Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Am I the only one finding such a program outrageous or is it just me who can't afford paying for every page + $0.15 a click?
Now that my Yahoo traffic is gone (even though I can still see my old listings here in Canada) what can I do?
The way I see it the only thing we can do is using word of mouth to tell friends not to use Yahoo anymore, that their search is biased.
But what else can we do except **** and moan? Surely such a huge community of webmasters can't be so helpless.
I like what you said:
"An algorithm that doesn't return pertinent results is a business model pretending to be a search engine."
It amazes me that Yahoo repeats that they want to include of much of the web as possible yet they exclude so many major sites.
Actually the real question for many webmasters is that under Yahoo's current system of presenting serps results what percentage of clicks goes to freely crawled pages.
Outlay of results is very clever, with sponsored results taking up almost all of any surfer's attention space. For example, first page of any commercial search will, in general show, mostly sponsored results, with at most 2 and most likely 1 or partial results from the algo search shown towards the bottom. Towards the bottom of the 20 results page, we have another set of sponsored results.
Go to second page, and the process is repeated.
Add to this some placement avdvantage gained by sitematch pages.
Research indicate that most surfers are likely to click whatever is shown to them first.
My guess is that for commercial searches of any importance, freely crawled pages get only 1% of the clicks. Essentially, freely crawled pages are used as carrots to lure the surfers and then divert them to the sponsored listings, in my view.
My guess is that for commercial searches of any importance, freely crawled pages get only 1% of the clicks. Essentially, freely crawled pages are used as carrots to lure the surfers and then divert them to the sponsored listings, in my view
you are starting to see through the fog. This is exactly what its all about. I have said this serveral times. Its not abouthaving the best search engine out there, its about LOOKING as though you have the best engine out there.
i take your point but disagree. I think most websites that actually convert need to be what they say they are. However while we could argue that point i dont think the analogy applies here. The only reason i believe its permissable to throw stones inside this glasshouse is because of Yahoo's size. Once you become large enough to be dominat for a certain market then the ruls you play by are different. If you are looking to dominate getting on for %50 of online searches then indeed actually having the search engine you are marketing is what you should have. If users are led to believe its a minty fresh index of as many sites as they can stuff in and nobody can buy improved placement then they are obliged to provide that. I am not saying any site deserves t rank above any other, but they deserve to go through the same filters without subjective tinkering.