| 1:52 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
But if you're not in the Yahoo directory, your PR suffers, so you DO have to be in the Yahoo directory --right?
| 2:01 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
PR does not only come in the form of Yahoo! Directory. I can find much easier ways to get better PR rather than spending $300 dollars for it.
| 5:48 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
| 6:04 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
No all sites give you PR. Yahoo is just one site. Many sites will link to you for free like the ODP.
| 6:10 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Those figures don't represent Yahoo Bizexpress income.
There may have been 1032 sites added to the directory on Tuesday, but only 203 paid to get in.
Tuesday Oct. 8 - 1032
Business and Economy (203)
| 8:28 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I would suggest buying an adwords ad for at LEAST a three day run.
Why, you ask?
I had 6 pages indexed by Google.
All 300 + pages are now indexed and my PR went up by 1.
Total Cost: about $12
PR + 1 Total Cost: Priceless.
| 1:10 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo will be just fine financially.
The search results are now first class which will keep users on their site longer which in turn will make the banner ads more expensive. Plus they are more interested in selling DSL service, hotjobs, web hosting, and premium e-mail service.
Also, most people will continue to give them the 300 for the listing because it is an automatic payment when setting a website.
I think most people in this forumn are focused on $300 they spent and not looking at the big picture from a corporate standpoint.
| 2:03 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
korkus2000 is right. $300 to share a PR 4 (or worse) directory page with three or four dozen other web sites is no bargain at all. I pick up the same or better all the time. For free.
What can I do? If you're a web designer, create your own sites and nurture their pr? Nurture your client's PR?
There are so many ideas rushing my brain that I'm actually getting dizzy and am about to fall off my chair...
Ouch. Too early for mad scientist mode...
| 2:15 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
While I agree that there is little incentive for the $299, I think yahoo has already offset any loss in revenue by adding an additional Overture listing at the top (for most searches).
| 2:19 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think Yahoo will do something to enhance the appeal of its directory. Maybe add the top few directory hits below the category hits, maybe add an Adwords-type sidebar with "Top Yahoo Directory Listings", etc. Even assuming that Yahoo's search volume grows due to better SERPs, I think they will be reluctant to completely give up the Express $$ in return for showing a few more banners.
| 2:37 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Let's get a campaign going for all our sakes !
Surely, if they get enough compalints they'll see that they're going to lose most of their BizExpress revenue. People aren't stupid, they just aren't going to pay for it now.
What's the Yahoo email address for compalints? I can't find one anywhere.
All they have to do is put back the default searches back to the way they were before (directory results first). Is that too much to ask?
| 2:44 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|All they have to do is put back the default searches back to the way they were before (directory results first). Is that too much to ask? |
Words fail me. In the name of all that is Holy, why would a)Y! do that, and b) anyone seriously want to return to that spam-fest?
Get real. Mat
| 2:46 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hey Mat, why is Google in bed with that spamfest? Just wondering...
| 3:00 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Do the sums, Mat.
How much money is Yahoo raking in with BizExpress right now? There's your reason why they should put it back the way it was.
As for Google, they're about as welcome as a communist state round my way.
| 3:02 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Because before getting into the bed, they took it outside, de-loused it, got rid of all traces of seedy (sic) multiple couplings and thoroughly tightened up the springs.
They then took it back in house, pulled some really clean and tight sheets - probably good, crisp linen - over the top of it and then jumped right into the all-new bed, now fit for all comers. Sic again.
Edited to add ...
Do the sums? Can you picture Yahoo HQ right now - lots of execs running around ... 'damn, we forget the Express Submit' ...?!
Again, Get Real.
| 3:07 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>Because before getting into the bed, they took it outside, de-loused it, got rid of all traces of seedy (sic) multiple couplings and thoroughly tightened up the springs.
You believe that? Looks like all they did was put up a red arrow that says, "Click here for Spam. Bad neighborhood around the corner." Your response made me laugh though and laughter is good for the soul.
| 3:12 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Oh come on - you can't have your cake and eat it. Give me a sign that I can choose to ignore over having the - let's call them 'previously inferior' - results thrown in my face by default.
If the best you can say is that the Spam is now slightly hidden, then surely even that is slightly better, no?
It seems to boil down to this - you think the results on Y! were better 'pre-Google'. I don't, and can't see how anyone else can either. But then I'm stubborn.
| 3:16 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>It seems to boil down to this - you think the results on Y! were better 'pre-Google'
Don't presume to tell me what I think.
>>If the best you can say is that the Spam is now slightly hidden, then surely even that is slightly better, no
No. Google penalizes sites that link to "bad neighborhoods" but then link to what you consider to be a spamfest and that doesn't bother you at all because Google "slightly hides the spam"?
[edited by: digitalghost at 3:21 pm (utc) on Oct. 11, 2002]
| 3:18 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
To be brutally honest, I don't give a flying f**** about the quality of the listings. I just know that we used to get bucketloads of traffic from Yahoo, and now we won't.
What's good about about all the results coming from Google? Where's the choice, where's the competition?
| 4:19 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
digitalhost - Ok, tell me what you think. I was going on what I'd seen in your other posts in various threads. I got the distinct impression that you were defending the previous Yahoo setup, with the directory being served as default.
However, you now seem to be saying that the Y! directory is a spam neighborhood.
