Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Forum Moderators: martinibuster
joined:Dec 13, 2002
This one was a no brainer and if Yahoo didn't see this coming, then they overestimated their own value. Not hard to believe.
So my question for starting this thread, how much would you pay to be listed in the Yahoo directory - FOR A LIFETIME LISTING - whether or not they ever revert back to directory listings as their default listings. I am talking about a lifetime listing under their current model of presenting SERPS.
Yahoo is probably learning their lesson that the Biz Express Submission Dept went to crud when they implemented their idiotic changes.
Myself, I would pay around $3-400 for a lifetime listing. And I am making this judgement call based on my topic and my topic only, the number of sites I compete against, etc. I don't know and don't care about other types of businesses, keywords, etc. So when you set your ceiling of what you would pay (for a lifetime directory listing) think of your niche and your niche only.
A Yahoo directory listing brings a certain value to your site with link value, some traffic and human validation or your sites potential value to searchers.
So where would you set your ceiling price for a lifetime listing under Yahoo's current model for presenting sites?
PS Just list your ceiling price. Let's not get on editorial tangents about the Yahoo directory, Google default serps, whether inktomi may or may not be default listings some day, just list your ceiling price for a directory submission under the current model. Let's not get emotional. Keep it simple. $50, $100, $200, $300, $500, $800, - what would you pay right now to get a site in the directory? If you wouldn't pay more than $50, fine. If you would pay $300, fine. Just think about it and be realistic and honest with yourself in the max you would pay. How much is that directory listing worth to you and your website? Sure, everyone would love to only pay $10 for lifetime listing, but that's stupid and unrealistic and I really want to come up with a median price. A median price that Yahoo might take to heart and implement.
If they ever post their logs so we can see what gets visited more, the Search (fed by Google atm) or the directory, I might have something almost valid enough to make as guess as to value. Since Yahoo! is the number 2 referrer to most of my sites behind Google, and I have 0 listings in their directory, my guess would be that Joe Sixpack types widget and clicks the button. Since Joe will find me at #1 for 10, top 10 for 22, and top 20 for 17 more of the 50 keyword and keyword combination searches that end up at my site, I really don't think I want to spend any money in an attempt for an extra fraction of a percent of PR, or the hand full of visitors that a listing in the back closet might bring.
joined:Dec 13, 2002
glengara, thanks for an honest and realistic post. A lifetime listing would be worth $100s to not just me but others as well. Most of the posts here were from people burned and carrying a grudge.
Clark, if your site didn't got accepted, my guess is you didn't do your homework (research) before you submitted. Yahoo has gotten real loose on what they will accept. If one can't get into Yahoo directory...?!? (no offense).
The whole point of this thread (which failed by the majority of posts it received) was to prod Yahoo into restructuring something that was a complete and antagonistic failure into a marketable product that offers both Yahoo and webmasters a more win-win opportunity then this fiasco they currently have. Expressing a realistic dollar amount of a lifetime listing could prod Yahoo into making a change. Posting that you wouldn't pay anything because you have a grudge is just USELESS.
Webmasters know the current directory submission model is a sick joke. If Yahoo looks at the bottom line, they will realize this too. They are also working hard to re-establish themselves as an independent credible search platform. To do this, they not only have to win the faith of web surfers, but webmasters AS WELL. If the webmasters hate them, this will spill over to web surfers and they will never gain the independent credibility they are seeking.
Therefore, in my opinion, Yahoo needs to change their directory submission model - therefore, I posted this thread in hopes of prodding them in that direction. So let's keep the grudge posts to ourselves and post some realistic dollar amounts of what one would pay for a lifetime submission.
If you got a grudge, email it to Yahoo. Posting your grudge is not going to change anything. But telling Yahoo, "Yeah, I would pay around $400 for a lifetime listing" sends an influential message that could spawn a change in the current directory submission model.
joined:June 18, 2002
The early bird gets the worm.
Or like Clark to take my money on the off chance that they might list me and if not that same college kid cost me 300 bucks for his 3 minute workload?
Not on your life! Yahoo. Ya Who?
joined:Sept 20, 2000
If it was my own cash and my own biz, I'd take a flier on the $300.00 annual, see if worked and if not, drop it. With Click prices going out of site on many keywords, $300.00 probably isn't all that high in many markets assuimng the site sin't buried at the bottom of some cat with hundreds of other listings.
Apart from definitional problems this a "lifetime" listing is practically impossible. How would the quality of a directory by affected by having sites in it that have degraded badly and are there just because someone paid for a "lifetime" listing? Surely the directory would fail long term anyway. Just as the current directory did, which did not fail because of the change to google listings, but failed because a mass of paid multi-keyword affiliate domains made it almost useless to the searcher.
From what I remember Y! NEVER offered lifetime listings, even in the early days. They offered for your site to be reviewed for possible listing and inclusion. No implicit or explicit guarantee was made for how long that listing would last.
So to me this discussion is based on a premise that is just not sensible, sustainable or implementable.
They seem to think they will survive but my guess is not many people will pay to be in their engine anymore unless they go back to to their old methods.
At the moment I would not pay them because I find my website is buried deep inside their website and yahoo would rather promote googles results rather than their own which i have paid for.