Forum Moderators: open
Has anyone attempted to submit their website to Yahoo directory and failed. Did they give any reason?
I've got an affiliate travel website and I'm debating whether or not to try. I've no contact details but I do have a valid contact form. I don't advertise on the website and I already have a PageRank of 4.
I read that a site failed because the CSS wasn't up to scratch. It wasn't compatible with Netscape 5.5. This is why I’m now nervous.
Thanks
Donal
Personally, there is no way I'd pay 300 dollars for a consideration unless I had money to burn, which I most certainly don't at this stage in my life. I realize that if you have a commercial site, you have no choice but to pay.
Regardless, best of luck getting listed. I hope you get more benefit from it than I have (I see little in the way of traffic from my directory listings there, and no PR boost that I've noticed). I hope I'll see more of a benefit from an ODP listing - assuming I ever get one, that is. :p
Smashing Young Man, I don't spend $299 on PR boost or direct traffic, but for the direct correlation that exists between Yahoo SERPs and a directory listing.
Smashing Young Man, I don't spend $299 on PR boost or direct traffic, but for the direct correlation that exists between Yahoo SERPs and a directory listing.
Direct correlation? A directory listing has absolutely "0" affect on positions in Yahoo search in my experience.
Yep, £300 is just too expensive for a basic entry
Sadly, I don't think Yahoo! have much option as regards this fee - they only have limited resources with which to review sites and therefore they need to moderate the volume of applications.
That's theft pure and simple. I bet there's a load of sites that DO pay, but don't get in! What happens then - do they get a refund? This is why I won't pay 'review' fees - if people pay, then they should be guaranteed to get in.
That is one of the possibilities. I don't think Yahoo publishes statistics on it.
>What happens then - do they get a refund?
No.
>This is why I won't pay 'review' fees - if people pay, then they should be guaranteed to get in.
That works out fine: you look for the kind of service that offers what you want, Yahoo looks for people that want the kind of service they offer. It's a big web.
My wild guess (and I'm not a cost accountant) is that they pay maybe $15-20 dollars in direct wages to review a site; maybe another $20-25 in facilities overhead; maybe another $40-60 in management and engineering. Continuing the speculation, they probably have at least 40-50 site reviewers, 3-6 support personnel, 6-10 managers.
And you are probably right, the demand for listing in a reputable, highly-ranked directory is relatively inelastic. If Yahoo lowered their cost to $200, would they double the number of applications for listings? It's extremely doubtful. And yet, they'd have to, to make the same money based on the guesstimates.
A small directory is more likely to get by with uncredentialed workers at home, taking profit instead of investing in management, so you could be making money in the $20-50/review range. But you can't extrapolate that to a large traditional-firm organization.
So if a scrapper site or a site just full of affiliate banners and links should get guaranteed inclusion just because they have paid?
Don't think so, not on my directory sites anyway...
Direct correlation? A directory listing has absolutely "0" affect on positions in Yahoo search in my experience.
Otherway round here. On many occasions to be coincidental.
I personally do not think it was a coincindence.
My point is if I'm paying you or someone else hard cash, then I want a decent result/service for that cash.
That means if they refuse to include sites, then what result have they provided for the customer? The answer is none of course. If sites aren't included, then there cannot be an advantage - after all they aren't in the publication/site are they. What good is that. Although, I feel that scraper sites should be banished to the depths of hell and beyond - but if they pay with the thinking that they will get in, then it's unfair and theft not to put them into at least some category.
The case in point is to fulfil an advertising/search need - that hopefully turns into some kind of ROI for the site owner. Intention to provide advertisers with a good basic service is the key to further business.
Intention is no good if it's not backed up with action. Yahoo could be using the 'review' option so as to prevent admin costs for refunds. I suppose if a website is 'illegal' or something, then to not include it is the right thing to do in that case.
But that don't change the fact that in order to secure new business orders, it's probably a good idea to let people have the service they think they paid for..... which is inclusion. Let's not be thick here - we know that when this $299 payment is made, the real intention for the advertiser is to gain a listing with Yahoo. Now for Yahoo and others to refuse entry, and then to make a refund is one thing, but to refuse entry and keep the cash is theft. Theft is illegal no matter how the rules, policies of the service provider are worded. Misappropriation of someone elses property (in this case cash) with the intention of permanently depriving of. ie, nothing in return for said payment.
Theft is theft, and it doesn't matter how deep someone's pockets are, it doesn't matter. It's a kind of deception that's being projected here. Yahoo, isn't saying you'll definetely get in, but you might - if you pay us a fee..... They want to put that thought in your head, to entice you to pay up - but they don't give a stuff if you're included or not, they still make money off you.
Not exactly projecting a great image for themselves, if they rip some poor bugger off eh. ncw164x how would you feel if they did it to you. You might as well drop $300 down the drain, as it's the same difference. You still lose it if they don't put you in. People want guarantees and that's fair, in my expert service opinion.
My guess is the review fee stops any mass refunds dead - to filter out any illegal practices, but they need to say that then - not be totally ambiguous on some sign up form. Jeeze. This review fee is just too big a gamble - a roll of the dice.
I thought site owners paid for and got advertising, I didn't realise Yahoo considered themselves as Casino operators.
