Forum Moderators: open
1. Pick a subset of phrases, both high traffic and niche
2. Run the results on their engine and competitors' engines
3. Have human editors "score" the relevancy of each item in each SERP
4. Make modifications to the algo based on which items received the highest overall scores, and use this for "training" the algo
So, one might assume that along the way they may also cherry-pick a few of them which score ultra-high across the board for relevancy, and weight outcome in the results set. It's a good methodology. There's nothing wrong with it, as it's set by editorial and not the advertising department (right?)
if Y wants to become a directory again
Yes indeed.
So, one might assume that along the way they may also cherry-pick a few of them which score ultra-high across the board for relevancy, and weight outcome in the results set. It's a good methodology. There's nothing wrong with it, as it's set by editorial and not the advertising department (right?)
because it would not be cost effectiveIf your algo cannot return anything that users find relevant, hand coding the top results on popular searches might insure adequate income until the algo is fixed.
Recently, I've seen evidence suggesting hand edits, some of it quite compelling. And I've seen reports from people that I've learned to trust. But I'm not yet convinced that hand editing has become a permanent and routine part of building Yahoo! SERPs.
I like high quality search results because (1) I search the Internet often, and (2) I build quality content websites. Garbage peddlers of course have different priorities and hate high quality serps, and hand sorted (updated) results. But in either case, please could the self-absorbed dudes spare us their "the serps suck because I rank for crap" and "the serps are great because I rank good" drivel.
[edited by: martinibuster at 8:24 pm (utc) on Aug. 14, 2005]
[edit reason] cleanup. [/edit]