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.
I understand the frustration that you feel with the Inktomi program and the beginings of the Yahoo program. I can assure you that we are doing everything we can to improve our products and services and create a more direct and open communication with our customers and partners. I hope you will see things moving in a positive direction in the coming months.
Tim
I've got penalties in the past. Some sites absolutely should have been penalised - others IMO shouldn't and I have contacted people about them. However, in the vast majority of my PFI experiences, it has been a worthwhile program for my clients.
I have one client who completely agrees with those who are in the anti-Yahoo camp and I can understand their frustration. I have many more for who the new Yahoo has brought immense benefits.
While the client who feels that they have been mistreated by Yahoo/INK complains, I am working to try and overcome the reasons for their penalties through dialogue.
I would suggest that is the real reason for this thread and discussion is a much better way to try and overcome problems rather than stating and re-stating entrenched positions.
Personally, there are several things with SiteMatch that concern me - but I am grateful when SEs start a dialogue with webmasters.
Obviously they are going speak from their position and with great care if they are a quoted company - but communication of any kind is something unheard of a few years ago.
This should be encouraged - and the posters given the same courtesy as all others in the WebmasterWorld community.
Tim (for one) is probably one of the most knowledgable people on PFI out there - he introduced the concept at INK. You may not like PFI - but let's debate the issues - and welcome the opportunity to do so!
Multiple personalities don't count.
Some totally benign legacy Ink PFI sites have issues with being penalized simply because of how other sites benignly linked to them. That's one thing. People who spammed and got penalities they deserved complaining about a "fresh start" is whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Yahoo having penalities is a good thing; Yahoo having penalty reviews is a very very good thing; Yahoo screwing up and having reverse penalties is a bad thing that needs to be fixed; climbing on the backs of innocents so you can agitate to get a blanket removal of deserved spam penalties is a bad thing too.
As I understood it you are on the marketing end of Yahoo. This seems to be a technical problem. Also correct me if I'm wrong. But you did say to a reporter that penalized sites in Yahoo were getting what they deserved. It seemed like pretty harsh stuff I was reading.
I saw Kanetrain's site that was banned. They (Ink editors) checked it, said nothing wrong with it (they're right) yet it's still out...9 months later. I spend 5-6 hours a day updating my website; all the info I post is dated. I registered it in 1996 and it has been off and on online since then. Can I guarantee that I didn't do something stupid in the past 8 years? I doubt anyone can. Probably most of us broke a law (did you know that putting your prescription pills in another container is a fed felony?), but never got caught, or didn't mean to break the law. I'm not even talking about the mistakes that bots make. After all they're human...programed by humans that is :)
I read another post saying that he was banned for having alink with the _. Is it wrong to do that? Maybe, but bad enough to deserve a lifetime ban?
that's what we're saying. tell me why I was banned so I can fix it (if it's still there) and let's work together. If it doesn't say why, review it and let it in. When I say review, review it comparing to the sites on your top ten, not look for an excuse to leave it out. You'll find one, if you really want to.
As far as us being only a minority. It's true. Also only a small minority of innocent people go in jail, or get the death penalty but it sucks to be one of them, doesn't it? Not the same, but I'm losing money, lot's of it (for me) too. It sucks especially when you see a Charles Manson getting rewarded with a #4-5 listing on Y!.
We want people to create good content for people not search engines. If search engines did not exist would webmasters be creating sites in the same way or using certain techniques such as invisible text, excessive crosslinking, affiliate redirects etc? Spamming has to do with the extent and the manner in which techniques are used rather than just the use of a specific technique.
People often want to figure out where the line is between optimization and overoptimization and want the Search engines to tell them when and how they have stepped over the line. I believe it is the webmaster/SEO responsibility to know where the line is and work within these boundaries. Obviously we can discuss this but that is where I stand today.
Just to respond to the article in webpronews. I was really talking about something else and was taken out of context. I was talking about newbie people who read forums and use techniques that are considered spam and then get banned without knowing that they have done anything wrong. These people are sometimes innocent/naive and get very angry when their companies domain gets banned. I was not talking about SEO in general. I think if you talk to people who know me on this forum you will find that the article is not really that representative of my views.
Actually Yahoo answered me saying: properbly was because...."
"We want people to create good content for people not search engines. If search engines did not exist would webmasters be creating sites in the same way or using certain techniques such as invisible text, excessive crosslinking, affiliate redirects etc? Spamming has to do with the extent and the manner in which techniques are used rather than just the use of a specific technique."
