| 5:29 am on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|My site is not the only one still moving. |
Mine are still moving too...albeit in the wrong direction :(
| 6:07 am on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have no idea how you guys can say Yahoo results are worse than Google. You must be spending far more time on Yahoo than Google which permits you to scrutinize it with very little opposing data.
Google is so obviously hacking their results by prioritizing "authority" sites that monopolize the listings. Aside from them, you have the over-optimized spam sites. If you want a taste of where Google is, pop over to the Google forum to see their ranting and raving.
This update has very seriously de-prioritized keywords in urls and I think that's an awesome move. As well, they have de-prioritized the age of a site being a relevent factor, which is one of the largest and most glaring errors that Google has been making since the IPO.
My guess is that people who are getting pulverized by the update expect the engine to remain static like Google, prioritizing old over new. I applaud and welcome the elimination of that dogma.
And the concept that Yahoo and MSN will lose visitors is ludicrous. They, unlike Google, have the capacity to risk listings through improvement. Google can't. Saying Yahoo will lose visitors to Google is like saying a company that is more innovative will lose to a static one.
| 10:53 am on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
After update : My ranking booming........like rocket,
| 11:11 am on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
maybe there could be a poll on whether its good or bad... does webmasterworld do polls? dont recall seeing any.
| 11:19 am on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|And the concept that Yahoo and MSN will lose visitors is ludicrous. |
Correct. They don't have any to lose.
Well, at least for us, they are still irrilevant. Hoping they will do better soon.
| 2:04 pm on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Now I have client sites only showing like 3-4 pages indexed from their site. .... not to mention alot of people knocked off first page. GGGRRRR!
| 2:51 pm on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Two examples of problem that i see with the update. This is for a keyphrase that has at least a couple of hundred legitmate sites that could be in the top 20. This keyphrase goes for $7.50 to $10 per click on yahoo and google ppc so there is quite a bit of legitimate competition.
1. positions 1 and 3 are from the same site, I haven't seen them in years on any search engine. Possibly because of the mass of key phrase links at the footer of each page. 32 key phrase links covering everything from soup to nuts each linked to an information page on every footer.
2. position 12 a free forum host (let's call it example.com) that has none of the keywords on the page at all that is linked from the search results. The only reason I can think they would be listed is they have a lot of links back to their site from other free4meforum.com sites with domain names such as keyphrase.example.com and keyphrase34.example.com.com etc.
[edited by: martinibuster at 9:01 pm (utc) on Dec. 14, 2006]
[edit reason] The Masters of the Internet Created Example.com for Examples. ;) [/edit]
| 5:46 pm on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm loving this update.
| 7:45 pm on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You can't use one keyword example to support a theory that the update is a failure. Further, what you have described is not necessarily a sign of bad SERPs.
I like dynamic information! Am I the only one who likes to see fluid results?
| 8:53 pm on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Am I the only one who likes to see fluid results? |
As long as it's not diarrhea ;)
| 9:07 pm on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I don't understand how suspended wordpress, blogspot, google groups and parked domains are ranking? |
| 10:36 pm on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Not obscure KWs. Very competetive financial terms.
| 11:42 pm on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A URL of mine redirected two years ago shows in the results, but of course the correct one does not.
Many other sites are showing old URLs instead of the 301 destination.
Search the Directory choice seems to have been removed from the default search choices, although I saw it appear on the searches I have bookmarked.
| 7:33 am on Dec 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Decius said: "And the concept that Yahoo and MSN will lose visitors is ludicrous. They, unlike Google, have the capacity to risk listings through improvement. Google can't. Saying Yahoo will lose visitors to Google is like saying a company that is more innovative will lose to a static one."
I think Yahoo is missing a major marketing opportunity. This could be a TV commercial:
"Are you looking for NEW sites when you do a search? Yahoo Search adds new sites every day, unlike you-know-who. Why go for stale search results? Get fresh! Try Yahoo Search." (Imagine the visuals you could put to use here.)
Enough stuff like that could inspire Google to get off its butt.
Are you reading this, Yahoo?
| 12:47 pm on Dec 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Beachboy, that is a spectacular notion. Especially since NEW results would sell just about anyone who casually uses search engines.
| 5:17 pm on Dec 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Over all i think the update is good a 100% improvement and i like the results i see - its much better than it was, but by next quarter it will no doubt be a total change again!
However, over the last couple of years i have posted the following about Yahoo search in this thread and i will post it again:-
"I tend to find that Yahoo tweaks its algo every quarter to ensure that no one site will rank for its keywords all year round. One quarter you may find all in anchor, low density works, next quarter higher density, next keyword in url, next no keyword in url etc etc, etc.
I.e i think they tweak the algo on an ongoing basis in the hope that those sites no longer ranking will buy adwords off them to make up the short fall. The tweaks are designed so that no one site will keep ranking. Just by turning the density knob up or down for a page that in itself would change the serps massively, likewise changing sites value according to inbounds etc etc, obviously they tweak other factors in the mix but it all adds up to changing the serps for Yahoos own financial gain"
I dont see any issue with this except it is nice from a webmasters point of view to get some stability in the Yahoo index but Yahoo is an advertising giant like google and its not about giving you traffic but more about you buying traffic!
