Forum Moderators: open
Site Match delivers:
1. Higher quality search results for users, especially by reducing the amount of search spam (spammers are economically disincented to participate)
2. A clearer, more consistent way to interact with Yahoo! Search Technology for content providers who historically have been subjected to unpredictable changes in the way their content has been discovered and presented by search engines.
As we’ve said elsewhere, we think these benefits are of value to many businesses, and the considerable demand for the program we’ve seen thus far would seem to support that. However, the program may not be valuable to everyone. We understand this – not everyone wants or needs the value-added service that Site Match offers. And that’s OK, because it’s likely that we already have your web pages in the regular crawl, and if we don’t yet, then we are working on getting them in over time. Discovering and indexing all of the content on the internet for free is a cornerstone of our mission to provide the highest quality search experience on the internet.
Q. Will Yahoo! Search results favor sites that pay for the Site Match program?
A. Absolutely not. Payment is not for placement or ranking in search results. Our focus is on delivering the highest quality search experience on the web. As a result, all web pages are algorithmically ranked in the results based on their objective relevance to each specific search query in order to ensure the highest quality search experience for users.
Q. Will the Inktomi index be merged with the new Yahoo! index before Inktomi disappears?
A: Yes. Today there is a single, new Yahoo! Search Technology. This new search engine powers Yahoo! and will shortly also be powering the search solutions of all our partners. The search engines operated by the companies we acquired, including Inktomi, will no longer power our search results. Yahoo! Slurp, Yahoo!’s new crawler, is already reaching and indexing more of the web than any of our prior technologies did.
Q. If I participate in Site Match, will my site be “banned” from the search index?
A. No. The Site Match and crawling systems are separate (one doesn’t affect content in the other) and participation in Site Match does not result in changes to the index. For instance, if you submit 1 page to Site Match, other pages that may be in the regular index will not be affected.
However, content from both systems is reviewed and evaluated against the same criteria to ensure all content meets a consistent, high quality standard. If you joined the Inktomi Search Submit program, for example, you may have been reviewed. If problems were discovered, your site may have been partially or entirely removed from the search index. The same thing happens to sites that have been discovered through the free crawl process; if problems were discovered, your site may have been partially or entirely removed from the search index. Any review-related penalty is solely designed to ensure the best experience for our users, not to encourage ongoing participation in our inclusion programs.
For our new Site Match program, we’re considering providing content providers with a formal method way to appeal perceived penalties. Please stay tuned…
Q. Does Site Match require both a per-page, per-year fee and a cost-per-click?
A. Site Match has a much lower up-front cost (less than 1/3) than the 3 programs it replaces: Inktomi Search Submit, AltaVista Express Inclusion, and FAST PartnerSite PFI. One concern with the old programs was that some sites paid upfront and then got relatively few clicks (a common scenario for very specialist sites). This resulted in the service working out to be quite expensive on an effective cost-per-click basis. The new cost-per-click pricing is more equitable in that it scales with the value the program provides to each participating site. In addition, we offer a range of budgeting options that allow content providers to cap their spend at whatever levels they are comfortable with. Finally, and most importantly, cost-per-click pricing helps ensure a high quality user experience. Cost-per-click pricing motivates content providers to submit only relevant content (no one wants to pay for an irrelevant click), further improving the quality of the search experience for users. Without CPC pricing, content providers have no incentive to provide high quality content and avoid gaming the system.
Q. What concerns me with the new Yahoo! PFI system is a lack of geotargetting. With the current Inktomi PFI, if someone outside my intended area clicks on my page in the SERPs, I don't care - I pay no extra for that. It's just a free click. I currently receive about 15% of clicks from countries I don't do business in.
= Q. Does Site Match allow URLs to be targeted to specific countries?
A. Yes. In fact, Site Match does support geotargeting. Through the Overture-branded system, just log in (after subscribing) and go to View/Edit URLs. Click Edit for each URL and you’ll see options to target by region or by country. This is another feature that helps us deliver a higher quality user experience. In the example cite by this post, the user actually would have had a suboptimal experience – they clicked on the page of a business that couldn’t address their need. By offering geo-targeting we enable content providers help make both their experience and the experience of the user better. This is another example of how we are leveraging this program to help us deliver the highest quality user experience.
There are some issues that have been raised in this thread about PFI sites in Inktomi that have been unduly penalized.
There is quite a bit of evidence (overwhelming) suggesting that there was some filter that was placed on PFI pages/sites that was not placed on organic results in Inktomi. I can see why Tim wouldn't want to touch that issue in a public forum. Especially when Yahoo is claiming that in the new Yahoo system, all PFI pages and organic pages will be treated the exact same.
It remains to be seen if Inktomi and Yahoo will run under the same system or under a new one that is more accurate and smarter than Inktomi's system and if all pages (free or paid) will be treated the exact same with the same rules etc. My guess is that Yahoo will have a totally new system and that seems to be concurent with everything that Tim has said. So why am I guessing?... no need to guess. He's already stated that Yahoo's going to be different. Let's see what happens over the next few weeks.
2+2=4... it is not a communist plot.
Could it be mathematically possible to end up with 2+2=22? Maybe you are right, perhaps it's a capitalist plot? :)
Besides this thread will be much more interesting after 4/15 anyways when it all hits the fan.
A page of mine 'was' showing on the first page(#7) for a week or two of a semi-competitive keyword(Overt top/bottom). As of today that same page, untouched, is showing on page 3.
Worst, the 1st page is full of spammy URL. Since there's no way to differentiate between a paying url(basic & feed) and a free crawled url....
Pick your scenario.
a) the URL's on top of me are free crawled URL just better optimize for Yahoo
b) the URL's on top of me is a mixture of free crawled URL and paying URL
c) the URL's on top of me are mostly paying URL
d) the algo has changed or more factors added to it
but from #7 to page 3? I think that's a heck of a drop in ranking. This category btw falls under the 30cents per click.
Do we have an honest serp? What's your opinion?
>He's already stated that Yahoo's going to be different<
In fact Tim has said it over and over again. What seems to be the problem with taking him at his word? The fact of the matter is that Y! have taken a very proactive approach to communicating with webmasters and should be applauded for doing so. Check out the email address you are sending feedback to (webmasterworldfeedback@yahoo.com ) that alone speaks volumes as to the importance that Y! is putting on webmaster relations.
By all means, if Y! does an about face, call them on it, but until then, lets try and tone down the rhetoric a tad. :)
It's unwise to pass judgement on something that is still a work in progress, especially when Yahoo has publicly stated that it's changing right now.
I, was a sceptic of Search Submit when the announcement was first made, but after reading the clarifications made by Tim here in this thread, I am intrigued by the program and much less wary.
Yahoo Search is run by some of the brightest minds around. We're talking PHD types. They know that a large and fresh index is key to their growth and success. Tim's telling us that Search Submit is just another way to achieve that ultimate goal of depth and freshness. You can't really argue with that. And if you don't like the program, you don't have to use it.
The indexing and ranking of Search Submit pages is something that will play out over the next several months. Yahoo says that the ranking formulas will be the same for PFI and non-pfi. I think we should believe him. I do belive him.
Many are a little wary because of all of the uncertainty surrounding Yahoo search and some problems that surfaced with Inktomi. Yahoo seems more than dedicated to making sure that Yahoo doesn't have those same problems. It's very encouraging.
I posted in another thread that the one main thing that I took from Pub Con was that Yahoo was serious about providing a quality search engine and that they were serious about listening to the web community. That alone is cause for celebration. The diversification is great for the search engine world, and the interaction has been great for everyone involved.
I would just like to say to those seeking answers, Give things time to change and be patience, & don't worry.
Tim no doubt I will have some questions for you myself after the 15TH April ;)
The question is still on the table - will your XML feed customers have the ability to tweak their pages and gain advantage over people who have paid for only a few pages and those in the db for free?
In other words, are there advantages to "Site Match Xchange™ not offered to everyone else?
-s-
New to posting in this forum but a frequent reader.
I placed a registration with Yahoo Site Match 5 days ago and I have had no replies, no activity, no return messages from support and the sites aren't in the Yahoo index. A complete zero in all fields.
i saw Tim mention 72 hours for indexing. Well it's been way past that.
I understand a little bit the reason behind Site match but I still don't get it when a site is in the index already what good it can do to be in Site Match and what the deposit is really for?
The Site Match program will allow a page that's already been indexed to be further improved for better listings, and you can see the results the following refresh. As Tim mentioned, it will help drive better user experience, as site owners/webmasters will work harder to ensure that their pages are only optimized for the content they're relevant for and to generate a better click-through conversion ratio by improving the site design and the functionality of the sites.
If it is as you say then it is contrary to what Yahoo says that Site Match listings will not get enhanced against the free crawl part.
Even though I bought in I still don't get it. The only potential I see in this is the frequent update a Site Match listing may get but if it takes more than 5 days to get in and get answers from the support then something is very wrong with Site Match and you can just imagine how irritated we get if the updates take this time.
I have read the press release and everything said in this forum about Site Match (including Tim's clarifications).
I still can't believe Yahoo is actually suggesting this service. Pay-per-click has no place in paid inclusion, period. It won't promote high quality content, this is just an excuse. Over time the crawler will simply start ignoring more and more sites that look commercial, and Site Match will patiently wait for their wallet.
Ingenious!
Wrong! This is a TOTAL contradiction. Call a spade a spade for goodness sakes.
By controlling and extending the time it takes to crawl NON PFI content, by definition Yahoo is effectively favoring sites that pay for PFI.
