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.
| 11:11 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Now it's back to the usual numbers. ?
| 1:56 pm on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Is this new?
Modified: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 5:05:31 PM
Expires: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:48:02 PM
I guess not :)
| 2:16 pm on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Results for one of my key phrases are different between Yahoo web page matches and Google (No 2 on Yahoo vs No 7 on Google)
Also one of my competitors that seemd to have been dropped by Google a few months ago is included in the Yahoo page matches (but not Google).
| 9:03 pm on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I agree with Webgur... Yahoo would not go and spend all their money to create their own SE. Yahoo just posted their first profit, it probably dosent help when they buy website for 5 billion dollars, but they are back on track to making money. It would be pointless for them to spend all this money rather then sign a short term contract with google to keep doing what they have been doing and then see if they want to create their own SE. As for all the other postings in here.. it cracks me up.. people pull at straws on here hoping since they rank in this one hopefully they will now team up with ink or fast or whoever.
The only thing we can do is wait for official word and stop speculating.. And the Search results I see for my site are the same on yahoo as on google. Who says the changes havent been made yet, but please.. read all these posts and people come up with their own off the wall theories and post them.. some which make no sense at all...
Time will tell.. official word I am sure will be out very soon...
| 9:15 pm on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have no clue wheter Yahoo will stay with Google or switch to FAST or back to Inkomi. But I am complete sure that they aren't running their own spidering search engine and especially not with the Google technique. There are at least two reasons:
1) Google's business model completely relies on the fact, that it is the best engine out there. To licence their system to a competitor, especially to one as mighty as Yahoo, would be the really dumb.
2) To run a spidering search engine as big as Google's requires a lot of knowledge. Yahoo would also have to get some of the Google stuff.
To run a smaller version of the Google system to just rank the pages that are listed in Yahoo is also not very promising: The success of the Google system lies in the analysis of the link structure. Therefor scaling the system down leeds to results, that are less relevant.
To add another speculation to this interesting discussion: Yahoo could have bought Google. What do you think about that?
| 9:40 pm on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
One thing to bear in mind is that in the last figures from Yahoo, Google paid them $1 million [approx] for branding. I assume that was for showing the logo on the Yahoogle SERP's, never saw any other "branding".
If in this round things have gotten tighter on the bid maybe G just decided to forgo the branding charge and take the text ad.
| 10:02 pm on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I dont think yahoo bought google, call it more of a hunch but google said they will not sell for anything. A local article just this last thursday said they wont sell.
The second reason I dont think so is yahoo is finally posting a profit and I dont think googles price, even if they would sell would be low enough. I doubt yahoo is about to spend another 5 billion to acquire another website at this point.
Just in the business world, i dont think it adds up. Interesting why the google logo isnt showing though, but the results are the same when I checked my site. When will official word come? anyone know? I almost see the point that googles bid went in for yahoo to keep them but without the branding.. that is one point I could see. That would "make sense" in the business world of things. Google has enough exposure and enough "brand name recognition" where they do not have to have their logo showing up in the yahoogle results of yahoo. They get enough publicity where this is no longer necessary for them.
| 10:23 pm on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I agree with Black Knight that replacement of the clickable colored Google logo with the non-clickable text "credit" of Search Technology Provided by Google is a contract renegotiation to plug a traffic leak that has been helping to build Google for the last two years.
A lot of surfers are lazy (or unknowledgeable about on using their browser) - if there isn't a live link, most people will stay on the page.
| 10:53 pm on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Egomaniac wrote: "A lot of surfers are lazy (or unknowledgeable about on using their browser) - if there isn't a live link, most people will stay on the page."
I agree - have you seen the weekly wordtracker email reports? The long term Number two search phrase was 'google' - number 3 was 'yahoo' duh! Using a search engine to find a search engine when you already know the brand name of the search engine!??!
