Forum Moderators: open
I thought about it; and realized the same day that I posted links between two of my sites that happen to be irrelevant to each other.
I realized after reading the penalty thread in this area that what I had done could have incurred the penalty; in fact, it most likely did, and have since removed the links.
The wierd thing is; I only put a link from one site to the other; and both my sites were penalized. But this makes sense to me.
I haven't seen the link that was caught by yahoo removed yet; I'm wondering, in the next update, is it possible that Yahoo will realize the sites are no longer linking and remove this link; thus ending my penalty?
I have emailed yahoo about this problem; asking if indeed a penalty was implied, and am yet to hear back from them.
Does anyone have any experience as to how a Yahoo penalty can be resolved in this manner? Or how long it takes for Yahoo to update itself and realize the sites are no longer linking?
In the begining, there is option to choose Subject. The most stupid think - if I choose "Web Search" (I would like to aks about ban penalty impose on my site) it impossible (sic!) to send message. Works OK if I choose another option - like "Sposor Result Search", but I'm not quite sure if my message will have any effet (it could be sent to different department of Yahoo)
I wonder if Yahoo really understands how easy this is?
We did change servers recently, made this had some impact?
Stopping right there for a moment. That seems wise. Why would Yahoo tell me specifically what was going on? If they want sites in their index to be as clean as possible, why not be deliberately vague and make me do the work of cleaning up my transgressions. I think this is a smart move on Yahoo's part. If you were told "well its because of X" then you'd go fix X and then resubmit. This makes the webmaster have to work harder and that's not a bad thing.
So i changed a number of things. I removed one affiliate, removed some really slow pages, politely requested another site not to link to all my pages at the same time, and a few more things too.
Then i wrote a letter to Yahoo. Not some 1 line email saying "ok rereview my site". Do you hate 1 line emails when people send them to you? Yahoo people probably do too. I took the time to explain what I had done to my site, and why I felt that my site should be reconsidered for inclusion.
About a week later I received a reply saying that my site had been re-queued for review and I'd hear more.
Personally I think Yahoo is doing well, and that our expectations that we should be able to fix our sites one night and be back in the index tomorrow are wholly unrealistic. If that were the case how would a ban affect us and would we learn or change our ways? No.
I think therein lies an issue to do with Customer Service and it seems to me that when MS Search enters the fray, Yahoo may well have to overhaul the response times and the tone of the responses. However, having said that, there are some other very successful search engines that automate their replies and yet it has not hurt them in the long run.
As for being dependent on Yahoo. Yes I can understand the pain. I'm hurting too. Especially with MS being sourced from Yahoo results. If the same rules applied to us all equally I would feel better, but I cannot help but feel that some people get away with the gray tactics that may have led to penalties for others.
Yes I am a lucky person in that the link was removed. If inward links from a domain that has been setup purely to put you into a penalty state do cause that penalty to be enacted, then we are all in trouble.
As an earlier writer pointed out, its no problem at all to duplicate the content of a site these days.
As for your condition, we went ahead and removed our old site by hand as soon as the new one was up. Guess whether or not you can do that is kind of up to what terms you leave your last host on.
Now Showing 1 thru 1 of 1
Currently Indexed Pages
As of Tuesday, July 6, 2004
URL Added Last Refresh
www.mysite.com/ 3/19/2004 11:44:19 PM 7/4/2004 10:32:02 AM
Export as TAB delimited
Thanks for that tip. I now know when it started for me (5/29). Anyways, no i'm still getting surfed so if I do get my ban lifted I should be straight back in.
You may still login, view reporting and suspend URLs. Search Submit customers will continue to receive traffic from the rest of the Inktomi distribution network for the remainder of the 12 month inclusion program with Search Submit.
You can suspend URLs in Inktomi paid inclusion program, not sure if this is a factor or not.
No more site submit? Oh well, thats money I'll save.
I disagree with your point that Yahoo is wise for not telling us what the problem is and forcing us to "clean up our sites". In my case, I have analzyed their statements of accepted content to the letter and do not see that I've done anything wrong. I have some speculations but that's all it is at this point and without knowing what the problem is or where the line is drawn I'm stuck hopelessly spinning my wheels and waisting my time. Yahoo needs to give me some directions.
