Forum Moderators: open
I don't know what's going to happen as Y adds more paid results but for now their results are excellent.
The observation isn't based on my sites, half of my sites aren't even in Yahoo but are in Google. This is based on comparing the two against equal searches.
How quickly the sand shifts...
-s-
If google don't fix their algo, people will defect to Yahoo.
Like some of the other posters, I am using Yahoo far more often out of necessity.
I'll have to read more about this April 15 thang.
what, specifically, is wrong with G's algo?
Yahoo! Search seems to living up to the promises made by their team members earlier.
how does one tell if there is a rolling update going on if one doesn't see any changes in the SERPs from one week to the next?
being honest here, not sarcastic...
I do cover a lot of different areas though and am probably more likely to notice these things.
The only search that still works is for a page for which I have an Inktomi PFI. I have checked some of the searches users made last month and these no longer work, so I assume all the Inktomi acquired pages except those with PFI have been stripped from the index.
Another oddity is a search on www.domain.com/directory/ only returns a few of the pages in that directory that are returned by a search on www.domain.com.
Mouseover the url. if it is a site match page it has "MI=sitematch" in the string.
Very impressed so far, only just starting to show some of my sites but the positionings are looking good :) - Much like Google a year ago :) :)
Well done Yahoo - so far ;)
Keep on crawling, still a long way to go....
Results are looking better in my area. A long-time offender with numerous redirects and top-10 listings is GONE! (Hope it sticks for awhile).
Very impressed. Will spread the word!
Amen! I use a service that can tell me the exact search terms that were used to find my sites. They are indeed my targeted business related search terms. Yahoo (as well as MSN) is delivering for the proper search terms period. Google is AWOL period.
4eyes,
what, specifically, is wrong with G's algo?
I find the Google search algo still superior to yahoo. I rank quite well in both (a little better for Google) but as a user I would only use Google. I know a lot of people on WW are bitter at Google for their filter but for the user it still seems the best. Google's picture and news search along with froogle also increase it's usefulness.
I think that by saying "Anyone that gets better traffic from Yahoo than Google for their site needs no convincing that Yahoo searches are superior" the original poster meant that people will ignore the facts, if it makes them look/feel better ;-)
Relevant results are what's most important to users and legitimate sites will appreciate that, even if they don't rank very well. Unless someone were #1 in SERPs for all his search terms and thus would get clicked first, ONE SHOULD CARE if the overall results are relevant or not.
It's the same with real bricks-mortar biz: If the businesses in my street are legit, overall business will be better than would be in a "bad neighborghood"
Regards, D
I know a lot of people on WW are bitter at Google for their filter
Firstly, I resent the implication - there are at least two ex-WebmasterWorld mods (and many experienced members) in this thread reporting that Yahoo is showing up better than Google at the moment. To suggest that all who can see this are just bitter over bad results is as insulting as it would be for me to suggest that all those reporting Google as 'much improved' are employees of Google posting under aliases to whip up good publicity pre-IPO.
Secondly, do some proper research and read the other posts more carefully.
My comments are not based on personal or customer sites, but rather on a range of test phrases I monitor, the majority of which are less relevant that they were pre-florida.
As long as Google is showing bulletin board and directory listing posts in the top ten for 2.5million results competitive phrases, it is NOT good for the user.
These results ARE a step back to Florida - if you are one of the Google-hugging Florida update groupies, then there is not point discussing the point with you.
The problem that Google faces is not an overall slight drop in relevance, its a total loss of relevance showing in some SERPS.
We are now seeing TOTALLY IRRELEVANT results appear in the top ten for some competetive phrases - this never used to be the case.
Its when they serve up one of those 'what the x&@# is that doing there' SERPS, that people jump ship to Yahoo etc.
Pre-Florida this didn't used to happen much at all, now its quite common.
Better for the user? Not the users I talk to.
Firstly, I resent the implication - there are at least two ex-WebmasterWorld mods (and many experienced members) in this thread reporting that Yahoo is showing up better than Google at the moment. To suggest that all who can see this are just bitter over bad results is as insulting as it would be for me to suggest that all those reporting Google as 'much improved' are employees of Google posting under aliases to whip up good publicity pre-IPO.
I am from the UK so maybe the US results are a little different. But Google is still producing relevant results for me. It just seems that everyone who is saying yahoo's results are better than Google's are people hit by the G filter. As someone has posted Yahoo's results are very spammy and porn sites crop up regularly, I honestly just can't accept Yahoo's results are better than Google's.
So is 4eyes as am I.
Google has become almost totally irrelevant (even more so when doing regional searches) when looking for the types of stuff we (meaning my company) search for on a regular basis. My wife has switched to MSN and I now use Yahoo almost exclusively.
Funny, we must do hundreds of searches a week on Yahoo currently and I've not come across a porn masquerade site yet!
>Yahoo..easy to spam...
Really? Again - a subjective statement. Frankly, as a surfer I'd rather get relevant spam than irrelevant "authority" sites! But I think you'll find that Yahoo is harder to spam than many believe.
I started my comment by actually saying the whole thing was subjective. However since most people have agreed this is google some time ago then the key is there in that statement. It is quite easy to produce clean results on day 1 when nobody has optimised for them or tried to spam them. From now on is when the fun starts.
Want to bet? I've been doing it for years - as have many others.
>agreed this is Google..
Not me! It's Inktomi IMO with a bit of a spit and polish.
But at least we appear to agree that the current results are pretty good. I'm sure work on maintaining and improving this quality will continue.
It just seems that everyone who is saying yahoo's results are better than Google's are people hit by the G filter
Based on what exactly? 'seems' like you are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. Perhaps all the people who are praising Google are the owners of the porn sites that are suddenly getting everyone elses searches? - of course not.
Get real - do the research then form an opinion.
Mine haven't been hit - doing very well thanks, a few up and downs across the 300 or sites we manage, but overall traffic is up.
[edited by: 4eyes at 2:43 pm (utc) on Mar. 21, 2004]
youve optimised for a search engine that went live in febuary 18th?
Sure he has, so have I and many other 'oldtimers'.
As MMT says, its Inktomi with a lick o'paint.
We always optimised for Inktomi AND Google. Most of our customers wanted the quick hit from an Inktomi PFI, so we always did one or two Ink pages before starting on the somewhat easier task of fixing the site for Google.
