Yahoo ban changed to demotion?

[hedd gwynfor]

Our company own a few domains targeted to total unique sections of our company, and including completely unique content. 10 months ago they were all banned. I believe because we hired a rogue Optimisation company, who built some doorway pages without our knowledge. Since then all of these have been deleted, and our sites have been totally wiped clean of any bad practice.

Therefore until very recently these domains were totally banned, but we have recently noticed that the domains ARE now re-included in Yahoo search if we search for

www.domain.com or

"a very specific unique long sentence only included in our website"

But we do not appear under normal search i.e

"Our Product"

Even though we were No.1 in Yahoo before the ban, and we are No.1 in Google when searching for "Our Product"

Has anyone else noticed that bans have been changed to artificial demotions? Why has this happened? Is it to cover Yahoo so that they can say you are included bye-bye? Or is it a genuine effort by Yahoo to re-inlude sites that are now wrongly banned?

[soapystar]

yes this has happened across the boards. As for your reasonable question it will never be answered by anyone who really knows. Consistently those with the true answers choose not to post.

[randle]

Is it to cover Yahoo so that they can say you are included bye-bye?

That’s it exactly. They have given themselves some breathing room on the, “my site is missing, please look at it for re-inclusion” flood of requests.

What you have described is exactly what happened. Prior to this shift you could not find your site, period. It was removed. Then about two weeks ago they shifted to this approach. Now if you send an e-mail to Yahoo for re-inclusion you get a canned e-mail response telling you to search for your site using the title. That’ll do it for sure. But then start backing off it a word at a time, pretty soon it’s oblivion.

[hedd gwynfor]

Do Yahoo admit that these demotions are now in place?

Because with our sites, as with many others, it is obvious that these are not organic natural listing we are seeing when searching.

Does anybody that work for yahoo post here? Can you give us an answer as to if a demotion scheme is in place, and if there is an appeal process to lift the demotion?

[mastervisa]

That is exactly my situation. Except it happened to me in July, 2004. A month or two ago the index page reappeared but does not come up in a search except for the title or www.mydomain.com. It's my Y directory listing that comes up actually. I did research here, got rid of the SEO guy, cleaned everything up, am writing to Y and waiting. Main site was on Y for 6 years. Did you use Ink PFI? Find cross linking on doorway pages?

[hedd gwynfor]

Doorway Pages were my problem, and yes we used Ink in the past! You said that you had contacted Yahoo, which email address did you use, as everyone I try returns with an automated messag, and I don't think that the reach their destination at al.

Anyone here working for Yahoo?

[soapystar]

>>>>Anyone here working for Yahoo?

yes! Check out some sitematch threads to find them...;)

[hedd gwynfor]

Just cancelled our Ineedhits Site Match account this morning, even though we were still in credit as they were all rejected (Even though they were all passed at first, and ranked well in Yahoo for the first few weeks!)

So the Yahoo folk only try and talk up products, and do not participate in threads like this?

Anyone hot an email address that somone in Yahoo actually reads?

[martinibuster]

This is an interesting discussion. Please allow me to inject some different ideas into the mix:

we are No.1 in Google when searching for "Our Product"

Is it possible that the ranking criteria for Google and Yahoo are sufficiently different? There's differences between Y and MSN Ink, so how much more with G?

I don't think it's reasonable to compare the rankings of one website between two search engines because I find that the criteria is sufficiently different in areas, a difference in emphasis, that there are going to be wide variances of disagreement. And they should disagree.

Google's serps are not the standard for a correct answer yet people seem to expect something from Yahoo if Google is giving it to them. So why hold Yahoo to Google for comparison? If you want to blow your mind get a second opinion: check how well your website does in Ask Jeeves.

The other day someone asked me to look at a website that was supposedly demoted from Yahoo and does well for Google, and it looked to me like classic off page factors working well for Google, and on page factors not working well for Yahoo.

I don't mean to discount your opinions on this matter of demotion, or to imply that your site might be too spammy, just wanted to throw in some different thoughts on the matter.

[mastervisa]

To Martinibuster: I had about the same results from Y and G before the penalty. Still way up on G or I would be out of business. Checked with AskJeeves. Not ranking good on general terms but with most manufacturer names and model names I sell I have 2-5 out of the top 10 spots sometimes. Can't complain. Also doing great on MSN beta across board.

[soapystar]

while not every site that says its banned is really and truly banned/penalised, that is clear. Its also very clear that actual banned sites that were previously not to be found within the index are now there and do have a total demotion penalty. To be honest, its not even opinion or a matter of debate (imho :)). Yes, whether sites are actually banned or not can be debated but, but banned sites do now reside within the index where they didnt before, and yes they do have a total demotion penalty. I understand that theres a distinction between an algo affect and a penalty but we are now talking about banned sites being allowed to surface within the serps but with a total demotion penalty.

[hedd gwynfor]

Same with me. Before being banned, our domains performed as well (if not better) on Yahoo compared to Google.

And to answer your squestion, yes it does perform well also in Ask Jeeves, and it performs well in MSN Beta, but no results whatsoever in yahoo search run engines (Yahoo UK + US, Alta Vista, MSN as it stands)

I hope that these points answer your questions.

[hedd gwynfor]

Nyone know of a Yahoo email address where one can appeal against a total demotion?