Thats sounds true and correct, but supposed if you ever done these spams you mentioned, or other spam methods?
I feel Inktomi has a debt to those site owners (forget the legal stuff here, I'm talking about goodwill), and Yahoo now carries that debt having bought Inktomi. An acquistion carries with it debts as well as assets.
We all know Inktomi is a big piece of the Yahoo program and aren't going to be fooled by the "new Yahoo" spin.
and wheres the logic of not letting people know why they were banned? (if you know).
if i read some of what tim was saying right, then every hotel reservation website should come down tomorrow. The idea that in this day and age you dont make websites for engines is crazy. We pretend they dont exsist do we? Why is the Yahoo directory packed full of sites made for engines? Why do yahoo take money for that? Any site within the guidelines should not be penalised on a subjective human review. They should be dumped if appropriate by filters.
Do the Ink-penalized sites show up and rank good in Google?
ditto
"Do the Ink-penalized sites show up and rank good in Google? "
Yeah. Also sites with much, much more spam that Ink's penalized sites show up and rank very well on Y! too.
ditto
I too have been recently banned by Inktomi, for whatever reason. I am not an expert SEO, but I do try to follow simple guidelines of having my keyword phrase in the title, metatags, and body of my page. I also link to other like sites and provide loads of content in the form of articles on my given topic. The search engines suggest all of these methods, and I have tried to utilize them without taking advantage. I have no more of no less of all of these things than my competition.
I currently have a PR6 page that is ranked very well in google, but Inktomi has ruined my chances of ever getting any placements in MSN or Yahoo.
The whole idea of this is very conflicting to me. The search engines tell you to use SEO if you want to achieve good rankings and on the other hand if you use it Inktomi will ban you.
I can understand when some webmasters go overboard with SEO, and I can understand when sites have hidden text or use other dishonest methods.
And this entire ordeal of using site match is very conflicting also. If my site is so shoddy that I cannot get into the serps through a natural listing, then I can pay Yahoo to list my site in shoddy positions? No thanks.
What really makes me upset are sites with hidden text,
that makes them have an better sites for the user, and as well rank well.
If my site is so shoddy that I cannot get into the serps through a natural listing, then I can pay Yahoo to list my site in shoddy positions? No thanks.
Becky thats not quite true. You can also pay them for directory listing that will nobody will see. Imagine paying for a billboard display that never gets seen. You say i want my money back you never displayed my billboard. They say sure we did its buried under that one for SITEMATCH. So you say but if i was banned from having a billboard above ground level why did you take my money. They say well because its just a ground level demotion, not a ban. You say isnt that a bit dishonest not to refund my money and not to tell me why you didnt display it above ground level? They say...................well....you had keywords in your advert...you say yeah, thats cause its an advert..they say well you cant do things that improve the effectivness of the billboard. Just make a billboard that you dont intend anyone to see.
Of course you still dont get a refund.
btw. will yahoo directory reviewers be banned for passing sites that INK banned? They cant both be right. Think about it.
On the other hand, I have never paid to get in the Yahoo directory. I think $299 is a bit steep, and they clearly state at the Yahoo directory that you are not guaranteed a listing and if you don't get a listing then your money is not refunded.
But, I NEVER saw this stated at Inktomi when I submitted my site to them through PFI. In fact, all I did see was "guaranteed inclusion". Very misleading IMHO. They need to remove that wording because it is false advertising. There is no "guaranteed inclusion" when your site stands a 50/50 chance of getting penalized or banned and then your money is not refunded.
This current thread has turned into whining and ranting rather than interesting and constructive discussion.
Mayor point taken- We can only speak with our actions in the future. I hope the resurrection of Free Addurl is a start in that positive direction.
Chundru I am not sure how ranking well in another engine would be a proxy for having a non spammy site. It may just mean the spammy sites have not been caught yet. BTW, Editorial at Yahoo tends to be a lot harder on affiliate sites than Google.
Tim
Many content providers, SEMs and SEOs have found that they receive an optimal ROI by combining a program like Site Match with a Pay-For-Performance (P4P) campaign. One reason, based on independent research, was presented at the recent Search Engine Strategies (SES) conference in New York. In short, search users may focus on either sponsored (P4P) listings or general search results depending on where they are in the sales cycle. For example, early in the cycle when customers are researching products, they may prefer to select general search results (i.e., they want information, not product advertisements). Later, when they are ready to purchase, customers may be inclined to select paid listings for specific products or brands. It’s important for sites to present the right content at the right time to ensure the best exposure to potential customers.
