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 151 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 151 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 > >     
Yahoo Update July 13th

 12:20 pm on Jul 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am seeing a major update...I think?

I say I think b/c it is so bad it seems like a bug. There was also no weather report on the Yahoo! blog.

Anyone else seeing what I am seeing?



 2:54 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yeah, after some looking at the results - my old websites went back up, my new websites went back down :)


 2:55 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I dont worry about kw density. That isnt what this update is about.


 3:33 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

While likely not entirely about KW, if the top 10 in your area's density is a lot lower than it used to be, that can be handy to know -- like I said, in my instance 9 of the top 10 didn't even have the phrase in their reference tags...all my sites that fell did, so that's something to consider.

Have you uncovered anything specific for your set of results? Any other variables that we haven't touched upon yet? What about the geographic location of your backlinks?



 4:02 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

In the area I look at kw density is definately up.


 6:13 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

For those of you who think why we are discussing that Yahoo is going in dark is becuase of this....

Look at Y Results on a competitive search item :

1) Crappy URL : Redirected Result : Main Purpose is to sell.
2) Blog - Which is not opening.
3) Crappy URL : Site hosted at Free Server - Not Opening
4) Redirected Result :Pointing to same site at no. 1 position.
5) Crapy URL : Site Hosted at Free Server : - showing "Not Found"
6) Informative Site
7) Crapy URL : Site hosted at Free Server : Unwanted Redirect
8) Crap URL : Site Not Opening : Pure Crap
9) Crap Result : Site Not Opening
10) Informative/Selling Site

are these good results? Can anyone consider these results as fine work? What does this mean?

Is YAHOO delievering useful information to visitors? If yes, then why 80% of the sites in top 20 results are not opening? Where is the information? How come these redirects?

FOR Webmasters : What does these webmasters have done wrong? Look, Search Engines are there, because Webmasters are there. They want their site to be viewed by their target audience. Webmasters have made quality site, Which includes Information as well as some selling options. After all its about commercialization. If you go to a Restaurant, you first see the menu and then pick your dish(or item). But here, Restaurant Menu is showing - "10 items are available for you to eat. but only one or two is actually there which we can serve to You"....Bull #*$!

It seems that Yahoo, Google have forget that their main motto was to show relevant(or quality) results to visitors. Right now, what they are doing is "showing only one quality (not quality result you can say its relevant) out of 10 results. Really how Yahoo is doing this..Full Marks for them for giving their potential market a hint : Try Spammy techniques to get in SERPS. Well Done Y, I am there to Follow ur instruction, afterall I also want to get in SERPS. If not by Good Mean (which i was following from years) then surely by SPAMMY Techniques, which Yahoo is telling me to do.

Yahoo SERPS.

Lot of Blog sites, Un-wanted Redirects are appearing which surely defeating the purpose of Yahoo being a world class Search Engine.

A suggestion for Yahoo Representatives.

For any organization, Customer Support is utmost important. Please try to answer the problems, queries raised by webmasters in this forum or at any other platform. Show your concern and work on the problem. Have you check your spam report section? I am sure that you've got thousands of spam reports. Work on these spam reports and my request to you is to evaluate these spam reports, and eliminate these sites which have not a single term appearing in site, but they are appearing at no. 1 or in top 10. Why these "Not Found" pages are appearing. Check out these things and you will found why we are showing our concern about the Current SERPS. This Yahoo Update is one of the worst(that I have seen till yet) then Ever Before.


 7:09 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

looks like the results has reverted back to the old results.


 8:56 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

Not that I can see.


 9:18 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

Still the same for me here too Caveman.

Some are seeing higher KW density and some lower...okay, let's set that aside then.

What other factors for dropped sites do we have? It isn't just sites that have affiliate linkage in them; it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the frequency that the pages are updated; I don't see any correlations with the # or age of the backlinks, and though I thought it might be the case, the geographic location didn't seem to matter much...what then. Scrapers causing dupe content problems?

The 52-card pickup anaolgy seems fitting at this point.



 9:46 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm searching for some bad stuff, not really finding anything other than the usual mix. Results seem very much like Google's meaning the same tricks that work on Google work on Yahoo.

If someone wants to sticky me an example, great. I'll take a look. But overall, I've won or lost a few, but in my sector they look about right.


 9:53 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

Odd. I see orphaned pages (i.e., abandoned; not doorway pages) - with NO inbound internal or external links any more - ranking on page 1 of numerous SERP's. Don't think I've ever seen that before.