[mastervisa]

hedd gwynfor, if you are like me, the sites we are talking about are not throw aways. They are our company web sites, our livleyhood. I have had mine since 1998. We are known in our marketplace by manufacturers, vendors, customers and our competition. My dot com is my business name, and the product I sell. We are a small business, just me and my wife and we work over 12 hours a day at it. The email address I was advised to write to for a review was [e-mail]

[hedd gwynfor]

Our situation is very similar. A family business, me my Mother and my Father. Our site has been running since 1999, and as you say the domain name is our company's name. That's why it's so annoying, and I've had people in ineedhits/Site Match to look over our site saying that it is fine, no spam at all, and still we are banned -

The response i keep getting from Yahoo is

<snip>

What this obviously doesn't answer is how to make an appeal against a complete demotion. If no one can find your site it might as well be completely banned. A complete demotion is just as bad. If we were in a really competitive market, fair enough, but there are only about 10 other half decent website that sell our product, it is that unique!

This is just to buy some time for Yahoo, and it's a great shame that they treat customers in such a way (Yes customers we spent over £500 on Site Match just to be banned after a few weeks)

I will try the address you suggested. Thanks.

[edited by: engine at 8:45 pm (utc) on Jan. 11, 2005]
[edit reason] No emails, thanks. See TOS [webmasterworld.com] [/edit]

[soapystar]

i guess youd have to think they were simply overrwhelmed with appeal requests and have decided to simply remove that process altogether. On the other hand to allow the sites to show in the index required at least one switch to be flicked. Just what that switch controlled would be very interesting to know. Clearly they can turn those banned sites on and off at will. is this simply a database of sites that were pulled from several different means or a database of sites that were affected by a particular method of banning. Perhaps it simply a certain filter that gets turned on and off. Its pretty interesting whatever is going on and actually tells us a lot about how they deal with sites even if they always talk about those, cough cough, guidelines.

[mastervisa]

I just read in another thread that it is easier to get another domain, block G from it, and dupe your old content than it is to appeal to Y about a site penalty or ban. That sounds crazy. I would rather play by the rules and not do that. But going months with no traffic from Y and looking at what could be a lifetime penalty on Y (who knows), I can see where they are forcing people, honest people, to do this. Am I supposed to watch my business fail and do nothing?

[soapystar]

yup.....to repeat wot i said in another thread....yahoo is now full of 'made-for-yahoo' spam not found in any other engine for the reasons you have just stated....

[randle]

What bothers us about all this is that it is a disingenuous solution to a problem they can’t seem to grapple with. To respond to re-inclusion requests by sending a canned e-mail instructing you to search for your site using the title, in quotes, is about as insulting as it gets. Within 30 seconds of reading that e-mail we completely understood what the gig was. And after 8 months of politely asking for some sites to be reviewed, it stung a bit to have the realization the sites now in, but it ain’t coming back. If Yahoo feels the site violates the terms then stick to your conviction and say your out, (deserved or not).

To rub salt on the wounds one of their human editors, who manually reviewed the site, felt it was good enough to place right up near the top of the directory.

I like Yahoo and we have some sites that have done well there. But I just don’t get implementing a systematic plan that results in absolutely no appeal avenue for honest webmasters who truly feel their sites comply with their guidelines.

[martinibuster]

What bothers us about all this is that it is a disingenuous solution to a problem they can’t seem to grapple with. To respond to re-inclusion requests...

But I just don’t get implementing a systematic plan that results in absolutely no appeal avenue for honest webmasters...

So let me get this straight:

• Some of you were honest victims of rogue seo's who spamitized your website, which resulted in a subsequent eighty sixing from the sitematch program or the regular Yahoo index, but now you are back in the index, but aren't ranking anymore

• Some of you are honest webmasters who screwed up and spamitized your websites (out of ignorance or greed, whatever), were accepted into the sitematch program and subsequently booted, and now are back in the index but can't rank for anything

• Most of you are honest webmasters who really didn't do anything much and were booted out of sitematch or the regular Yahoo index but are now in the index but can't rank for anything

• Yahoo has instituted a Demotion Penalty for formerly spammy sites that are now squeaky clean superstar websites hitting an impressive trifecta of ranking at the top of Google, MSN beta, and Ask Jeeves, but get no loving from Yahoo

Did I miss anything?

[mastervisa]

Martinibuster: I thought I was number 3 on your profile list. After doing research on here for weeks I fit number 1 on your list, with a little number 2 thrown in, which I now realize. My site fits number 4 exactly. (I think:) You didn't miss anything.

[soapystar]

Did I miss anything?

the INK penalties! ;)

to be HONEST for me the issue is not one of banning sites that cheat or cross clear lines, its about banning for life rather than filtering of sites for subjective quality decisions, or at least being able to give that as a reason. I find it concern in that those same sites can totally duplicate their content on another domain and flourish suggesting that it is not the content that is being filtered.

[soapystar]

added>>>

I guess now that it would be appear the window for appeals has been removed that many have become concerned. It was suggested to me at the start of the change that the invitation on this forum to appeal your sites ban/penalty was actually a test of their screening of the banned/penalised sites. This would explain why only this forum seemed to be made aware of it. I have no idea if that was true or not but the current situation would seem to support it.

[outland88]

>I find it concern in that those same sites can totally duplicate their content on another domain and flourish suggesting that it is not the content that is being filtered.

Yes, that's really one of the truly amazing things that defies sound reasoning.

[theBear]

All that any of this means is that a PERSON not software put the "penalty" flag on.

[soapystar]

All that any of this means is that a PERSON not software put the "penalty" flag on.

how do you come to that conclusion? on-page factors dont have to be the only thing triggering a flag or filter. There are many ways a site could penalised that doesnt involve human intervention or on-page factors.