| 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....
| 9:11 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree with the many posts above. This is a MUCH improved update than those of the past.
Yahoo has certainly removed most of the spam sites. IMO this is a very positive update.
For those who think otherwise, perhaps there were some problems with your tactics/seo techniques? From our end it seems like a quality update.
| 9:23 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree. Good update.
translation: My site did well
| 9:35 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"For those who think otherwise, perhaps there were some problems with your tactics/seo techniques? From our end it seems like a quality update. "
Umm if seo techniques that yahoo favors is being a page about nothing maybe a related word on a page no links and seo like scraped content then yes this is a good update.
| 10:33 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well maybe it is a good update on some markets, but as the majority of people had post here and what I can say on my market is that on every search I do more than 50% of the top 10 results are really junk. When I say junk it is not because I think the website is not good enough, but rather because a part of them leads to nowhere, mostly to msn spaces that don't exist or if exist don't have anything more than a banner. 50% of the top 10 on my market don't have any content at all. It seems like you did not get results for what you've searched for.
It seems that there is no filter on results. In my view, the relevancy of yahoo results has dropped exactly since the moment they drop the "view as xml" link. I don't know in what way these things can be related. I only know that they've happened at the same time. Maybe someone with more knowledge than me can correlate search relevancy with "view as xml" link.
| 10:40 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I can't believe some of the crap that seems to have floated to the top. I don't mind being beaten by relevant sites but this is ridiculous.
found one site in top 10 that had a couple paragraphs typed up that basically said this is where we will put our information on red widgets, so if you are looking for red widgets this will eventually be the place to go. Since we will be continually updating our red widget information be sure to come back often.
But if you are looking for red widgets they don't have anything about them or even any affiliate links about them. But they do have affiliate links for blue doodads which is a related product but not what anyone searching for red widgets would be looking for.
| 4:04 am on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I don't mind being beaten by relevant sites but this is ridiculous. |
In my category, there's one page that ranks #4 about a "magical" chain letter where you just need to put 5 bucks in an evelope, send it to someone and you will receive a hundred other envelopes each containing similar amounts.
I did do a comparison between my site and the #1 site in my category using Alexa (yeah... i know that's not the best tool to do a comparison). I noticed that my site seems to get far more traffic than the #1 site even though I'm on page #3. BTW... the #1 site is hand-coded - CANNOT BE MOVED!
I can only deduce that people are smart enough to know that the site in question is just cloaking all his affiliate links. So do I really care about ranking well in Yahoo!? Yes and no...
Yes because I still want to be found...
No because if the #1 site is hand-coded, there's nothing I can do about it.
I just gotta find ways NOT to depend on SE's.
| 6:04 am on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Although I lost a lot of good ranking on major keywords, I think this is a very good update. Before, in my industry the top serp are sites that has huge quantity of links - now seems like yahoo also consider the quality. Like many has said the result are very similar to google. The question is how to find out the new yahoo factors. Right now the old serp for my industry still showing on yahoo non-US datacenter (it.yahoo.com, ca.yahoo.com, etc) - until they update these dc's my revenue come from non-US buyer.
| 7:05 am on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Things have changed a bit. Hopefully they are getting things tweaked a little better and they continue to do so. From what I have seen the results are far from Google.
I don't think we should figure out what the new factors are or need to. I think it all comes down to value and this is the direction we all should be moving towards. This is truely what the search engines want -- basic SEO and extraorinary value to their searchers. Since this is the direction SE are attempting to take I hope they start gaining some better ground. I would much rather compete with top listing on a true value level than an SEO game the system level. Competing with junk and spam is hard where we are limited by our own morals (even that of SEs) thus not willing to cross the line; plus this raises the risk of long term success. Competing with other valued sites requires creativity, ingenuity, and innovation which in turn consistantly increases value for our visitors, search engines, industries, and us.
| 12:33 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have a 2 sites that are doing very well in Yahoo now as well; sites NOT listed in Yahoo's Directory. The site that I work for (my real job, lol) has a Directory Listing and it sucks on some terms we need in Yahoo. The Directory listing is actually hurting us in Yahoo's own search results. We contacted them to change this and, of course, they never answer. Yahoo should NOT use the Directory listing in the search results.
I would NEVER submit my own sites to Yahoo's paid directory because of this. I am actually liking the rest of the results though. Seem more relevant to me.
| 8:27 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It pretty funny hearing how yahoo is giving more weight for quailty backlinks.
I thought all links were not quality and the only purpose is for SEO.
So now if you get 5000 links from 5000 homepages that is quality compared to 5000 links from a link pages. I would think it would be the reverse as the purpose people that would put links on there homepage would be to get 3 way links to improve there
results in the search engines. So now if you ranked high on Google chances are you are now high on yahoo minus the age factor. Now we have three search engines with alot of useless junk on them. ASK.com rules with the most relevant results.
| 8:54 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
MSN updated today looks better than Yahoo.
| 11:57 pm on Jul 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
MSN updated today? or last Saturday?
| 6:10 am on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Garaya actually quality links are generally NOT from the homepage. Quality links come from editorial type hyperlinks within the body of paragraphs internally within sites. Perhaps you should reconsider your approach.
| 6:35 am on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Overall not so good in the more competitive and (for lack of a better word) spam-centric keyword circles.
Yahoo does link quality links, who wouldn't. This doesnt mean necessarily reciprocal links.
| 7:57 am on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I see where they tried to go with this but overall a poor update.
