new inclusive Yahoo

what does it mean?

[soapystar]

At the time of the law vegas conference it was talked about that yahoo was to engage in a more inclusive policy. Does anyone actually understand what that means? The best that i can tell is that it now means your banned site will have the index page in the actual serps but will have a total demotion penalty. Perhaps it was good timing to announce that at the same time that a few sites reapeared because they sorted one issue with 301's. If someone can expand on the meaning of the NEW inclusive policy id be very grateful.

[steve_o]

This would be a good way to begin the new year ...

[randle]

I don’t know if this is related to what was announced as an “inclusion policy” but we had a good fistful of sites removed from Yahoo when they switched over to their own results. (Why, we have absolutely no idea but that’s another story). These sites were absolutely, positively not in the results. We know because we kept very close track of them, and periodically submitted them to various e-mail addresses recommended here and on Yahoo for re-inclusion.

<snip>

So, we [searched for our sites in quotes, as advised by a canned yahoo email response] that and all of the sites can be found using the instructions, but as soon as you start backing off the exact title and removing words it gets harder and harder to find the site until you can’t find it period. So, in our experience, yes banned sites have now been re-included, but are in fact penalized and are kept way out of the results. We tried looking for one site past 1,000 results with no luck.

It appears this is a solution to at least give them some breathing room from the “my sites been removed” problem and sorting through thousands of re-inclusion requests. They go to some length to prove to you the site is in fact in the results by instructing you to search the title. So, what do you say then, you’re in, end of story.

It may be more, “inclusive” but it does not solve the problem of truly trying to get sites you feel meet the guidelines put back into the natural results.

[edited by: martinibuster at 6:31 pm (utc) on Jan. 4, 2005]
[edit reason] TOS Violation #9. "Email excerpts of ANY type or length are not allowed on WebmasterWorld" [/edit]

[soapystar]

yup, i think along the same lines as you which is why i was interested to see if there was single person able to explain the latest Yahoo buzz word, 'inclusiveness'. Despite it being the subject of a presentation i have yet to hear one from one person who understands what they are talking about.

[outland88]

The new Yahoo “inclusive policy” IMO probably means the FTC is breathing down their necks about masquerading as a search engine. The overall policy seems to be a “fooler” instead of an admission of censoring sites for their own financial purposes.

[caveman]

I know that they invited *all* attendees at the last PubCon to their big disco party on the second night of the conference.

Maybe that was it. :-)

[randle]

Perhaps that’s it, makes a lot more sense than allowing banned sites back in, that will never be allowed to truly compete, just to be able to say your "included". I’m back in, but I would get more for my troubles with the disco party.