Yahoo! is Penalizing Co-Op Sites [Proof]

[rex_b]

Ok so one of my sites was not being updated in the index nor was I ranking for any terms, none. And I got no, count it 0 traffic from yahoo this month.

So I emailed them about this and I got a response that said:


Hello Rex,

Thanks for writing the Yahoo! Search and Directory Support.
I understand that you have a question about why your site does not appear in Yahoo! Search.

It has been determined that your site may not comply with Yahoo!'s Content Quality Guidelines located at:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/ysearch/deletions/deletions-05.html (http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/ysearch/deletions/deletions-05.html).

Below are some answers to common questions regarding this issue:
Q: What are some of the common reasons that a site may violate Yahoo!'s Content Quality Guidelines?
A: Yahoo!'s Content Quality Guidelines (link above) outline what we are and are not looking for in pages that we index.

Listed below are some of the more common examples of how a site may violate these guidelines:

- Cloaking (showing crawlers deceptive content about a site)
- Massive domain interlinking- Use of affiliate programs without the addition of substantial unique content
- Use of reciprocal link programs (aka "link farms")
- Hidden text
- Excessive keyword repetition



Ok so I don't cloak, I don't do massive domain interlinking, I don't have hidden text, I don't have excessive keyword repetition.

The only thing I can think of is that Yahoo! is penalizing me b/c of "use of reciprocal link programs (aka "link farms") which I assume is referring to the Co-Op.

So I have removed the Co-Op links and have asked for a review on submission, so we will see what happens.

There is my analysis

[Stin]

very interesting! finally some hard evidence that this really is happening

[dave487]

I would not class the coop as a link farm?

Surely the coop should be viewed like Adsense - if you want to show adverts on your site they should not affect your rankings.

I can understand that coop links would be worth less than standard links but I would not expect the site showing the coop links to be penalized for it.

[rmccarley]

coop is absolutely a link farm. Your intent isn't click-thrus it's higher SERPs.

[GuyFromChicago]

Doubt it's the coop. Almost the exact same issue (and canned e-mail from Yahoo) was discussed here (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=28855).

[Shoemoney]

lol i thought you actually had proof... what you have is more like a case study...

[rex_b]

Take it how you want, I have nothing Yahoo! should object to on the site besides the questionable coop

[GuyFromChicago]

Take it how you want, I have nothing Yahoo! should object to on the site besides the questionable coop

If that's the case how come you haven't removed the coop from all your sites?

[rex_b]

I did today. The CoOp had a good run, but I think it's time to drop it. IMO

[GuyFromChicago]

You don't own the religious forums anymore?

The blog you're linking to in your profile is running the coop too.

[ViciousSummer]

...I don't have hidden text, I don't have excessive keyword repetition....
You have the word "cruise" on your index page 30 or so times. And your footer is dark blue text on a different dark blue background. Looks like "excessive keyword repetition" and possibly "hidden text" to me. :rolleyes:

[rex_b]

You don't own the religious forums anymore?

The blog you're linking to in your profile is running the coop too.

RF = Sold

What blog?

[rex_b]

You have the word "cruise" on your index page 30 or so times. And your footer is dark blue text on a different dark blue background. Looks like "excessive keyword repetition" and possibly "hidden text" to me. :rolleyes:

It's not hidden you can see it. The word cruise wouldn't be repetition when my site is about cruising. Every cruise line has "cruise in it" every forum is about something different "cruise".

[GuyFromChicago]

RF = Sold

Didn't know, just noticed it still had coop.

What blog? It's actually the cruise forum...it's just linked to in your "recent blog" area right under your avatar. Sorry, I could have been more clear.

[ferret77]

I don't know i think maybe making at least some links static helped a lot

a couple of sites i made to place the original ones I cooped the hell out are starting to rank in yahoo.

[rex_b]

I took the coop off the cruise site.

[heapseo]

that email is the same email they send to everyone regardless of the reason. It is the standard quick reply to make you think they have actually looked at your site. Wouldn't surprise me if it was an autoresponder set for a few days after you submit a reinclusion. It is in no way proof that the coop has anything to do with it.

[GuyFromChicago]

I took the coop off the cruise site.

Still in the archives.