If you came out of this one well enjoy it whilst it lasts, if you didnt dont worry about it, next few updats you will be back in favour and todays winners will be where you are today.
| 8:45 pm on Dec 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If people want to send me specific examples to look at please send me a stickymail and we will look at it.
| 1:22 am on Dec 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
pm to tim- about.com is NOT quality. it IS spam
| 2:33 am on Dec 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Tim, I have an idea for you. If you are bold enough. Pick random search phrases when people search Y! and go to #1 site in SERPs. Soon enough you will see how bad it is for 3-4-5 word searches.
| 2:38 pm on Dec 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Tim's asking for constructive feedback, let's try to limit it to that...
| 6:10 pm on Dec 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ok, let me try to say it in a little better way.
People don't like scraper sites. Yahoo has done (in my opinion from what I see in my sector) a good job of keeping scraper sites out of the serps. The exception being about.com pages. Probably some don't feel about.com is a scraper site. I disagree. it is a collection of links gathered, not by a bot, but by a human with very little knowledge about the subject. The about.com pages in my area present information that is just plain wrong. The articles are BS and the link descriptions for the sites listed are patently false, and misleading to the end user.
For instance, a typical about.com page is brought up by a very common query. One of the to guide picks uses this as a description. "The largest full service facility for 'My Location' weddings. Marriage licenses on premises." Now anyone familiar with weddings in my town knows this is a 60 room strip motel that does have a chapel with capability to handle weddings for up to 55 people. Weddings with over 500 people are common in our neck of the woods. The description should say "To find us, look for the pickup truck with the plywood sign with our name painted on it." Underneath that you have two links with different descriptions that lead to different domains that are the same exact site. Two links below that I see a link to a page that I, as a wedding expert in the area, don't recognize. So I click on it. The page opens and the title reads "Here are your Heroic Search Results". I guess thats why I didn't recognize it. Now, add to that the fact that many of these sites don't like the fact that about.com loads their site into a frame, so they have taken steps to remedy that, and many have attempted to disable the back button as well.
Add to that the multitude of other links on the page to "search results" and the three adsense blocks.
At least scraper sites are typically accurate.
[edited by: Powdork at 6:10 pm (utc) on Dec. 16, 2006]
| 12:56 am on Dec 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Not to mention their horrendous link-framing, pop-up-laden, overloaded-ad, content-thin structure. When they were miningco.com - way back at the beginning, they had responsive experts consumed with passion (drowned now) for their subjects.
[edited by: Galtego at 1:07 am (utc) on Dec. 17, 2006]
| 1:28 am on Dec 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I was hoping that was exactly what I was mentioning
|Not to mention their horrendous link-framing, pop-up-laden, overloaded-ad, content-thin structure. |
| 1:01 am on Dec 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I second that. About.com is completely unhelpful. Every topic contains an absolutely useless shpeal (like the back of a DVD box) and links to sites that will actually perhaps get into the information you're looking for... and ADS.
| 1:20 am on Dec 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Where do people go on about.com?" (Traffic rank 85)
"Other websites - 50%" )
| 1:48 pm on Dec 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This is a big improvement for yahoo. They still have a way to go, I looked at the serps today and they look a lot better than they did before the update.
| 6:31 am on Dec 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
System: The following message was spliced on to this thread from: http://www.webmasterworld.com/yahoo_search/3194250.htm [webmasterworld.com] by martinibuster - 11:35 am on Dec. 20, 2006 (utc -8)
Nothing Hurts like Yahoo Update this time.
Results are so Pathetic.
It seems that they have given less priority to keywords (or keyword phrase) in source code. My site was doing good before this update(was in top10). But now, Its being pushed after 100+. Strange thing isn't it? First two pages are showing absolutely crappy results. I have found one relevant site at 19th position. While checking the source code, I found that main keyword repeated (in body part) is 50% less then what I had in my site when it was enjoying the decent ranking before this update.
In my field, If I have to buy something, then there is nothing in top 10 organic results then PPC ads flashing in upper and right side.
Number of pages indexed also went down drastically.
As far as I think, this update has affected the sites with high incoming links(especially on keywords).
| 3:10 am on Dec 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This is the most weird update Yahoo has ever done.
It's not that most of the websites are spam - actually we see less spam than ever in our industry, but
A bunch of unrelated websites!
Google is ranking for a keyword they have nothing to do with...
Plus, a lot of hacked websites, the one Google is fighting right now - they are all in yahoo...
| 8:43 pm on Dec 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have found Y! search more relevant to G for a long time now - so, I normally start a search at Y! and when I am not happy with Y! serps I revert to G in hopes I may find there what I am looking for, only to find the situation there even more disappointing.
both Y! and G have a long way to go, but Y! has nothing to gain emulating G.
G has attained a momentum from the time it actually provided results superior to any other SE, and this momentum is difficult to break. but their growth has stalled, not only because the times of actual superiority are long gone but also because their present arrogance has blinded them to the fact that their serps are constantly deteriorating. G may (temporarily) do whatever they please, based on the attained momentum. but not for much longer, believe me.
on the other hand, Y! have to fight for position - and this has benefited them greatly: it has forced them to gradually improve their relevancy, in the meantime surpassing G in this respect. they have been very wise not to follow G policies, especially such meaningless notions as favouring old/stale content over fresh content as is the case with G.
while Y! serps still leave a lot to be desired, they are fresher, more relevant and very much on the right track.
| 7:15 pm on Dec 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
On 7 key search terms 5 are unchanged and the others imroved by a couple of positions. Overall position was marginally better in late April/early May and noticably worse in September.
On the same terms G comes out one or two places lower (and in two cases beaten by links to my site!) but still brings in the lion's share of search engine traffic.
| 7:14 pm on Dec 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Beginning today, my referrals have soared... up about 8X... looks great for me!
| This 106 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 106 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |