Forum Moderators: open
I have figured one thing out. It seems that after page two, Y! begins to randomize the results somewhat. I have seen our site show up in 3 different places during 3 different searches over the course of 2 minutes - clearing all all cookies and cache everytime.
A few observations:
1. Google results are jumping around, therefore Yahoo will do the same. Not usually several times per day, but twice in 24 hours is very possible.
2a. Yahoo is not using all of the filters and algo adjustments that Google is putting in place
or
2b. Yahoo is modifying these filters/algo adjustments to suit itself. For some search terms the Yahoo results look better to me, for others they are worse tahn Google. The latter mainly applying where very near duplicate sites are involved.
3. I don't see any indication INK results are getting into the Yahoo SERPs. I seem to remember the CEO of Yahoo Germany said something about a change would occur by the end of summer...I guess that means September time. Maybe the current chaos at Google will encourage them to speed up a tad:)
I think the Yahoo directory is now safely on the back burner. I personally like the fact Y includes the directory descriptions from sites that have directory entries instead of the snippets, but allowing the directory to influence SERPs wouldn't be a good move IMHO.
You really didn't say why you think that, but I don't think I agree with that statement. That said, I don't think it would be a great idea for them to just stick their directory listings on top like they did before, but I think they should give them a touch of weight.... they HAVE been human reviewed, and no matter how bad they want your $299, the sites that get in are better than a reviewed site that didn't get in because it didn't meet their standards. Depending on what serps you look at in Google, I see a bunch of cross-linked one page garbage domains that would never make the cut in any human reviewed directory. I'm not saying a Yahoo dir listing should be the end all, but it IS a filter, they DO have a direct influence over that filter, and it is one that could differentiate their engine from Google's in a positive way.
Then again, depending on how much credit you give Google, they do take Yahoo directory listings into accout when they rank their sites. I just think giving a touch of weight would help filter obvious garbage down and it might give webmasters another reason to submit to them again.
I have to agree with dogboy here, since google took the weight off yahoo! listings, the user experience has suffered, if you go back in time, you will also notice that requests for spam reports have also gone up exponentially. Human reviewed sites will always be superior to algo driven guesses, and algos that consider human input will always outperform algos that don't (its free AI).
Simple: Want to sell widgets in Kansas? Register widgets-for-sale-in-kansas.com as the domain name, submit it to the Yahoo directory with a suggest description of something like "Widgets for sale in Kansas" and you are guaranteed the #1 directory position. It can be so easily manipulated that many people will abuse it (me included), albeit the content has to be OT, which isn't a negative.
The Yahoo Directory algo for SERPs is just too simple. Manipulation requires minimal skill, I prefer something a little less obvious.
>I just think giving a touch of weight would help filter obvious garbage down and it might give webmasters another reason to submit to them again.
I like the first half of the sentence. There is a lot of garbage being displayed right now and anything that could eliminate some of that would be a positive. Exactly how Yahoo are going to weight the SERPs to sift the garbage but not allow abuse is another problem.
>it might give webmasters another reason to submit to them again.
I see how this could be good for Yahoo, but I don't see how this helps webmasters. $299 per year per site is not peanuts. Yet I doubt it takes Yahoo folks more than 30 minutes to review even the most complex site. $600 per hour is good pay by any standard (fixed costs included), I think they need to look at this pricing structure if they want more people to join the directory.
Its now even simpler:
Register widgets-for-sale-in-kansas.com as the domain name, link to it from a tripod message board and the algo considers you an "authority"..and ranks you very well. Does the tripod message board method serve the user better than an editor?
added> Actually, if I were Yahoo! and attempting to differentiate myself from google in the search market, I would probably play up the fact that my serps are "safer" to some degree because of the human element.
This does indicate some standard of quality:
3.0 MINIMUM SITE CRITERIA
3.1 All web sites submitted to Yahoo! Express must meet the following minimum criteria:
* If the site is a commercial web site, the official business name must be visible to any visitor to that site;
* The site must clearly define its purpose, products, and/or services;
* The site may not appear in the Direrctory under a different URL;
* The site must contain substantively unique content, as determined by Yahoo!'s editorial staff (for example, a user who submits multiple URLs to the same content is not submitting substantively unique content);
* If the site is applicable to a specific geographic region, the address must be visible to any visitor to that site;
* The site must not contain any parts under construction;
* All links on the site must function properly;
* The site must be in the English language (or have an English version available);
* The site must support multiple browsers and capabilities (e.g., no Java-only sites);
* The site must be up and running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
I appreciate that is an attractive proposition, but at $299 a thow it could get expensive;) Especially when everyone else catches on.
After reading through many of these threads I think most of us are aware of the Y! requirements for inclusion in their directory but... over the years I have found numerous discrepenicies in the listings that points to some fundemental flaw in either the review system or the update system. I have found many sites in top positions with numerous infractions to the Yahoo! "code." I.E. dead links, hidden text, all flash etc. My conclusion is that the web grows, mutates and evolves faster than human reviewers can keep up with. Google can't even keep up with it.