I am a coop consultant. That will be $125 please;)

[ViciousSummer]

...The word cruise wouldn't be repetition when my site is about cruising. Every cruise line has "cruise in it" every forum is about something different "cruise".So, you think "excessive keyword repetition" only applies to a site that has excessive keywords that have nothing to do with their site? Haha...good luck with that theory. :p

[rex_b]

So, you think "excessive keyword repetition" only applies to a site that has excessive keywords that have nothing to do with their site? Haha...good luck with that theory. :p

Well I guess if I have a site about shingles I can't list the type of shingles with the word shingles a few times ehh?

[rex_b]

Still in the archives.

I am a coop consultant. That will be $125 please;)

Damn archive, always forget.. hehe

[rex_b]

that email is the same email they send to everyone regardless of the reason. It is the standard quick reply to make you think they have actually looked at your site. Wouldn't surprise me if it was an autoresponder set for a few days after you submit a reinclusion. It is in no way proof that the coop has anything to do with it.

The email was "signed" by a yahoo support person with a name.

[Shoemoney]

Yahoo! is Penalizing Co-Op Sites [Proof]

The main beef I have with this thread is you say PROOF like you have something factual...

im waiting to see the proof

[GuyFromChicago]

The email was "signed" by a yahoo support person with a name.

All the support people at Yahoo (at least in the search marketing area) use fake names. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same policy for this area.

[rex_b]

Proof is subjective, to me the email is fact that the coop would seem to be the only thing I would get a "penalty" for.

[rex_b]

And of course people are giving me negative rep for reporting my findings, what a friendly bunch we have here.

[ViciousSummer]

Well I guess if I have a site about shingles I can't list the type of shingles with the word shingles a few times ehh?
A few times is fine, a few dozen times is excessive in my opinion ;).

[ferret77]

in my experinence you can really crank the keyword density in yahoo and not have any bad effects

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dish+network&sp=1&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&fr=moz2&SpellState=n-2600079350_q-qPWcQ12aj.0DtFAPVn5OVgABAA%40%40

look at nubmer 2

[Googles76]

To back rex_b, I haven't ranked in yahoo until I took co-op off, and replaced it with linkvault. In 3 weeks I jumped to number 1 spot for my main keyword - although it was right when the recent yahoo update happened, so could have been coincidence;)

[fryman]

tiptopvillas is 100% correct. Your post is nothing but a stupid idea with absolutely no proof at all. The only thing you are doing here is confusing the new people.

Go learn some SEO before posting garbage like this. The email you got is the same canned email they send to everyone, just like Adsense sends the exact same email to everyone that gets banned.

[iconrate]

tiptopvillas is 100% correct. Your post is nothing but a stupid idea with absolutely no proof at all. The only thing you are doing here is confusing the new people.


I agree with that statement.. as this is just a guess and not really proof. I'm curious though to know whether you're still using the coop fryman and why or why not? I personally have left a few months ago so it's still hard to say how this will affect me. I can say that after jagger (no coop usage) my stats dropped 80% or more but time will tell.

[clasione]

Take it how you want, I have nothing Yahoo! should object to on the site besides the questionable coop

I completely agree with you REX....

Did I underline that enough?

[ferret77]

here is something else , like 6 months ago if you put like 20-50 thousand coop weight on an ad pretty much in short amount of time your site would rank in yahoo and msn, like almost 100% chance, that doesn't happen anymore

so something changed, it still happens sometimes but not 100% of the time, and not quickly

I don't know why you guys think its hard to believe that a search engine wouldn't punish a site for suddenly having 30,000 new backlinks in a week

you guys think that reapeating a bunch key words will get you penalized , a bunch of key words won't do jack to your rankings,

The coop was the quivalent of a nuclear bomb of SEO, I could make a one page site with an affilate banner run right over multimillion dollar companies, you guys really thing the SE are cool with that .....

[a389951l]

No doubt in Yahoo - coop links are not as useful as it was before. But I haven't see any dropoff in MSN. Are you seeing that MSN is not working also now for you ferrett77 - this would be new to me and probably several others on the board.

[ferret77]

yeah its not working as good in msn for me

my sites slowly crept down, for the most competitive terms, still can crank lesser competitive terms

blog spammers have been kicking my ass in msn

[smindsrt]

blog spammers have been kicking my ass in msn

I know the feeling. BTW, this thread has a very misleading title. "Proof"

[Mia]

Ok so one of my sites was not being updated in the index nor was I ranking for any terms, none. And I got no, count it 0 traffic from yahoo this month.