Some content is relatively time sensitive. Eg, after a few months it starts to get stale. If competitive PFI content is getting crawled on a daily basis then they have an affective leg up to make changes to keep on top.
eg:
- changes to handle new competitiors in the content
- changes to handle seasonal(monthly / weekly) differences
- etc
Yahoo is CLEARLY favoring SiteMatch content - they're crawling it more frequently! This is a significant advantage that must not be discounted.
This completely contravenes what the FTC requires and Yahoo should be forced to clearly point out which listings are paid and which are not.
Funny that the FTC has taken no action against MSN who have been doing this for years!
I see nothing here that contravenes anything! If the user doesn't optimise the PFI pages they won't rank. If the user submits spam it gets a penalty. How is this paid advertising?
Placement all depends on the algo and the actions of the submitter - not Yahoo!
Placement all depends on the algo and the actions of the submitter - not Yahoo!
Not meaning to be picky here, but who decides on how the algo outputs the results? I would of thought that it would be a group of Y! techies guided by the policies directed from the Y! board.
If the monetisation of the Serps are a consideration then it isnt unreasonable to infer that the new system may takes these things into account and adjust accordingly. Its hardly surprising that people arent buying the idea that there will be no commercial considerations applied to the actual output.
Whether MSN were right to get way with things for as long as they did is another story.
It would be a good thing for the search engine users(IMO) if Y! took a lead and actually identified pfi stuff, but I guess that the flipside of that is inevitable discontent and ructions for those who are paying and seeing non payers above them...
Im glad it isnt my headache to deal with :)
If the user submits spam it gets a penalty
Is this a fact or is this based on what Yahoo been selling to us?
I could pull some competitive terms that the highest ranking url is nothing but spam.
How about this...
Multiple listing of 'the same exact url' and are high up in the serp and are at close proximity to each other?
Isn't that a form of spam?
A few domains dominating the entire Top 40 of the serp. Don't you thing that it's obvious that these domains are given some sort of advantage?
You don't even have to click on 'more pages from this site' because it seems all their pages are listed on the same term. Where's clustering of domains here?
Is that Yahoo making sure that somebody have to click on one the URL?
Isn't that a form of spam?
Yeah their pages are penalized...all the way to the top screaming 'click me, click me'.
If it is as you say then it is contrary to what Yahoo says that Site Match listings will not get enhanced against the free crawl part.
Site Match listings do not automatically get a more favorable position in the search results over free crawl listings. They need to be relevant for a specific search term in order to show up on the SERP.
If you have a non-relevant Site Match URL (not much content, broken links and images, etc.) versus a well-optimized free crawl URL (lots of relevant content, pleasing design, great functionality, etc.), the former will not outdo the latter as far as rankings go.
However, with the Site Match service, the non-relevant URL has the opportunity to make changes for improvement (i.e., add lots of relevant textual content and references that will be helpful to users, fix broken links and images, increase site functionality and imrpove design), and that URL will see the results of the improvements in the following refresh.
A lot of people just seem to take click throughs for granted. It's like having a brick and mortar store, and ignoring the shoppers that come in through the door. If you had a physical store, you'd do all you can possible to try and get that shopper to buy something by making their experience a pleasant one -- from a friendly and welcoming greeting as they walk through the door to making sure your products are displayed well and that the store is clean, to being there for them to answer questions about the products.
You should do all the same and more for an online business, and never take a click through for granted.
[edited by: WebGuerrilla at 6:17 pm (utc) on Mar. 10, 2004]
The FTC has requested that sites mixing paid results with unpaid results clearly identify those that are paid. The recommendations were made by the FTC so consumers could identify business relationships between search engines and paid parties in making wise business decisions. The FTC suggested that it would proceed with consumer fraud suits if the relationships were not made clear to the ordinary searcher.
I have no problems with the FTC ruling. It promotes honesty. Search engines on the other hand who suggest their results are relevant might.
Wonder if newspapers engaged in the same lousy ethics. Todays stories in our paper about the presidential campaign were brought to you by Osama but we didn't feel you needed to know he paid for it. Front page, back page you not knowing is the point.
This is not to say there aren't problems in all media. It's just to say some of these Internet companies are way out of control when it comes to making a buck.
I think it would a smart move to identify them, but that's another story.
It has become increasingly difficult to find answers amongst 50 pages of threads when you are new to a topic.
Since I have have previously paid for ink PFI, I get free yahoo traffic up until 4/15/04 as I understand.
But, once the 15th rolls around, will my site be dropped completely from the index, or will it find it's way into the free serps?
What I'm wondering is if it would be a good idea for ink PFI customers to use the Y! free submit tool now so that when the 15th comes they won't be dropped out completely, but be in the normal free crawl.
I don't think the FTC would try and rewrite media or journalistic ethics. They would pursue the matter related to misleading consumers. Eventually to many of these search engines are going to dilute the integrity of the Internet to the point only they can make money. Plus I don't appreciate slick attorneys or PR people trying to maneuver around what benefits consumers.
But let me get off my soapbox now.
