| 1:31 pm on Feb 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Ok, so this will lead to a more cluttered, slower loading non-uniform looking search results - allow site-defined images to be displayed as part of full-text search results and you are talking about new level of search spam.
Bad move IMO.
| 1:34 pm on Feb 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Finally, a way to directly involve website owners in "Universal Search"! I think this is an awesome development. Off to study it.
| 3:27 pm on Feb 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Interesting and exciting.
One problem I can see right off the bat... Allow sites to control the images/presentation of the listing will most likely result in folks image-spamming like they do on YouTube.
Ever notice how the top 10 videos always show a picture of some questionably dressed girl... and when you watch the video, it never has anything to do with the image you saw...
If they don't review and approve every listing, it may just turn into a spammers haven... but then they are presented with the problem of scalability.
I'm very interested in seeing how this plays out.
| 3:42 pm on Feb 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Openness: You couldn't have planned a better poison pill for the Yahoo buyer waiting in the wings ;)
| 4:15 pm on Feb 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Sigh, instead of fixing their algo...they want you to STILL not find what you want, but now with added garbage. I have never seen anything more pathetic in my life and priorities SO mixed up...they are in serious trouble I can see it now for sure.
| 4:58 pm on Feb 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
OK, I've read the Y stuff and I'm confused. Let's discuss and get specific: What does this do for webmasters' sites, exactly?
Let's say I'm a webmaster for a "community" website. It's got a directory for the "community." Position on G and Y is very good.
And the website has a search engine on it. It stinks, like a lot of website search engines do.
Soooo, this would allow me to do...what exactly? Or this isn't about that? And, if it's not, what is it about, other than trying to enhance Y's results for them. Which, ya know, is fine but there is a limit to what we can do for my "community." (Or, put another way, how are we going to get paid for doing this work on Y?)
| 5:39 pm on Feb 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Finally, a way to directly involve website owners in "Universal Search"! |
Nobody's mentioned this yet: this solves the copyright problem that is looming over the search industry.
Beyond the very basic issue of implied consent and "opt-out" which is counter to a copyright system of copyright laws that is strictly "opt-in"...
...IMO, all the search engines are teetering on the edge of legality, in a number of ways, but particularly when they pick-out details from a site and reformat them.
Yahoo is moving toward doing this with the website owners consent.
This is a positive move for everybody.
|how are we going to get paid for doing this work on Y? |
Presumably, in more visitors.
| 5:55 pm on Feb 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Beyond the very basic issue of implied consent and "opt-out" which is counter to a copyright system of copyright laws that is strictly "opt-in"... |
Two words: "fair use."
Works were being indexed (often with abstracts or thumbnails) long before the invention of search engines.
| 6:05 pm on Feb 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Involving public and natural audience is important.
I don't think participation or holding of Web masters is that important.
There are other (meta) search engines, blogs, directories improving here.
I doubt, considering Y! has 15% traffic, Web masters having substantial traffic to their Web sites would care Y! results. (Y! would rank their Web sites promptly. No need specific caring about.)
Neither natural audience nor Web masters community would be interested.
Y! search is less important now.
Users may be liking Live more than Y! in sometime.
| 7:00 pm on Feb 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
jTara, I've done some more reading on this, and you're (as usual) exactly right: The value to the website is bringing in more traffic. That's is, it's a way to market yourself on Y. Or, rather, Free Ads! Woo woo.
OK, for me, it's a big yawn. Not even one woo.
This is the same trick I've used to build my index. And, for some websites (for example, see the examples Y uses to explain this program) this might have value.
| 7:24 pm on Feb 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The only positive thing I can see is that this might push the competitor (Google) into doing something similar.
As for Y! search, as long the SERPS are junk, I have enough of it already, I don't need more of it on the page.
| 11:30 pm on Feb 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Spam issues aside, I see this as a positive for small web sites looking for more marketing push. The ability to define actual search results (especially if it extends to an individual page basis) by the webmaster can result in a better experience for publisher and user alike.
It will be interesting to see how this develops as it's easy to see how some players might pervert the intent.
Overall, I like the open approach far more than Google's heavy hand (re: webmaster guidelines to which maybe 10% adhere strictly).
Hmmm, copled with Microsoft's announcement on ad-tracking and the bad news on Google's clicks, it was a pretty tough day to be a Googler. I'm for more like this.
| 2:49 am on Feb 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Wow, this could be really cool. In a vaccuum. The before and after "samples" make so much sense and would really be helpful as well. But how are they going to control this?
Will the content I provide play a role in my ranking? One would hope.
I don't want to sound negative, but somehow I think I would be a little more excited and optimistic if this announcement was made by Google.. God I can't remember the last time Y! made me look forward to something.
| 3:00 am on Feb 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Will the content I provide play a role in my ranking? One would hope. |
Not sure what you mean. You mean the content you provide on your web page, or the content you provide for the rich search results?
At first thought, only the content you provide on your web page should matter.
On the other hand, all other things being equal, then I'd think that rich search results should push you up.
That is, let's say your site ranks exactly the same as some other site. If you provide rich search results, and the other site doesn't, your site should move up, provided that the rich search results match your site content and the search well.
| 3:09 am on Feb 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Right on the money, nice analogy. I'm really stoked at the marketing potential, and like I said, wow Y! making me look forward to something.. who know?
oh ya.. so to answer your question, ya I meant the content provided for specifically the SERP.
| 5:13 pm on Feb 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
You are correct BT. This is an interesting development. Yahoo search needs to improve and also Google deserves competition.
Any new and capable search form is appreciated.
| 12:23 am on Feb 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I thought the thread title meant they were opening a search engine.
What idiocy. Yahoo search is a backed up toilet. I don't want to see more details about the dung.