- the results. Mat
|What's good about about all the results coming from Google? |
| 4:38 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
What about Mr small pockets? Now he has no chance to compete. All Mr big pockets is going to do is spend his thousands of dollars on optimising for Google (which accounts for more then 75% of all internet searches!) and kill Mr small pockets. Yes I will agree there were a lot of Spammy sites (Yahoo could have done a better job controlling it!), but at least it leveled the playing field a little. It allowed Mr small guy the opportunity to be listed high and have a good chance to be seen!
| 4:46 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I've said before - I AM one. Never paid for PPC or PFI - grandfathered into Y! and Ink., not that I ever got much from the Y! directory anyways.
Never paid for AdWords either. I am the epitome of the small guy who can do well without paying (although this will all change, granted, but not for a while). Number one on all sorts of combos with Google - no SEO employed, just lots of reading up and refining.
Google are a level playing field, and content, for now at least, will do it. Yahoo just required money, Google require quality. I could not disagree with you more strongly on this. Mat
| 4:50 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You all say the Yahoo! Directory was filled with SPAM? Well who's fault was that? Webmasters of SPAM sites kept paying the 300 dollars to have Yahoo! Express review there site, and Yahoo! took their 300 dollars and gladly added their site to the directory.
The issue is not spam here. It is not who's results are better. Yes Google now controls 75 percent of the Internet Seach Engine Market (Monopoly if I am Concerned), but the problem is what happened to the Yahoo! Directory that Yahoo has spend there whole Business Life Building. How can they just abandon it. Talk about Unethical Business. The web sites and webmasters that have Built Yahoo to what they are today, and now Yahoo turns there back on them.
Yes, I agree the results from Yahoo! were not all that great. I there would have not been this uproar if Yahoo! simply applied a new algo to there Yahoo! Directory Results, and kept it as defaut. Now that is ethical, everyone wins. Better results for the users/websurfers, and Yahoo! Express subscribers and those listed in the Directory are still a part of Yahoo!
Diversity is gone on the internet. Google controls all major search engines. And what about the little guy? Isn't the Internet suppose to be about global attention to the mom and pop, so to call web sites? Why do the large corporate companies need more traffic from SE's when they already can afford Million dollar TV/Media/News advertisements. Why punish those of us who know how to optimize and do the best we can for our internet Businesses?
The argument comes down to this: Yahoo! needs to focus on there Directory, possibly apply a new algo to get better results. Google results can not be displayed as default. The Yahoo! Directory, the Directory that made Yahoo! what it is today can no longer be backstabbed and neglected.
| 4:53 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yes I do agree that Google is a little more level playing field at the moment. But in a couple of months I bet that you will be changing your tune. As soon as Mr big pockets figures out what is going on, Google is going to be dominated by Mr big pockets. And then what?
| 5:08 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Ckern, I agree with you about the punishment of the little guy because the big corporations can afford other means of gaining exposure, but the ROI question pops up here. Is it money better spent to optimize my site for say $5,000 if I sell plastic widgets, even though I can afford to do the plastic widgets industry show for $25,000. It comes doen to cost per lead (if the Internet can give me 100 times the amount of leads as a trade show, you do the math). Or simply is it more effective to get 100 leads spending $5,000 on something that is permenant fixture in your advertising program or spending $25,000 fo rthe hundred leads at a one time event.
Now the problem I have with Google is, yes it is the most dynamic search engine, yet it cannot deviate between solid info and crap. For example, I did a search for plastic caps on Yahoo and the first listing under the new Yahoo was the Arizona State Book Store. IN the Yahoo directory, there lists plastic cap manufacturers and suppliers. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that the fact of paying $300 per year and having a human editor review leads to greater quality leads. Again I am not bashing Google because I respect their achievements. I just don't like this move by Yahoo, even though the directory resutls are still available (will Joe Surfer know to look to the directory versus the web results?)
| 5:16 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>>I just don't like this move by Yahoo, even though the directory resutls are still available (will Joe Surfer know to look to the directory versus the web results?) >>>
No he won't know to look to the directory!
| 5:20 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Joe Blow will never even know the change in Yahoo from Yahoo! Directory Results to Pure Google results. For that matter, how are our Directory listings going to ever get hits? Simply they are not. I have gone from simply a thousand uniques a day to possibly 10 hits a day.
Google has now forced us to have all our eggs in one basket. Because who is there to choose from now? Google or Yahoogle?
It will be interesting to see over the next few months to what all of us can do. Will it be possible to get all our sites back up in the rankings? I think Google has made it clear that they feel that there results are focused on Large Corporations that dominate the market anyways. What about us?
Do we have a chance? What about free enterprise on the internet? Will it still be around? Yeah it will be just on the 10th page of Yahoogle SE results.
| 5:57 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Your right on that thought, it is taking the "fair advantage" out of placing a site on the Internet. What good will the search results be if the legimate sites are not found until page 10? I know I sure do not have the time to look through 10 to hundreds of search results to find my areas of interest. And, going forward, the PPC and CPC options are going to be too costly...
I guess it goes back to only the strong survive, the rest is dead.
(strong meaning the ones with money...)
| 6:36 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
brass monkey: I couldn't agree with you more. The Internet has come into a point in time where the strong *with money* will monopolize there markets. Where is free enterprise here? Isn't it a shame that 75 percent of the search engine market will be displayiong the same results. I am sorry to say but that is a monopoly in it self.
| This 61 message thread spans 3 pages: 61 (  2 3 ) > > |