About a year ago Y! did an update that reminds me of this one, in that just like a year ago, I'm seeing tons of examples where they seem to be filtering out the best sub page to show for a specific search (e.g., "red widgets") and instead are now showing a page above it or below it or beside it. For example, on a search for "red widgets" where they should show the page: "WidgetSite.com/red-widgets/"

... they are now showing either:

"WidgetSite.com/red-widgets/" (the page above /red-widgets/)
"WidgetSite.com/red-widgets/large-red-widgets" (a page below /red-widgets/)
"WidgetSite.com/red-widgets/blue-widgets" (a page beside /red-widgets/).

[edited by: caveman at 10:11 pm (utc) on July 15, 2006]


 9:55 pm on Jul 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

Some of my sites went up others down
kw density is lower on top sites.
Most under 5% no H1 just bold
same as msn everyone needs to lower there siteoptimization.

More spam on first page, so i reported all of them if the spam is removed my sites should be back where they were.


 1:37 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just entering random keywords and kw phrases...I am seeing something really strange. The inclusion of MSN and Yahoo Groups webpages on the first to pages of serps...and these are for keywords that are not off the wall subjects. Groups and "community" pages are now authority and indications of quality?

Surely what we are seeing right now is just the result of the process of tinkering and not the final product (I hope).


 10:49 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Some of my sites went up others down
kw density is lower on top sites.
Most under 5% no H1 just bold

I did a check on KW density, H1 tags, Bold tags, Meta tags and description on the top 20 site in my categories in April. Even checked their Google PR and backlinks. I saw NO pattern! The no #1 site in my category is hand-coded. Nothing will move it and it's filled with affiliate links.

Tweaked my KW density and H1 tags yadda,yadda,yadda. What did I get..? I was thrown around the serps like a yoyo!

I finally followed someone's advice, cut down the dynamic content on my homepage and made it static. Seems to have worked. This update saw my site stable at where it's been the last 2 months.


 11:21 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

speaking of affiliated links.

I think the search engines should come up with ways to ignore affiliate links, because it's commerce not necessarily quality. I mean does types of links.

For example

When you search for health insuranace, all the sites that appear on the top are those who have numerous affiliate links to them. However, a good site that publishes health insurance news and basically gives any information about health insurance is in nowhere to be seen.

The search engines should overcome affiliate links and don't count them.


 12:56 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

not so fast Kirby - I am with the rest here .. I fell a few positions from page one to page two. My links are very strong, so maybe this softened the effect. My kw density was a little heavy, but I too notice that the top sites have very low kw density.


 1:31 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

I do see some signs that kw oriented adjustments were made in this update.

More importantly, we have numerous sites with homepages and subpages at 15%+ kw density that are just fine. If higher levels of kw density alone were enough of a factor to significantly drop a site's rankings, we would see it. We don't. I'm with Kirby; it's not the big story.

That does not mean that they didn't do something with kw density, but if they did, it just one of many factors at play, and I doubt one that is sinking site's rankings unless kw density is almost all they had going for them (hint, hint).

Sometimes, things can look a certain way, when something else is going on. What if, for example, Y! substantially altered the way that links factor into the algo: Both from a quality and quantity standpoint.

Y's algo used to be much more onpage and kw oriented. Last year that began to change. Links became more a factor.

In this new update, links are again, IMO, playing a significant role: Both the quality and quality of links. Y seems to be exploring ways to push authoritative links more to the fore. Look at all those Wikipedia and MSN results in the SERP's now.

So what happens as a SE evolves from onpage to offpage orientations in more and more respects? It might look as though this onpage thing is hurting a site, or that onpage thing is hurting a site. When in fact, it is more that those onpage things simply aren't helping as much as they used to...and other off page things are completely overwhelming things like, for example, kw density. ;-)


 4:20 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

it is the kw density but there are exemptions and that depends on yours backlinks.
You can have a high kw density but your backlinks need to not have your keywords in them.
I have one site kw density is 25% but I know I don't have the kw in the links all 800 of them site is #3. My other sites have kw density around 4% but have backlinks with keywords and they are doing well.


 4:23 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Good insights caveman. IMO you hit it with the offpage factors being given a bit more juice. I know that prior to this update penalties have been meted out for crosslinking, particularily where they percieve it to be automated and network/IP based if done on a relatively large scale. Because of that negative attention to links, I am assuming that it was procative knowing that they were going to give links more importance.

I am seeing some pages rank for competitors that I know are because of the increased # of anchor text specific links.

I am sitting on enough domains that I figure if these serps stick around very long, I'll sacrifice one just for Yahoo and see what happens just link spamming. I'm guessing it will rank well and quickly.


 4:43 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

it is the kw density but there are exemptions and that depends on yours backlinks.
You can have a high kw density but your backlinks need to not have your keywords in them.

Garya, FWIW I can tell you with certainty that this is not so.

