Ye, not that big of a change though, no serp changes.
angiolo
4:56 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)
I see different results, compared to last month, as usual. It seems that every month ranking changes a little bit: is it related to click popularity or is it random?
nicebloke
4:57 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)
Looks a lot better than the cack they had before.
mat
5:24 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)
Haven't looked at UK for a while, so I don't know what the 'old' results were, but what I'm seeing is the directory results served up by default - is that what you're referring to?
If you're saying that this is better than the Google/directory mix by default, then boy do I disagree.
Mat
nicebloke
5:27 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)
Nope I'm saying it's a lot more usable than it was before.
mat
5:31 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)
OK, but what is, exactly - is the change you're commenting on a switch from Google-powered by default back to the old directory by default, or something else? And, if yes, what do you find to be more useable?
Mat
nicebloke
5:35 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)
Yahoo UK has never been Google powered apart from the backfill.
The old SERPS were basically a list of categories, with sites inbetween category headings. This gave a very cluttered look. Current results are much cleaner.
mat
5:38 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)
Yahoo UK has never been Google powered apart from the backfill.
Hey, am I on the case or what? Didn't know that. Thanks.
glengara
6:29 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)
You're right, much cleaner; pages resemble the default G ones on the .com site
4eyes
7:16 pm on Nov 12, 2002 (gmt 0)
hmmmm...
Bet it doesn't stop there.
Reckon this is the forerunner to a yahoo.com type SERP.