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.
As Tim says, the vast majority of sites do not need to pay for inclusion into Yahoo. I think you have misuderstood what SiteMatch is about.
Yahoo results are no more or less biased than Google's.
so far I'm a happy chappie I've not paid for a single page but most of my top keywords are in & my clients too, so thanks Yahoo
Don't want to do a 'me too' post, but, me too.
It strikes me that all the time I've spent trying with various degrees of success to skew Google has produced pages loved by Yahoo - what a cool coincidence... I wouldn't pay them a dime even if my sites didn't do well though - I'd just try to do the same thing I've done with Google: test, test, test and test (implement), test, test, test (implement), test (you get the idea).
48 hour crawls. If that didnt give an advantage then sitematch wouldnt sell itself on that point.
If 99% of crawls are done for free whats the point of sitematch? Everyone could simply use the free add url. If sitematch was there just for quicker indexing or hard to crawl sites then it wouldnt ride on the back of ppc, just pfi.
joined:July 21, 2000
I've been using SiteMatch with some success for the last few weeks and have no complaints at all (apart from the review process being a little slow).
Provided costs are incorporated into client billing (and they aren't going to continue to pay unless the ROI holds up) where is the problem?
where is the problem?
nothing in the product itself. But they claim there is no advantage to serps in using it. The sitematch sites should be marked as such and marketing of the Yahoo search as a bascially free crawled index without a sitematch bias dropped. Of course non-profit sites that may well have information users want will not be able to afford ppc and be buried under sitematch advantaged sites. But yes, as a SEO pro with clients with nice budgets and margins you are laughing.
If a page gets crawled today, will it get into the index and listings faster if the page is in the SiteMatch program?
If a page gets indexed and listed today, will it be likely to have a higher rank if it is in the SiteMatch program?
I've posted previously about a concern that using Google AdSense means that you'll disappear from Yahoo. Or perhaps we are banned because of suspected spamming (?) We include email contact links on all our pages. Altho we have never spammed anyone, malicious spammers pick up our domain name to send out emails.
So this could be a reason we've been dropped altogether by Yahoo. The problem is, that Yahoo is unresponsive, and innocent sites suffer for it. So do users, who don't get complete search results.
Without SiteMatch, how often does a site get crawled? (on average or whatever) --- I'm sure it's a lot longer than 48 hours, but how much longer? A year? A month? If a page gets crawled today, will it get into the index and listings faster if the page is in the SiteMatch program? If a page gets indexed and listed today, will it be likely to have a higher rank if it is in the SiteMatch program?
For sites that are found by the crawler, it can take several days to a few weeks for a site to be found or recrawled. If you use Site Match, your site will be recrawled within 48 hours (whether you were already found by the organic crawler or not). Any pages submitted to Site Match will *not* receive a higher rank than if the page was found by the crawler.
Another poster suggested that the real problem is that Google hypes the sites that run Google Adsense ads. Yet we enjoyed high Google ratings long before we began participating in AdSense.
If they don't index all sites that are truly helpful to the people that do a search, then how could they possibly compete against anyone and call themselves a search engine. They say they want the best results. How can that be when they won't include the best sites.
Excessive greed leads to ruination and I beleive Yahoo as a search engine will see bad days ahead unless they
let go of this holier than thou attitude.
Google is a ground breaker, Yahoo only breaks ba_ls.
I can't wait for Google to decide that they will be an Internet access provider. Imagine what that would do!
Just my thoughts ;)
I guess that proves the point. Yahoo in its current format crushes some sites and boosts others, without regard to merit. And that can't be good for the web.
Yahoo has a different business model and ranking algorithm to other SE's (eg Google) - that will mean sites will be ranked differently based on different criteria.
>And that can't be good for the web.
I thinks thats good for the web. Consumers (ie searchers) have a choice.
I agree. I consider the greater problem the decreasing number of SEs. Before, other SEs would turn up gems that were very hard to find on Google because of the peculiarities of Google's algo.
I am in favor of more SEs to reduce sole dependence of one or two. However, for models like Yahoo (or current MSN) where commercial searches tend to bring up sponsored listings first, virtually burying the free listing, and consumers have a tendency of not going beyond the first fold, consumers might have less of a choice compared to in past.