Kirby, I'm forced to agree, if this sticks. But it is so not good for Y!, and so not what they want, that we're not making plans along those lines...not that we have anyway. Last year, just about this same time, their new algo had issues...some similar, some different. They got it sorted in a relatively short amount of time. Impressive really, given how complex all this stuff is. ;-)

But ultimately, it sure seems that they are moving in the general direction of more weight on links, and certain kinds of links. Not unlike another SE we all know. :P


 11:19 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Its just looking like yahoo is doing what google has done some time back, lowering organic SERPs quality and maximizing its revenue from Paid Ads......after some months you will see yahoo also releasing a press release that its profits has also gone Up.... ;)


 11:57 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

definitely! i am 100% agree with you...what's wroug with these search engine ..Definitely! ..what's wrong with these search engines (Yahoo, Google & MSN) are .The main aim behind any updation are to increase revenue for yahoo by filtering commercial site from top ten list... not to improve results quality. We see that some spam and crappy results after any updation...if these updation has done only to improve the quality of result then why we are not able to see the quality in results. After any updation we find worst results inYahoo SERPs… In my opinion Yahoo has become totally commercial…. Authentic and relevant result which used to be the benchmark of Yahoo exists no more …Yahoo just wants to improve its revenue model... Yahoo to filter Quality sites from the organic ranking would severely damage Yahoo’s brand and credibility to serve unbiased search results...nd it will definitely down yahoo


 3:05 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yahoo took care of spam. I see much less spam as of before. Sorry for you people who lost their positions. but this update is much better. I hate SPAM

[edited by: Nabeel at 3:09 pm (utc) on July 17, 2006]


 3:29 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Anybody see Yahoo make a big change in the last 12 hours or so? See a big change in ranking on our site from yesterday. Is everything still fluctuating or is this it.


 3:30 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Much less spam? What category are you monitoring? lol

Yahoo needs to fire all the search engineers (and I use that term lightly), as they just can't seem to create a useful search engine. Every update it's the same ole same ole. More spam, more broken links, come on guys, don't you test the results before making them live?

One word...Pathetic.


 5:52 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

seems like a strange update to me


 5:54 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Here are results from a very competitive keyword:

1)MSN spaces site, completely irrelevant. Just a door to ther page, without any content
2) Free account, with the words "Sorry this account was disabled"
4)free site with banner and no content at all
5)Forbidden, "You don't have permission no access this website"
6)free site with 2 banners, one article and only 1 page
7)serious site
8)serious site
9)serious site

This is the results I'm getting for a very popular keyword. The first 6 results are junk, completely irrelevant for any search. I'm seeing this on other searches too. Unless Yahoo corrects this, they are going nowhere as a search engine. I'm noticing this kind of results since the last update. Don't know exactly what's happening but they have some problem that is out of control.


 6:25 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

There is also one thing that I noticed on the searches I usually do. Since Yahoo dropped the link "view as xml" on search results, the relevancy of the results have dropped significantly.

Can someone give some insight on that? What can be the explanation for this association.


 8:20 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

The update was on the 13th? Didn't notice that but boy did we get nailed YESTERDAY. Yep lost most all of our positions. Never did anything to the site to cause it. Many months ago we had some file and directory changes. Those are 301's and yahoo has done just fine with those. Maybe something isn't passing through anymore like it should.

I don't think they are rewarding spam. I think they are nailing all the good in the process to where the only thing left is the spam. Geeze... Start rewarding the good again for goodness sake.


 8:35 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)


Are you showing any strange URL strings in the site: command? Their indexing hasn't been the greatest. I know you said they handled the 301s correctly, but just to doublecheck...

Also, do you have any authority backlinks (or in this case, links from those in the top 10 for that phrase)?



 8:44 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

No strange urls. Everything is indexed as it should. A mixture of www non www but never had a problem with those and those are redirected as they should.

"Also, do you have any authority backlinks (or in this case, links from those in the top 10 for that phrase)?"

We have been around for over 5 years. Many thousands and thousands of backlinks. 99% natural. No problems whatsoever there in my opinion. Again many of these links point to old structure but are redirected to the proper new structure pages. For many of the search terms I follow I wouldn't care to have a link from them. Many are just a bunch of scrapers and junk sites. A couple have scraped us even (what you get for ranking well).

I really wish they would take a lession from the MSN people and admit a mistake and roll this thing back. I don't care about loosing position to a good site but not to the junk I see taking the place of really good autoritive site.


 9:01 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

As has been said before, the resemblance to Google's recent results is extraordinary. And sad. It's hard to see how for the majority of results this is an improvement....

This 151 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 151 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 > >
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