Forum Moderators: open
Does anyone actually care if the "serps" are good, or relevant or whatever!... In the big wide world outside America, Google has more than a 90% share of search in the UK - that is how it is.
If you've given up and accept that Google owns your eyeballs, then sure, walk away, don't care about Yahoo's search relevancy. However, many others earn a living from it and Yahoos ability to return good results is key to them growing their user base.
I'm certain I'm not the only one who wants Yahoo to succeed. What's wrong with that? Should we just lay down and let Google take over everything? Of course we care about our rankings, but it's also important for Yahoo to be relevant and grow their user base. It's good because it diversifies the sources of traffic/income. It's just common sense.
Stop checking "phrases" - most users don't even use the ones you think they do anyway, there is more traffic (profit and ROI) in the longtail search if you do it right.
There may be more longtail phrases but they don't necessarily convert at the same rate that targeted high-value phrases do. Longtail contains a lot of crap phrases that have nothing to do with buying a product.
Which phrase is more likely to convert to a WebmasterWorld member? 1. Webmaster Forum or 2. How do I format my robots.txt?
Certainly someone who needs help for robots.txt may become a member, but most likely they got their answer and moved on with their lives. I do it dozens of times a week. Those big phrases are called money phrases for a reason.
[edited by: martinibuster at 3:42 am (utc) on June 7, 2007]
[edit reason] Removed off topic comment. [/edit]
First, should webmasters be concerned about "quality SERPS" or "I got good rankings?"
Well, it depends on the kind of webmaster you are.
Low quality SERPS means that search engine spamming is the most profitable business model, which would be disappointing to many people here, although of course not all. And I don't want to quibble about "all SEO is spam". We all know there's a qualitative difference in goals and methods between different online business models.
Essentially, high quality SERPS enforce a meritocracy. That's the kind of competitive environment that most of us want to be operating in.
Second, regarding your fatalistic attitude: "Quality doesn't matter, Yahoo just don't have the mindshare".
Yahoo have a vast user base. Better search results would give people less reason to leave yahoo and go to Google for their search. This term, "mindshare", attributes an almost mystical power to market dominance. It's nothing more than superstition.
Third, long tail phrases are the most robust because they are the hardest to spam. Therefore, it's no great accomplishment for a search engine to do okay on long tail phrases.
[edited by: callivert at 4:37 am (utc) on June 7, 2007]
I want someone like Yahoo to increase quality and therefore create the opportunity for mindshare. I just think it is a bridge too far.
I really want Yahoo to be good - but they are going to have to be sensational in terms of search to gain marketshare unless they use other sources.
They just aren't in Google's league - and that is gutting.
I can't understand why Yahoo spent so much money on buying search technology from Inktomi and others. It's obvious the technology isn't working.
IMHO, Google's results are the best. Live results are in second place. Yahoo's results are last in quality.
- Part of a mini-network of new sites, all interlinking
- Keyword in URL
- Very few incoming links: several "anchor text links" from the same external sites ( two-thre sites out of the mini-net)
Yahoo doesn't filter hidden links!
I think that they are experimenting and work is in progress, otherwise it seems easy to rank fine:
- several anchor text links from two-three trust sites
- a mini-net of sites
Live results are in second place.
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. Good one.
Live lags Google, Yahoo, Ask and Gigablast. Fifth place at best.
What we are noticing is alot of "Paid Inclusion" websites taking up a large number of top results for general terms.
s i g h.
Frankly, I liked the day when we had at least one other search outlet that could at least provide 35-40% of what the market leader could send us. As ti stands now, with the actual (and sometimes perceived) poor quality of the other engines, Google is quickly becoming the only true way to be a market leader online, regardless of your market segment.
When a #10 position on google brings 3 times the number of sales that a #1 position on Yahoo or MSN brings, then there is a vast imbalance to the market. While I don't consider Google a monopoly (after all, anyone is free to build a better engine), the other palyers see to be willingly giving them the market.
Hmm, Yahoo provides 45% of my traffic. Although that number could be thrown off because Live sends me 0.8%. But I'm not worried about Live since they've obviously got some pretty big problems.
Anyone reading or posting in this thread, except you of course.
Hmm, Yahoo provides 45% of my traffic. Although that number could be thrown off because Live sends me 0.8%
Then, obviously you rank better in much better in Yahoo than Google.
My point is....A #1 in Google is worth FAR more than a #1 in ANY other engine (I'm sure you're not trying to say that Yahoo is sending more traffic than google for the same ranking, right?) due solely to the amount of traffic google generates due to their share of the market.
Not obvious - there is no logic to your statement. Overall I rank better in Google than Yahoo on almost every phrase EXCEPT for one particular phrase that sends me a lot of traffic from Yahoo.
Last month pages from my main site were nowhere on uk.yahoo for some of the most important keywords in my niche but were at #1 on yahoo.com. Now the situation has reversed and we are at #1 on uk.yahoo for our main target phrases.
When I contacted Yahoo last month they told me that the UK index used a different algorithm to the .com one. They didn't mention that they would be alternating this each month.
I get the impression that their development is primarily based on "i wonder what happens if I turn this knob".
The trouble with trial and error is the errors.
Yahoo, please stop it.
Sid
Yahoo still can't handle 301s to save its life.
Noticed today regarding a 301 situation... that, on a search that Yahoo had handled well for years, they're suddenly returning the old domain.
For the phrases I watch, 70% of the results are groups-beta.google, that redirect to junk.
Yahoo still can't handle 301s to save its life.
Noticed today regarding a 301 situation... that, on a search that Yahoo had handled well for years, they're suddenly returning the old domain.
Funny that you should mention that. I was just about to start a thread asking when Yahoo! would reflect my 301. Yahoo! recently said I was in violation of their content policy. Then checking Site Explorer, I noticed I had all pages indexed with www AND non-www versions. When I added a variable to the URL of my busiest page a year ago, I didn't realize the implications it would have. I'm paying the price for my ignorance. Failing to do a 301 on that page resulted in Y! listing both www and non-www versions of the old and new URL as well. In other words, in Yahoo's eyes, I look like a spammer. Darn.