So I emailed them about this and I got a response that said:




Ok so I don't cloak, I don't do massive domain interlinking, I don't have hidden text, I don't have excessive keyword repetition.

The only thing I can think of is that Yahoo! is penalizing me b/c of "use of reciprocal link programs (aka "link farms") which I assume is referring to the Co-Op.

So I have removed the Co-Op links and have asked for a review on submission, so we will see what happens.

There is my analysis

I've had this discussion with Yahoo. You are correct in your assertion. BTW, I got more than the canned response that you posted. Yeah, I got that first, but after a few more one on one discussions, they as much as admitted it. Take it for what you will.

[kepa]

I have to agree with ferret. All of last year and through March or so, right after implementing the coop, my site catapulted to the top 3 in ALL 12 or so of the most popular search engines. My directory listing was also in the top 5 alongside my organic one in yahoo for my #1 keyword. Earlier this year, I stopped remembering exactly when, my site tanked in yahoo! and msn is nowhere near what it was in the beginning either. There is no other variable other than the changes in the engines. Still #1 in Google though, thank god.

[Shoemoney]

its funny how people are no where on the map then use coop and get to top spots then they fall back after a bit and then post THE COOP GOT ME BANNED

[SportsOutlaw]

its funny how people are no where on the map then use coop and get to top spots then they fall back after a bit and then post THE COOP GOT ME BANNED

Well, it seems the biggest problem anyone has had with this thread is the title. And yes, the title is misleading.

However, it is very much worth discussing, as it seems many people are experiencing problems with yahoo lately, including me.

Maybe coop is related, maybe it isnt. But honestly, it is almost impossible to discuss any "negative possibilities" regarding COOP here, cause you will get assaulted with posts and negative rep. Then, if you go to another site to discuss it, everyone is going to be on your side because it is something they dont trust or promote.

I think Rex is handling this in a pretty interesting manner. For him COOP is the only thing he can see right now as a possibility, so he is going to remove it, and resubmit to yahoo to see what happens. I, for one, will be interested to see if anything comes of it.

Oh, and everyone can feel free to send red rep if they like, it just might help complete the green background of this forum and give me a christmasy feel ;)

[Mia]

its funny how people are no where on the map then use coop and get to top spots then they fall back after a bit and then post THE COOP GOT ME BANNED

The sites I had "Banned" had coop ads, not coop weight thrown at them ;)

Food for thought...

[maha]

You can also read this thread and make your own conclusions:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=19524

[TooHappy]

The sites I had "Banned" had coop ads, not coop weight thrown at them


Excellent point. Are we talking about coop ads or coop weight?

I can see where coop ads could cause a problem if you get a bad url, but weight?

[Mia]

Excellent point. Are we talking about coop ads or coop weight?

I can see where coop ads could cause a problem if you get a bad url, but weight?

It would stand to reason that "coop weight" would certainly be a volatile ingredient in getting a site penalized, assuming you say, add a massive amount of links to a new site over a very short period of time.

However, again, I have sites that have been banned for merely displaying coop ads. It makes no sense to me that a site would be banned for having outbound links (only 5 of them) on a given site. Inbound? I can see, but outbound? I cannot.

So given that my sites with outbound links are the ones that have had trouble with Yahoo, I can only assume that something else is up.

Anyway.

[heapseo]

I have sites that have been banned for merely displaying coop ads. It makes no sense to me that a site would be banned for having outbound links (only 5 of them) on a given site. Inbound? I can see, but outbound? I cannot.


See, i look at it the other way - you have control (in a normallink exchange situation) of the links you display on your site, so if you are linking to a 'bad neighbourhood' (whatever that is) then it can be deemed as your own fault. Incoming links to your site could be set up by anyone, hence out of your control. Therefore it makes sense that if you were gonna be penalised for either, it would be for having ads on your pages.

[TooHappy]

Inbound? I can see, but outbound? I cannot.

This is backwards, no?

Chances are that google is not going to penalize you for a bad site linking to you, otherwise, anyone could create a 'bad' site and link to their competitor to get them removed.

On the other hand, if you are linking to a bad site, then you're responsible. It's in your area of control.

Tiptop has it right.

[Big Richard]

The sites I had "Banned" had coop ads, not coop weight thrown at them ;)

Food for thought...