Another reason to participate in both Site Match and P4P is using Site Match as a source of “keyword-mining” for P4P campaigns. Through the data captured and reporting tools offered using Site Match, customers can discover new keywords and keyword combinations that drive customers to their sites and help convert to sales. Customers can then optimize their P4P campaigns based on this data.
These are just a couple of examples of how the two programs can be used together to deliver the best ROI.
This current thread has turned into whining and ranting rather than interesting and constructive discussion.
Many times in life, whining and ranting is the result of a lack of good information or a dose of misinformation. People here have tried to engage you in discussion and obtained, in return, minimalistic information (information which is already obvious to most) and obfuscation.
No one is looking for the great inside secrets of Yahoo!'s algo - only for answers if there is something more going on that is keeping legitimate sites out of the new Yahoo!
For example, look at msg #68 by 2_much in this other thread: [webmasterworld.com...] Look at the site in his profile. See the answer he got from Yahoo? Yes or no - do you think that is an accurate penalty?
That is what some are talking about. It is not whining. If Yahoo! does not want sites like this in the index - let us know. (If not, I may need to use 2_much's site to find a good meditation class.)
Yahoo! has every right to run their business as they see fit, but others have the right to disagree and voice their dissent. Good information can go along way in limiting that dissent. (A little bit of free advice from an old marketing pro)
seasalt
Harder on affiliate sites. now we are getting to the crux. But you dont seem to hard in the directory?
soapystar:
My last post was in response to questions raised earlier regarding the value of Site Match if someone is already participating in P4P. We are trying to clarify as many issues as possible ASAP.
Tim in all seriousness the new Yahoo has not been in existence long enough for anybody to draw a line on you. The dup responses I keep seeing from you are almost mirrors of what I’ve received from some of the Ink resellers. So I don’t doubt you worked for Inktomi at one time. Also your responses indicated you had forgotten about a forum you started. Lord knows you later came back and asked what Inktomi penalty when it was mentioned quite a few times in threads you started.
I brought my questions down to a technical level to take you off the spot. But to date you have really avoided answering any specific questions of any poster. That's called "winging it" where I come from.
>I believe it is the webmaster/SEO responsibility to know where the line is and work within these boundaries.
Realistically Tim that line varies from search engine to search engine. Since this is the new Yahoo how could any hard rules be in place so early unless they were coming from the old Inktomi. If sites were ranked well in the previous Yahoo/Google it stands to reason, if the same rules were applied, they would rank well in the new Yahoo. They don’t because its all about money not relevancy or quality.
I am in awe of the intelligence levels of many of these posters. As for me you answered my questions by avoiding most of them. The problems will likely remain and I don't buy into future promises with loose timelines. I don’t think the reporter was quoting you out of context or putting you on the spot. It was to cold a stuff for my blood. To hard-line for a complex situation.
Give it a rest with the spam and free site promotion below. The Outland88 group thinks its a little to often not to be spam. I know I'm being picky and you want to help me but the viagra spammers tell me the same thing. Plus they tell me I'm a wonderful person and they want to make me happier for a trivial fee. But I guess its a subjective determination. You don't see it as spam do you?
> Just to confirm what Tim said, Yahoo Team is a new WebmasterWorld member from Yahoo. Our goal is to provide answers to specific service questions(e.g. times for URLs to appear) and to provide information on what we feel are the benefits of the Site Match program since that topic is being debated. We will continue to answer board questions in a timely fashion. The Site Match related traffic on this boards and others is quite high at the moment.
My Site Offers A Price Comparison Of The Top Suppliers In My Industry. Also, Product Info, FAQ, And Usage Info.
I Could Supply The Product Directly From My Site. But This Way, I Eliminate The Need To Check Other Sites. Basically, Ending The Search. Is That A Problem?
I Have More Success Through Price Comparison And Will Not Change It.
I Have Paid To Be Listed In Inktomi And Have Had Success With It, Until 01-15-04 The Day MSN Dropped Looksmart. That Day My Site Disappeared.
I Have Paid Site Match, Without Success. I Have Emailed And Submitted Help Requests. I Get Responses like "We Do Not Guarantee Rankings" Rankings? I Can't Find My Site For Any Search Terms In The Top 1000.
Yahoo tends to be a lot harder on affiliate sites than Google
Which Is The Better Search Engine?
