Forum Moderators: open
"We base our evaluation of each site solely on the content it has on the site at the time of evaluation. When we reviewed your site today, we found that it did not have enough content to support a listing through the Yahoo! Express program."
The site looks and functions professionally, but I'll admit it does have two deficits: there isn't much additional copy on the pages, and it currently lacks product images. The site is an efficient retail presence targeting people who shop for fragrances based on price or wide variety, but it's definitely "no frills" when it comes to marketing copy extolling the virtues of its product lines, etc.
We do want to take measures to "fix" the issue and appeal. Have you had this exact "content" issue before? If so, what did you do about it? Thanks in advance!
And now, a quick rant:
I understand that it's Yahoo.com's prerogative to deny sites which are substantially similar to others in their database (per Andrew Gerhart's article about Yahoo.com, [searchengineguide.com ]: "The site is going to be reviewed by a human, and if they feel that they already have 20 sites that have the same content they will pass by your site"), but doesn't Yahoo.com understand that there's a point of diminishing returns for additional business/retail submissions? In other words, at some point (say, February of 2002 :) ) it's going to be impossible to submit an additional retail site that isn't substantially similar to others already in the index, either because the inventory is basically the same to other sites or the non-product content is substantially the same.
I think that you answered your own question. The deficits that your site has that you pointed out and said you were going to fix are the reason that your site was not included. The rule of submitting to Yahoo! is that you should make sure everything is correct before you submit. You should have fixed these problems before you gave them your money, because now it is gone.
Yahoo! is the biggesst directory on the Internet, and sad to say, they have the authority and ability to deny a website's inclusion based on simple things like this.
From a usability standpoint and SEO standpoint your site would be hurting as well. I cannot imagine that the site would be ranking very well without much content. How would people know what they are buying without pictures of the product?
These are some things that you should be thinking about, and are also things that a human reviewer would be thinking about.
In regards to your mini-rant, I think that this a bit of an exaggeration. Yahoo's denial of inclusion has more to do with the website's content, legitimacy, and structure. They would not deny a site if it was too similar, but definitely if it was a duplicate.
I understand, a lot of people have experienced the same thing as you. Best you can do is fix what you know to fix and then utilize that appeal, at least they grant sites that much. Let us know how it goes.
Here's another question. OK, so Yahoo.com's just told me I need to change the site or it won't be included. Were I to write back asking clarification of what sort of content the editor would like to see, would that email be considered our official appeal, so that, having made all the appropriate changes, my very next email would be ignored, as I only get one appeal?
In most normal circumstances, you'd write back, get the lowdown on what needs correcting, then write back to alert the party that the corrections were done -- a total of two transmissions. I know I'm being nitpicking...but Yahoo.com seems to have become the prime nitpicker of the Internet. I wouldn't want to blow our only chance of appeal simply because I have good communication skills, right? [:)]
Thanks again for your wisdom!
Winooski, it's probably the same type of content that would make it a good site to shop. If I were shopping for fragrance on line I wouldn't have the chance to use testers like at a store, so I'd want information on what type of fragrance it was if it weren't a brand I was already familiar with.
Is it a light fragrance suitable for daytime, woodsy, floral, herbal, etc. or better for evening - exotic, spicy, sultry? You also have to remember that with cosmetics and fragrances there's a lot of hype that gets deparment store prices rather than possible comparable products down the corner drug store. People buy cosmetics and fragrances for effect, so the emotional sell is very important.
Fancy "packaging" and enticing words contribute to a certain image, and each manuacturer goes out of their way to create their image to get regulars. So for the people who are brand loyal, they've already been sold the image; but with those unfamiliar, the verbal imagery needs to be on a site, as well as a bit of visual. It's a critical component.
So adding content descriptive of the major, best selling manufacturers (if not all) plus descriptions of the different types of fragrances - florals, orientals, woods, etc. will not only add content but make for better conversion.
Forget the graphics, see the type of message in their content:
[www1.lancome.com...]
[dior.com...]
Thanks Winooksi!
Did we give you enough info to get you on your way?
Speaking of rocking, Marcia, merci beau coups for your thoughtful answer. URLs, even. One of the issues at hand is that it isn't supposed to be an enticing site for people who are in the market for some sort of fragrance and want to shop and learn. It's just a lean, mean, discount perfume machine. I'm exaggerating, but the point is its form very much follows its function. I do agree 100% that it needs product images, but I don't think the proprietor intends to spend much time or bandwidth convincing people of the relative virtues of each fragrance.
...But what about my latest question? If I write back asking clarification of what sort of content the editor would like to see, will that email be considered our official appeal, so that, having made all the appropriate changes, my very next email would be ignored, as I only get one appeal?
I always do them and never had any failure with Yahoo.
Thanks
