| 7:14 pm on Dec 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Beginning today, my referrals have soared... up about 8X... looks great for me!
| 3:39 am on Jan 2, 2007 (gmt 0)|
My two sites are #1 and 2 for my key phrase and #300 for my second key phrase.
Yahoo results don't seem to make any sense, I see a few good sites copied from google results and then the rest is all junk. I rather have the results from a year ago which were different then google, now we have some of google and the rest useless info, no way to gain anything on Google like this. Google results still better which does not says much for the industry. My opinion is the results are getting worse accross the board, so the search engines
can make more money with Pay per clicks, oh well we need a new search engine.
| 7:55 pm on Jan 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone noticed that results from a .com domain search on yahoo are looking like they're pulled from siteexplorer? Try domain.com as your search query.
| 1:50 pm on Jan 7, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This change has only just hit me.
Yahoo US is ok.
Well down and the results now are irrelevant
| 6:41 am on Jan 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
One of my sites was dropped from Yahoo with this update. It's loaded with unique relevant content and there's no black hat anything going on. Another site (actually a competitor) in my sector was dropped on the same day. The only thing we have in common is that we have website directories...that's it. So my guess is that did us in. Strange thing is that this directory is like the Yahoo directory, but better... and just for our niche. All unique, opt-in listings. Each site that signs up for the free directory can OPTIONALLY get a piece of code to link their users back to our site to vote for their listing. Sites with more votes get higher rankings.
I'm pulling my hair out on this one. Anybody else able to confirm that sites that may appear as "link farms" even though they are NOT in any way links farms getting hammered?
I've been through the site with a fine toothed comb 4 times and looked at thousands of pages over and over. (this was a site we acquired and did not build from the ground up). I cannot find ANYTHING fishy going on... so I'm baffled. Anyone get dropped out completely from Yahoo in this update for no apparent reason?
| 7:33 am on Jan 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
After having analyzed several sites I got this theory:
Yahoo is considering the last two-three years, and link popularity in those years.
Age is not a factor. Several sites having done a good link popularity in the last two years are ranking fine...
Keyword in the URL helps a lot: it seem the the Anchor text is important as well..
| 9:20 am on Jan 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I completely agree that Yahoo is considering the link popularity and age is not a factor.
This time I also find much more different results in regional yahoo then Yahoo.com.
| 2:50 pm on Jan 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I've been through the site with a fine toothed comb 4 times and looked at thousands of pages over and over. (this was a site we acquired and did not build from the ground up). I cannot find ANYTHING fishy going on... so I'm baffled. Anyone get dropped out completely from Yahoo in this update for no apparent reason? |
I have a site that was dropped from Yahoo before Dec. 11. I've cleaned it to the point that it's more than squeaky clean. It has very rich original content and does well in Google and MSN. I've tried several times to get it reincluded in Y to no avail. All I ever receive in response is the same canned autoresponder about reviewing the Yahoo Webmaster Guidelines.
I hear rare tales about sites being reincluded in Y, but most who try are dissapointed. Yahoo is an enigma.
| 5:02 pm on Jan 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I hear rare tales about sites being reincluded in Y, but most who try are dissapointed. Yahoo is an enigma. |
I have had a site reincluded before. In that case, I got a confirmation from Yahoo that it had been dropped on accident.
The site I'm talking about this time was never doing anything black hat. I've changed and modified anything and everything that could have been remotely associated with light grey hat. I know that sometimes it takes a while for Yahoo to update the index or whatever, but this is a shame.
It makes you wonder... what are these bogus penalties due to?
a) undereducated employees making hand-picked decisions without really understanding a site.
b) an automated filter that bans anything that has the "appearance of evil".
c) a combo of both
d) something else.
e) The site really is doing something wrong, but I just don't know it (we purchased this site several months ago).
I run and manage several sites. The only engine I've ever had issues with in 8 years of this stuff is Yahoo. I'd rather Yahoo write an algorithm to discount problematic pages, rather than ban a site for something that appears "problematic". That seems a more logical solution and would certianly mitigate un-merited bans like this.
| 11:27 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|The only thing we have in common is that we have website directories...that's it. |
Except for the accidental drops, its pretty easy to see what Yahoo has been doing for a while: coming down on vendor listings, directory listings sites.
