homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Yahoo / Deprecated - Altavista, Alltheweb.com
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Deprecated - Altavista, Alltheweb.com Forum

This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 46 ( 1 [2]     
My poor Fast rankings
pay for inclusion needed to rank?

 3:08 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)

With the Yahoo and FAST talks I decided to check my rankings in FAST. I rank well for all my sites in Google, top 5 for many terms, but gave up looking for my most important terms in FAST after 1500!!
I practice no shady techniques that would cause a ban, is there even a ban inflicted by FAST?

My sites come back in results when I search for the url so I know they are in the database. Do I have to pay for inclusion to be ranked in results?

Am I alone on this? Help is appreciated.



 4:24 pm on Jun 19, 2002 (gmt 0)

>Was referring to the specific site, Axacta.<

Oops - sorry about that.

>In other words: our positions in Google are no guarantee for positions in any other engine.<

Boy! You can say that again!


 12:00 am on Jun 20, 2002 (gmt 0)


I want to like FAST, believe me, but I call it like I see them. I could list a lot of things that aren't working right. If I do an advanced search using the domain filter on some sites, they don't show up. Then do a regular search for the the business, and the index page shows up. That's just one example. It doesn't matter what we call it, bug or not, but it doesn't seem to be working right.

By the way, I did a paid inclusion on Lycos, and those are the only few pages FAST has picked up apparently. Maybe they're waiting for me to pay for the rest, but I certainly won't right now.


 11:05 am on Jun 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

I've been searching keywords relavant to my site in fast and it seems that the pages that sell something are ranking low with my searches. Strange, most of the pages/keywords in question rank high, #1 some some cases on google and yahoo. When I did a "list more pages from site", I found the commercial pages to list way way down the list. Am I crazy, or is this on purpose at Fast?


 7:43 pm on Jun 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

We recently submitted 10 urls to FAST paid inclusion as an experiment, and within days many of our urls submitted were within the top 10 on Lycos.

I can't help but believe that paying does boost ranking, although search engines might not admit that - instead they might suggest that the content is fresher (because it gets crawled more regularly) and therefore that helps with the overall boosting within the algorithm.


 8:14 pm on Jun 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

That is what I thought. I am going to PFI and see what happens, will let everyone know.


 8:14 pm on Jun 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Also, what were your rankings before PFI?


 8:16 pm on Jun 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Orion, those pages, had they been in the regular FAST db previously?


 3:28 pm on Jun 24, 2002 (gmt 0)

let us know orion....


 9:18 pm on Jun 24, 2002 (gmt 0)

These pages were not previously in the FAST database.

Although our site is listed in Jupiter Media Metrix, we have never had great success in getting all our urls into the main search databases unless we paid through PFI. We did all the conventional things when we launched just over a year ago. Bought the Yahoo and Looksmart listings and employed a SEO. But we could never get ODP to take our listing. So most of our success has quite frankly been through Overture.

With Inktomi, we experienced something very similar. Right after submitting 100+ urls, we often found ourself in the top 5 for relevant search queries on MSN (Where Looksmart does not have listings to put on top of Inktomi).


 9:42 pm on Jun 24, 2002 (gmt 0)

Thanks for sharing that Orion.
The suspicion remains that PFI is the only way to get more than one page into FAST these days.
Also it seems to me there's something odd about the figures here - FAST claims to have db bigger than Google, yet so many people in this thread report good Google placement yet very few pages in FAST. How can so many of us be finding it so hard to get FAST listings when other SEs can spider us easily?!


 10:01 pm on Jun 24, 2002 (gmt 0)

>report good Google placement yet very few pages in FAST

Because you spend all your time on Google.
No seriously, think about it :)

Now they managed to build a resonable update of 2 bn pages.
Let's hope they can keep the pace.


 11:05 pm on Jun 24, 2002 (gmt 0)

>Because you spend all your time on Google.
No seriously, think about it<

For my most important keyword phrase my home page ranks #9 on both Google and Fast/AllTheWeb. However, the rest of my site is also listed in Google, whereas none of the rest of my site is listed in Fast. On top of this the referals for my home page on Fast are a tiny fraction of those on my home page from Google.

Why should I spend any energy on Fast/AllTheWeb?

I also question this claim of the largest listings.


 11:26 pm on Jun 24, 2002 (gmt 0)


Fast looks at your site differently than google. Dependant on how long your site has been in fast, and how it is linked within, and in and out, determines the importance of the page that you refer too, it would seem in this case that its weighted heavily in regards to the rest of your pages, if no other pages are coming up on keyterms or it has not been in fasts database long enough for the rest of the site, to be in the public db!

> Why should I spend any energy on Fast/AllTheWeb?

fair question, because it has a large use by Europeans, and it feeds lycos and subsiduaries. Drill down previous threads in this forum, and you will see who Fast/AllTheWeb, feed, i am sure that will give you reason enough.

> I also question this claim of the largest listings.

why ?, i can't see any reason to disbelieve them, they have been pushing for the 2bn mark for a while, now they have done it.


 11:29 pm on Jun 24, 2002 (gmt 0)

>question the size
I remember questioning index sizes myself. I think it was last summer/autumn, when we had the last size race between Google and FAST.
Who's to say the absolute numbers given by the SEs are correct?

Anyway - do some benchmark searches, and compare between the two.
You'll always find examples where FAST has less pages than Google and vice versa, but from the comparisons I've made so far I can surely say they are in the same area.

Why not find out how many pages from WmW are in Google, how many in FAST? I got 2.700 G., 6.000 F.


 11:55 pm on Jun 24, 2002 (gmt 0)


Don't get me wrong, it's not like I am not interested in Fast, it's just that there seems nothing that I can do. My site has been fully spidered three times since Feb. I've tried to SEO the site the best I can, keeping themes in mind, but then I look at my competition and most don't seem to have a clue what SEO is, and there they are higher in the rankings than me.


 12:10 am on Jun 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

very good point heini, who knows !

Axacta, why not look at your compititions links to other relevant sites within Fasts own db, rather than hunting down high PR linked sites, i think alot of individuals, do not do this as they think PR is king, but only in google's world, hence if you are going for a one-size-fits-all, then thinking about high ranking sites in all SE's would be something to investigate, if you have not already.

This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 46 ( 1 [2]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Yahoo / Deprecated - Altavista, Alltheweb.com
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