I remember about 25 years ago an economics lecturer telling us that 80% of the world 'just had no idea'..... how far ahead of his time was he?
| 11:06 pm on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I agree with Helpmebe1. I really dont think Google is for sale. ...or else Microsoft would own them :) j/k
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 10:03 am (utc) on Sep. 3, 2002]
[edit reason] tos #12 [/edit]
| 11:41 am on Sep 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Guys did not you forget this
| 3:11 pm on Sep 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Anyone have a possible Yahoo! spider i.p. list?
| 5:56 pm on Sep 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The Google appliance is targeted to intranet search. It is limited to a maximum of 15 million documents. And, as I'v written before, the Google algorithm cannot be scaled down to a size as small as that. (Of course it can, but then it looses its advantages.)
| 6:37 pm on Sep 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I get a 404 when I try to view the Yahoo! Directory robots.txt. Can anyone else get to it/not get to it?
| 10:44 pm on Sep 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo rmoved the robots.txt today from the dir.yahoo.com ! :)
| 5:41 am on Sep 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
So what happened to all the Labor day talks??
| 5:53 am on Sep 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo has too much invested in Google, and they are a great pair. No way that Google would sell its Technology. As noted above, then Microsoft would own it :) LOL I see the concerns with the Google Logo missing from the web page matches on Yahoo, although I agree that in the past Yahoo was helping build the brand of Google, but now the brand doesn't need to be built anymore, so why send traffic to google.com rather than keeping it right on yahoo.com . Makes sense. As well as this whole summer, all the changes in Yahoo, they all point to the fact that the YahooGle partnership is growing stronger, and they are continuing to intergrate there technologies and businesses. We shall see whenever Yahoo announces what the deal is.
| 6:59 pm on Sep 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I wonder why my site is number one in Yahoo on their Google page [dir.yahoo.com]. It's a hand tweak for sure; they cleaned up my snippet and moved it up two places just a couple days ago. Google still comes in at number two on their Google page, so I guess Google isn't completely out of favor at Yahoo.
| 7:08 pm on Sep 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It's number 1 cuz it's new. They always list new sites first. It will fall to it's appropriate alphabetical spot soon enough.
| 7:26 pm on Sep 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>they cleaned up my snippet
At the risk of taking the thread off topic, it's not a snippet it's a description written by a real person. The original description written on the 29th Aug was grammatically incorrect, in fairness it was very late in the day when it was added, they have just corrected it that's all.
This may get split off into another thread
| 7:23 pm on Sep 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone considered that the removal of the logo is meaningless, and that Yahoo is simply cutting down a little on Google's branding? I mean, we do know this has been an issue...
| 9:56 pm on Sep 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The new non logo on Yahoo's web pages does not click thru to Google, like the old logo did. In addition to this since Yahoo appears to be using their directory descriptions on the webpage listings, they probably can no longer state "powered by Google" since the results are no longer an exact replication of Google. Instead they list it as "search technology powered by Google." The above combined with the new search within the site feature is an attempt by Yahoo to keep the traffic on their site and not see it go off to Google. Who knows maybe Google will start using Yahoo's description for their search results simarly to how they use DMOZ. Does anything ever stay the same in this business? :) One thing is for sure, we will all wake up one morning to a big surprise.
| 11:48 pm on Sep 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
That's a great point Jester! I'd love to see Google start using some of Yahoo's directory info as opposed to the ever-inconsistent DMOZ.
| 12:03 am on Sep 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think I'd rather keep the Google clips than see some of the descriptions Yahoo have created over the years. I certainly felt their #1 listing description for <SNIP> is somewhat lacking. ;)
[edited by: Marcia at 7:32 am (utc) on Sep. 6, 2002]
[edited by: NFFC at 10:47 am (utc) on Sep. 9, 2002]
[edit reason] No self promotion, please [/edit]
| 10:17 am on Sep 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I belive Google.
Her is the best.
| This 86 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 86 ( 1 2  ) |