Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Forum Moderators: martinibuster
The answer confirmed that my sites do have editorial judgments against them. It also said they are outside Yahoo's content policy guidelines at [help.yahoo.com...]
Great! We are banned, but how the heck to we fix what is wrong!
We are #1 for 23 google keyword terms related to our products, and are in the top 5 in google for 160 other terms. On all other search engines, we do equally well - highly ranked, heavily trafficked. In addition, we have a huge Overture budget, Adwords budget, and pay PositionTech for the Trusted Feed program. We also pay Yahoo! for their $299 directory listing.
With all this money going to Yahoo, this is the only answer I got back from them in regards to their new web search... I mean, it's nice to finally know that I really *was* banned due to editorial judgment, but pointing to a list of dozens of reasons doesn't help me get back into the index.
Our site is a good site... no extreme SEO on this site at all. We've played it very safe. And it's extremely popular. And Yahoo has "editorially declined it" without specifying EXACTLY what the problem is. I'd have to change the whole site a hundred times and hope that I got it right and guessed the Might Yahoo Mind, all the while jeapordizing our other SE listings.
Yahoo is DEFINITELY new to this Search Engine game. Let's hope they get a clue and realize that "Editorial Judgements" handed out to as many sites as they are handing them out to is a bunch of fooey without being able to remedy. Especially for established, large, quality sites like ours.
In the meantime, what do you guys recommend we do, other than sit tight and hope Yahoo figures all this out?
Note: Direct email quotes of any length are NOT permitted under Terms of Service item 9, so I paraphrased the quote that nerolabs included.
[edited by: DaveAtIFG at 11:34 pm (utc) on May 12, 2004]
and your $50 per url will sit in Yahoo's bank account.
plus your $50 PPC deposit..(sorry, $49.70..)
I was approved by SiteMatch more than one month ago, and since then I had only ONE clickthrough, which was done presumably by a SiteMatch employee, who checked if my site was really included. How do I know this?
The search phrase for this click was "www.mysite.com"...
joined:July 19, 2002
Site Match should take preference over any free inclusion - so if you are getting clicks it should show up in your Account Admin area.
Please remember that Site Match is not a real time system. Clicks may take a few days to appear in your account admin system.
I had traffic from the Ink portals for about 2 days and then it dissappeared. It shocked me. I hadn't seen any in eight months with the penalty.
God forbid they should do the right thing. It's not in their nature. More likely an accident.
my eyes bled reading the guidelines over and over again, looking for a snippet of a clue of what golden rule i might be violating. But I'm not about to radically revamp a site with good google rankings when i am totally clueless what might be "wrong" in Yahoo's eyes.
based on mine and others experiences here, i'm developing the opinion that yahoo has the problem, not the legitimate webmaster.
Ridgeway, you are certainly correct - this is yahoo's problem not that of us webmasters. Our site virtually dominates our whole industry in google, yet is not good enough in yahoo's book to even grace their listings.
joined:July 21, 2000
I still have a sneaky feeling that more people dominate the SERPs in Yahoo, Teoma et. al and are nowhere in Google (believing that is Google's problem) than vice-versa. The vast majority though, probably do fine in both!
Nice to see that despite the premature announcements that Yahoo will lose all their searchers the moment that Google results were dropped - Yahoo results retain enough eyeballs for people to be really concerned when their results go AWOL!
Long live competition - may there be more of it :)
joined:July 21, 2000
What has that got to do with ranking in web pages? Are you in the directory? Approval for the directory means that a human reviewed your site for legitimate content and they couldn't give a nuts about cross-links, hidden text, spammy keywords or a zillion other things that could make a site fall foul of crawler algos. The directory review means that they looked at your site like a human - and judged it accordingly. Web page penalties mean that your site is looked at like a search engine to see if you are trying to blatantly over-influence the results. The $299 directory review is a red-herring in this argument, IMO.
Now, that's different matter. I agree that you have cause for complaint and would take it up with the provider.
Doesn't get away from the substance of my post though - Yahoo Search is now a pretty important provider of results, MSN will come on with another engine soon and we'll start to see moans that people rule on Google and Yahoo but are nowhere on MSN - and that it is MSN's fault not theirs :)
joined:July 21, 2000
All I am saying is that it is refreshing to see the commencement of "Yahoo rules/sucks" threads rather than the "Google rules/sucks" that have dominated discussion for the past year or so and am looking forward to the lively entertainment of "MSN sucks/rules" shortly to come.
Although I have sympathy to anyone knocked out of any index, I was indulging in the luxury of making a philosophical observation concerning the emergence of greater SE competition rather than wishing to get caught up in a discussion of Yahoo's ranking system.
It is the week-end, after all :)
Your site can be as clean as a whistle and you will still have the penalty. If you sign up for Site Match you will be APPROVED by the editorial quality team because there is nothing wrong with your site but you will receive no clicks because there is a duplication penalty (not a manual or editorial penalty by any means).
The way Yahoo is actually processing links is faulty right now causing many sites to get a duplication penalty when other sites link to them.
So, if you don't get listed/ranked for free in Google you can ask the questions but there is no obligation to get a definitive reply.
You do pay to gain entry into Yahoo (talking about site match here), so you should be entitled to an explanation as to why your page or site is rejected - even if this is not in the letter of their submission guidelines - it's just good customer service practice.
If MSN come along with a programme which is equally ambigous they also deserve to be criticised.
Can I just clarify: is it 50 cents deposit per URL in site match? So it costs the review fee, the cost per click and 50 cents upfront per URL?
Can I also ask, how has everyone explained this to clients when their site/URL has been rejected without a pertinent explanation?