While I am not the person to comment on whether given directory A is more valuable than B, I will say I have seen systematic removal of sites with those types of vendor, service or product directories actively on the site.
Mention the word link anywhere, or link to us to get higher positions and poof - you are gone.
If you filed a reinclusion request and have removed the directory, then it may be something else. However, if you filed a request and that directory is still in your site, good luck.
| 12:10 am on Jan 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|If you filed a reinclusion request and have removed the directory, then it may be something else. However, if you filed a request and that directory is still in your site, good luck. |
If true, this is REALLY strange. What about the Yahoo directory? People PAY to be in that directory, and they do it to boost their search engine rank.
Our directory is an important area of our site - thousands of users per day go there to find resources. Our users love it. Those listed in it love it. Sites that list can *optionally* choose to place code so that users can VOTE of their site.
This is not unlike hotscripts, download.com, etc. etc. There are thousands of legitimate large sites that do this. "Votes" is a one of the many methods we use to rank sites and decide who shows up on top. We could remove that option, but it ads value to users, and it's a good way to sift and find the real good sites that actually get traffic.
If Yahoo has a problem with a directory, why not just discount links from and to that directory?
Seems strange to just ban a site for it... I'm sure they have their reasons, but I'm having a hard time understanding this one. Feels like baby out with the bathwater.
We're talking about a hand-edited directory that's been there for years...and now it's been banned? So strange.
| 2:25 am on Jan 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If you look across the board, these kinds of sites are being removed, penalized etc in many of the sectors I watch.
The difference between you and Yahoo.com is that you are not Yahoo.com and that Yahoo.com does not ask for a reciprocal link in order to be listed higher.
Food for thougt?
| 3:04 am on Jan 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
That's a good point. Maybe we'll remove the reciprocal link possibility altogether...
It's a bummer that the ENTIRE site would be removed becuase of this. So strange.
It's a great viral marketing tool and we bought the site because it's a great viral marketing site.
It may have been generating good ranking as a result of this, but that was not the reason we bought it. Hmmmm... perhaps we remove it.
Another great resource site in our sector has been removed for (presumably) the exact same thing. So I'm betting this is what's going on.
What a shame.
Now I've got to decide if it's worth totally changing the site and the viral marketing platform just because Yahoo decided that it looks like we are trying to game the search engines. Hmmmmmm... I gotta chew on this one for a while.
It's bad for yahoo if we're not in becuase we are an authority in the industry. It's also bad for us if we're not in for obvious reasons... but we drive more traffic through the program than we do through Yahoo, or ever have through yahoo....
I guess the question is "which is the better traffic"?
My personal opinion, (and yes, I know nobody at Yahoo really cares - and probably nobody here really cares either) is that this is a mistake by Yahoo. Rather than manually removing and banning sites, why not write a better algorithm (aka - if all of the links back to a particular site look the exact same, them stop counting those links, or do not count them nearly as much as you would otherwise). That seems logical...
yahoo as a company has always been more about "controling" the content on the network. This has bled into search, I'm afraid. It started with the pay to play directory, then the pay for inclusion, and now, what appears to be manual intervention in the search results.
| 11:59 am on Jan 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>>However, if you filed a request and that directory is still in your site, good luck.
I must have a lot of luck. But then again, it's not a directory of link exchanges either. It's a directory to help our visitors...
| 9:57 pm on Jan 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There are URLs all over the place 301ed two or three years ago. They have perhaps a dozen links from old scraper pages, compared to thousands for the correct URLs.
If I wanted to revisit 2003 I'd get in my time machine.
| 3:04 am on Jan 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|It's a great viral marketing tool and we bought the site because it's a great viral marketing site. |
Then don't rely on what Yahoo deems is relevant / not relevant and good for you. Viral marketing is an entity of it's own.
Another possibility for future reference is to mention the site that list businesses for free for visitors.
On a second form sheet, not actively indexed by Yahoo, or in a repsonse email, you could gently suggest that you list website higher in your results set when they link back. This way Yahoo doesn't review the site and say - 'Yup, thats where we see hes doing exchanges', when in fact this may or may not be what your intentions are.
| This 106 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 106 ( 1 2 3  ) |