Yahoo Directory Entry Updating

Pays ya money...don't get the service!

[Jack_Hughes]

Requested a change to the URL in our entry in the yahoo directory (which we paid for, of course). Asked for the change on the 21st November and it still hasn't been done.

Asked for the change to be made on dmoz and it is done already.

Yahoo directory at $299 per year isn't exactly cheap. But I do expect an 'expedited' service for that.

Am I being unfair?

[rfgdxm1]

Well, the post above is a switch. Yahoo is too damn slow, while the ODP acted quickly. ;) You may have been lucky with the ODP. Review time there is literally hours to years. I've actually added sites as an ODP editor just minutes after they were submitted. The submission came in when I was already reviewing a bunch of unreviewed sites in the cat, and that one got reviewed along with the rest on the spot.

Your expectations of the Yahoo directory may be out of touch with reality. For $299 a year, there are a huge number of Google PR6+ sites who'll happily sell you a link with whatever anchor text you want. If Yahoo isn't giving you the bang for your buck you expect, then spend your bucks elsewhere. If Yahoo can't satisfy you as a customer, so long has you have money, surely someone will serve you quickly. ;)

[Jack_Hughes]

rfgdxm1, I'm sure you are right about purchasing a link. I feel that buying a link purely for seo purposes to be a bit underhand. I'm sure it's just me, I need to get over it. Why shouldn't links be traded just like everything else. Isn't paying for a 'accelerated' listing on Yahoo essentially buying a link for SEO purposes. We certainly haven't got much in the way of traffic from the listing.

It does seem odd that the likes of google positively encourage the purchase of links on yahoo but hound anybody actively selling links.

[rfgdxm1]

>rfgdxm1, I'm sure you are right about purchasing a link. I feel that buying a link purely for seo purposes to be a bit underhand. I'm sure it's just me, I need to get over it. Why shouldn't links be traded just like everything else. Isn't paying for a 'accelerated' listing on Yahoo essentially buying a link for SEO purposes. We certainly haven't got much in the way of traffic from the listing.

>It does seem odd that the likes of google positively encourage the purchase of links on yahoo but hound anybody actively selling links.

I absolutely agree. Google definitely has a double standard here. While Google frowns generally on buying and selling links for SEO reasons, they actually recommend the Yahoo directory by name. Particularly odd today as Yahoo isn't using Google data for their SERPs.

[glengara]

Yahoo! was a pillar of internet search while G was still running around in shorts, respect for ones' elders if not betters is to be applauded, not denigrated.

For shaaaaame......

[blaketar]

And to put things into a clearer perspective....

Google says "do not buy or purchase links" meaning do not buy 400 links on one single site. Buy one link, this is fine, like the one link you get on Yahoo.

[createErrorMsg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the $299 for the Yahoo Directory listing paid to expedite the site review process? You're not actually 'buying the link.' You're buying the Yahoo editor's time to actually come along sometime this millenium and decide whether or not to list the site. Granted, this is little more than a semantic distincion, but it's a semantic distinction that could easily justify Google's support of 'paying' Yahoo for a link.

Or or are you talking about something else?

cEM

[kctipton]

ODP somewhat recently started breaking out update requests as a separate number on an editor's login screen. This has made it easier than it used to be for editors to find and handle requests. Easier = faster in a lot of cases.

[johnw1234]

"Google says "do not buy or purchase links" meaning do not buy 400 links on one single site. Buy one link, this is fine, like the one link you get on Yahoo."

I don't put much stock in that statement. I have one competitor whoose inbound links leaped from a few 1000 to 500,000 from buying links. Before this the site was number one on a ton of 2 word keywords for years despite all sorts of spammy techniques which are allegedly banned. Since this huge leap, the site has remained top dog and has even aquired more keyword listings. Whatever they're doing, the homepage appears on many keywords regardless of whether or not the search terms are on page or not.

[Jack_Hughes]

One of the things I find most laughable about google's algo is it's utter reliance on anchor text without even checking whether the page contains the text in question.

[submitx]

Yahoo normally would never ever change a listing once it has been listed even if you request a change, unless you have a major change such as URL change or company name change. They would almost never change a description. Also, they would take a few months to review it and they would not respond back to you if they declined your request or not. If you need a serious change, you might want to try calling them or pay for another listing.

[rfgdxm1]

>One of the things I find most laughable about google's algo is it's utter reliance on anchor text without even checking whether the page contains the text in question.

There are some good reason's to do this. That this mostly is an issue with non-SEOed sites is a reasonable argument this isn't all that bad of thing. Any SEO worth his salt would make sure in addition to getting inbound anchor text links to also at least put those keywords on the page.

[Powdork]

Yahoo normally would never ever change a listing once it has been listed even if you request a change,

Tis true. I have repeatedly notified them of a site that no longer exists. Its been 404 for years, literally. They won't remove it, so when you search on google for 'region keyword', the Y! page always shows up in the results because this non existent site's name is 'region keyword'. I assume this can't be a paid listing because it has been longer than a year and it was never a commercial site. I guess they just don't care if they look foolish.