A dial or two has been tweaked much too hard.
| 9:33 am on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am not impressed at all. I can find better ideas by going to topic related forums and simply asking other members for suggestions. More often than not the advice is not only good but those websites do not appear anywhere with decent rankings on the majors, they are passed on from one to another as being great websites for that topic. I think the majors have slipped away from being able to answer a simple search query. The whole point should be providing the most relevant result to the search query, not proving sites that have thousands of links or whatever.
| 9:38 am on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
THATS THE WAY....AHA ...AHA..I LIKE IT....AHA ...AHA..THATS THE WAY ...AHA AHA ...I LIKE IT..:)
| 8:37 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It seems that i have missed those wired things as atm everything looks ok
| 12:52 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo stock takes a beating today. Biggest 1 day drop ever.
Is anyone here suprised? Investors are probably dumping their stock because their search engine has banned so many websites it is no longer functional. Its not hard for any investor to type in typical keywords into yahoo search and find half the internet missing/since its been banned.
likewise they have such a poor attitude towards webmasters and anti-business in general, that investors are finally wising up. What kind of company will ban its own paying customers.. in mass... and expect to stay in business for very long.
Creating a new "yahoo/overture" interface isnt going to correct the plummeting conversions and garbage search partner feeds and poor customer service.
I feel they are going out of business. Even stuff that ranks well, the clicks are skimpy. Do to over zealous banning, the user community no longer trusts Yahoo Search. The community is speaking with month after month in usage decline. I hope someone wises up over there. Until that happens, i'm putting "Sell" recommendation on yahoo stock.
| 1:58 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Yahoo stock takes a beating today. Biggest 1 day drop ever. |
Is anyone here suprised?
I am not surprised in the least. I believe in Karma; and unfortunately, Yahoo has been unbelievably arrogant, treating many of us very badly. They have "banned" sites for very minor "violations" of their "guidelines", then refused to reconsider any of our pleas for reinclusion. I am not suggesting that the disgruntled webmaster community is responsible for their poor stock performance, but it certainly doesn't help. Webmasters have a loud voice and a big influence.
Their SiteMatch program is a joke. They told us when it was released several years ago that it would be an avenue for websites to get included into the index. Rather, they just take your money and reject your pages with no explanation. I recently submitted an 80 page site that was rejected because 4 of those pages have "affiliate" links. Big woo. The other 76 pages do not have a single commercial link -- not even Adsense or YPN (even though it WAS invited into the YPN program). How narrow minded. How arrogant.
I am sorry, but they are going down the road that Looksmart did, in my opinion. They steal your $300 (per year!) to put you in their directory, which doesn't drive any traffic, then steal your money when you submit your site to Sitematch, then "ban" you from the serps without so much as a simple review when you feel your site is ready for submission.
Tell me where the logic is, that a site is good enough to be accepted into the YPN, but "banned" from their serps? How do they expect to make money for their investors with this attitude?
I am not surprised their stocks are plummeting. I am actually encouraged. Come on MSN! MSN has been so humble and supportive and I am very excited about Vista.
In the end, webmasters are the ones who are going to make money for Yahoo and their investors by purchasing advertising. That relationship is built through customer service, support, fairness, humbleness, and trust. If they had a more webmaster-friendly philosophy, they might be in a better position today.
Karma can be a real B*%&#
Anyway...that's my vent for the day.
| 2:49 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo should buy Blogspot. That is all you see in the results.
By the way... Has anyone seen a post from one of the Yahoo people lately? Maybe they are up to something.
| 12:16 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
2 of our sites have done very well out of this update.
Another 2 puzzle me - they have done better on keyword content than the sites we have with IBL's using the same terms.
| 12:19 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I have a 2 sites that are doing very well in Yahoo now as well; sites NOT listed in Yahoo's Directory. The site that I work for (my real job, lol) has a Directory Listing and it sucks on some terms we need in Yahoo. The Directory listing is actually hurting us in Yahoo's own search results. We contacted them to change this and, of course, they never answer. Yahoo should NOT use the Directory listing in the search results. |
I would NEVER submit my own sites to Yahoo's paid directory because of this. I am actually liking the rest of the results though.
I'm questioning the Yahoo listings as well. It's messed up our meta title text with the directory title put in by an editor - resulting in less obvious listings.
| 8:11 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing a roll-back .. woo hoo you da man yahoo - you da man!
| 11:07 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I do not see any changes. I still see the same blogspot sites...
| 6:17 am on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing a tweak or a minor rollback on some search terms as well.
| 6:17 am on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well from reading feedback on the Yahoo blog it seems like we may not see much but minor changes from here. This the message I get out of this statement:
"Our mission is to steadily improve relevance to reduce the number of queries we do poorly on. In the process, some results may shift, but if you look at enough queries, you should see an overall improvement across the board. Thanks for all your feedback and keep the examples coming for this release and all future changes we make."
| 7:03 am on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well I see some tweaks on yahoo search. Now the first 5 on Yahoo match Google.
They spent a whole year trying to copy google's results. I could of done that in a few hours.
| 7:24 am on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Now that is funny!
Maybe we should smack em on the hand with a ruler for cheating and not keeping their eyes on their own paper.
| 8:01 am on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ya, just a tweak ... not sure for the better, but just having a look now. Most of the issues with the latest update remain. Looks like the internal site issues are still there (wrong page/right site) and externally, force is certainly outweighing meaning/intent.
Putting this much emphasis on external links w/o having theming/mapping, authority, and (ideallly) semantic stuff working well is problematic. Issues that arise include:
- quality niche sites with good but not huge numbers of links tend to struggle (I see a little more of that with this tweak, I think)
- searches with words having multiple meanings can be awfully bad
- lots of links with right words can work wonders for a page/site, even if from only vaguely related and unrelated sites.
Add to that heavy handed filters that clip out best pages and feature bad choices from good sites, and you've got a real mixed bag. Link sellers gotta be feeling giddy right now.
| This 151 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 151 ( 1 2 3  5 6 ) > > |