I mean, the *only* thing I can see is that, yes, I do some affiliate marketing ... but I also offer hundreds of pages of content too. According to a statement that affiliate sites must also provide substantive unique content I should be fine. And serously - I'm completely within the lines without question on every other account. So, the only thing I could possibly do at this point is completely deconstruct my core business proposition - in some hope that maybe it would please the Yahoo gods....and even then - who the hell knows if that's even the problem!
ATTN YAHOO - I WANT to clean up whatever the problem is but need some direction. I do not know what the problem is! It is 100% withint the rules for acceptable content that I have seen! Please help me out here!
Yahoo is a business, much like mine or yours, just on a grander scale. If Yahoo deems that something about your site is not to their liking, why do they have to tell you what it is? The inclusion of any site into their search results is not guaranteed, nor is it a right.
We may argue that certain sites above us are spam, and unworthy compared to ours, but the reality of the situation is that they are above us, for whatever reason.
It is a harsh thing when a penalty is applied, and we may think that Yahoo is making a mistake, but they may just see it as business as usual, looking after their business and their search results, an aim that may be incompatible with allowing a site to be in the search results. At the end of the day if they are supplying enough valid results to the searching public then Yahoo is safe, and that is what matters to them.
With great power comes great responsibility ... and if they shirk that responsibility now, I hope society shows them no mercy when the regulators come knockin' a few years from now.
Your underlying problem is that you are not listed in a place where people LIKE to search. No one forces the people to search there. Why should Yahoo include either of us?
They are a corporation for profit and search is just one product that they issue. If people did not like the results then they could search elsewhere.
Theoretically yes. Plausibly - its an anagopoly - Microsoft, Google, yahoo...period. Everyone else is either an affiliate or a virtually non-existant competitor, or has already been bought out. And this will probably distill even more in the coming couple of years.
Still, Windows isn't a complete monopoly. Nor was IBM. But they both abused their competitive stature and were chastized and eventually reeled in by the US Gov. MS got off easy compared to IBM. Also, Cable companies were never a complete monopoly either - nor are they truly at this point with Satellites etc. Still, all of these scenarios have been deemed necessary for regulation. Seeing how Yahoo/Google can kill a business currently and particularly seeing Yahoo's conflict of interest in travel for instance where they plug their own products ahead of the listings of other businesses - I can't imagine that they're on any other path except one toward regulations if this continues.
Most importantly however - I cant recall any other private entity that's even had the power to effectively dictate the success or failure of a business on a whim like this. And, things like SiteMatch remind me of the mafia to whom you must pay 'protection money'. Its legalized crime I tell ya! They don't own they Internet - it belongs to all of us....yet they kinda do.
The Internet does not belong to 3 players - but three players are effectively now bullies which have hujacked the playground by brainwashing everyone into thinking they hold the only keys to the gate. Similar to the FCC and the radio conglomarates - it will require regulation. There are far too few who now possess far too much power - and we the small fries are beginning to realize the frankenstein we helped to create - and that we're helping to feed through our PPC ads and what not, mind you.
At any rate - I can't possibly see any justifiable way to allow these companies to control teh Internet, regardless of their business model - particularly if they're going to abuse all of the other Businesses that have equal right to the internet as they do. I mean, this reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons wherein Mr Burns builds a huge machine to block the Sun...and you have to pay to get sunlight access. Is that his right? What if there are three people blocking the Sun so that its not technically a monopoly - is that right? Some cases where resources are abused, regulation is required - monopoly aside.
[edited by: cabbagehead at 9:55 pm (utc) on July 7, 2004]
The debate between Metro-Robert and Cabbagehead is interesting in this election year, but completely beside the point.
The point is that the "lack of respect" for Yahoo is justified. They have serious problems with 301's and so-called duplicate content bans. Tim said in March they were working on these.
Well its 4 months later and this not ready for prime time search engine still cant get their act together. I can strip a copy of someone's index page, put it up on a throwaway domain, and get them knocked out of the index. I can then remove the content and park the domain with a redirect to their original site and my throway domain will appear in the serps where theirs belong.
A few weeks later, Yahoo will catch on and remove the throwaway domain. I can repeat this cycle every few weeks.
Now do you still believe this little cat and mouse game I can play with them warrants any respect "for the job they are trying to do"?
