Yahoo Serious

[hitthedeck]

Reminds me of the movie.
It may be competition for Google but thats about it. PFI isnt an improvement on Google and Mickey Mouse Arbitrary Penalties with a vague ambigious recoarse process highlights the difference. Yes google isnt perfect but another SE chasing the $ isnt the solution either.
Give them time? How long do you think this was in the making, weeks, months or maybe a good year or two. PFI has it's own priorities maybe greed has a learning curve of it's own ask Looksmart.
What is difficult to reconcile is the many pages not included yet into the SERPs yet are in their own directory. I have heard time considerations and possible penalties, neither sits well. You would think for repeat business that past customers would be given consideration first and foremost. For those that have a penalty but are in the directory, pedantic explanations is the BEST that is offered. your money was good enough when that was the game back in the directory days of Yahoo serps, but as that game is finished...too bad.

[helenp]

Well about sites being in directory but not in yahoo search.
I do believe yahoo explained that very well,
if you are an spammy site, (hidden text, doorway pages, or use flash only, etc) that is no problem, you can be perfectly in directory, but not in web search,
that sounds correct for me, though you wouldnīt win or lose anything doing that in directory, as you would do in web search, in directory they would only value content and if relevant.

But if you are in directory, not using spam and site is perfectly spiderable, that would be another story.

[hitthedeck]

Are you serious? That explanation has more holes then Swiss Cheese. Most of these sites were admitted when the directory was the SERPS!(2002) It didnt bother them then, think about it.

[helenp]

absolutely serious,
I do not know past, but understand the new yahoo search wants to be similar as google, ONLY natural search, results searching the web.
So I do NOT think sites thats in directory should be treated diferent in web search, ie better ranking, if they did, it wouldnīt be natural websearch anymore.

Diferent would be if they put directory results on top of websearch saying "results from our directory".
Or if they let directory sites get spidered more frecuently, same as PFI.

But honetstly I donīt even like mixing PFI with rest of natural results.

[hitthedeck]

The point is the explanation is absurd.
Alot of the suggested reasons are webdesign 101 which anyone could have spotted. The old system was spammy, seemingly it was just about money for them, that is why they changed over to google. That was self defeating, hence we are here. PFI isnt the way to go for natural organic SERPS, money is. This isnt Google, Google has no PFI.
In the old days of keyword stuffing reviews with instant SERP success some of those sites should have never been accepted into the directory. They were for Yahoo bottom dollar until it became untenable. I have looked at some of the SERPS closely there are examples of some of these old directory listings missing that look fine, and some present that were not so good.(in the spam yardstick which is subjective)
I guess Im a little disapointed, I was hoping they were going to bring out a product with Google's integrity, instead it is more in keeping with there commercial practises over the past few years. Maybe expected, but still nonetheless disapointing.

[helenp]

>>>>>>>>>This isnt Google, Google has no PFI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Google have ads,
paying for ads in google donīt give you better rankings in serps, donīt even guarantee you will be in.
Actually, many spammed sites, (banned or lost ranking) do have ads in google.

I only mean one shouldnīt get in the natural web serps automatically due of paying directory, directory is advertising.

Of course I do think there are several clean sites in directory not in web search, that is another story.
As there are a lot of clean sites out there not in directory and not in yahoo search either. :)

[soapystar]

googles ads dont appear in the serps. Paying for inclusion allows the big players legalised cloaking as has already been mentioned. This is not google. Google fliter sites that dont meet the criteria and let them straight back in when they no longer trip the filter and the content is relvant. They do not ban you for life for triping a filter. All spidered sites remain in the index and will be shown if considered appropriate. Yahoo are slowly but surely removing a large percentage of the net from ever being shown. Yahoo is not Google.

[hitthedeck]

Going a bit off topic
Google's PPC is seperate from there SERPs.

PFI isnt.

Directories have always helped with SE's because they are spidered as they are another link. Most charge, alot would not exist otherwise. Yahoo spider's their directory. It is another link from them so how can they selectively dismiss their own authority especially when the directory was the cornerstone and foudation of Yahoo. Any debasement would seem disingenuous. I dont want to be stuck on this as many may feel the PFI aspect is more irreconcilable.

[soapystar]

but sitematch is both ppc and pfi.

[hitthedeck]

"sitematch is both ppc and pfi"
Yes, googles PPC is not part of the SERPs,
Yahoo PFI/PPC is.

Yahoo might consider Grandfathering these directory listings and allowing most into there SERPs and giving those that are not recoarse for inclusion. By increasing the amount of Non-PFI listings and expediting the process could go along way to elevate the percieved unfairness.