Yes I sure its just a natural re-correction

[GTech]

The sites I had "Banned" had coop ads, not coop weight thrown at them ;)

Food for thought...

Jeremy, did you note any changes after you removed coop ads from your affected sites? If so, how long? One of my sites had major traffic from Yahoo this summer. Ten times the amount of traffic as all other SE's combined. After a few months though, Yahoo has all but disappeared. I had some major earnings during this time.

Sites where I only promote ads to, but not display them on, do quite well. I concur on the sites where ads are displayed, though I've never considered that pattern before. Of all the sites I have, only the ones that I have the ads on, seem to be affected with low/zero Yahoo traffic.

[Mia]

Jeremy, did you note any changes after you removed coop ads from your affected sites? If so, how long? One of my sites had major traffic from Yahoo this summer. Ten times the amount of traffic as all other SE's combined. After a few months though, Yahoo has all but disappeared. I had some major earnings during this time.

Sites where I only promote ads to, but not display them on, do quite well. I concur on the sites where ads are displayed, though I've never considered that pattern before. Of all the sites I have, only the ones that I have the ads on, seem to be affected with low/zero Yahoo traffic.

Nope, still not back yet. I have emailed yahoo, and have asked the site be re-indexed, but still nothing... 3 months now :(

The particular site in question is not a money maker, nor was it ever intended for that. It is just something my wife and I felt strongly about and provided free info to others about the subject matter on the site. There are only 30 pages in the site, it's not an SEO'd cash cow... Nothing, I mean, NOTHING about it should send off any signal/alarm to any SE. It is well designed, clean, and full of info/content.

Anyway, I'm not complaining. Yahoo traffic for me has always been crap. Their searches are rarely relevant. I use Yahoo.Com as much as Google, but not for searches. Maps, Stocks, and email.. That's it. For a portal, it's great, as an SE? YMMV.

[maha]

I removed all co-op ads (as well as any links pointing to the site) from one of my sites that I manage. It's starting to come back to Yahoo SERP. It was not as high as it was before the ban (3-4 month ago). It used to be top 5 in Yahoo. Now it's around 15 on some of the keywords. I believe it will move up slowly..

I also emailed Yahoo regarding my site and why it was banned. I ask why I can be listed in the Yahoo directory (year after year) and paid $300 and be banned from Yahoo Search. This is the email I received:

========================================
Thanks for writing.

Yahoo! Directory does not have the same criteria for inclusion or ranking as the organic search results. For instance, Yahoo! Directory does not look at inbound links from other sites, whereas organic search is very sensitive to linking (and link-spamming.) That is an example of an area where rank can be quite divergent. Organic search is ranked by machine, not human, so a high rank in directory won't cause a high rank in organic.

We want to provide top quality search results for users, so an engineer will take a look at the ranking issue you describe.

Search Engine Spam Reporting
Yahoo! Corp.
=============================================

Reading this email, I immediately removed all co-op, a few weeks later, it started to come back in the SERP. Of course there is no way to know if my re-inclusion in the SERP is because the result of removing Co-op or because a Yahoo engineer manually included the site back in after reviewing my site. He did say a Yahoo engineer will look into it in the email.

I disagree that Yahoo brings no traffic/business. You and I may not use Yahoo to do our searches. But many users use Yahoo as their home page and use Yahoo Search Engine. Prior to the ban, it accounted for about 30-40% of my over all traffic. My site is and has been ranked in the top 5 also in Google and MSN. Google still brings the most traffic, but Yahoo is still a major player.

[SEbasic]

Thanks for writing the Yahoo! Search and Directory Support.
I understand that you have a question about why your site does not appear in Yahoo! Search.

It has been determined that your site may not comply with Yahoo!'s Content Quality Guidelines located at:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/ysearch/deletions/deletions-05.html.

Below are some answers to common questions regarding this issue:
Q: What are some of the common reasons that a site may violate Yahoo!'s Content Quality Guidelines?
A: Yahoo!'s Content Quality Guidelines (link above) outline what we are and are not looking for in pages that we index.

Listed below are some of the more common examples of how a site may violate these guidelines:

- Cloaking (showing crawlers deceptive content about a site)
- Massive domain interlinking- Use of affiliate programs without the addition of substantial unique content
- Use of reciprocal link programs (aka "link farms")
- Hidden text
- Excessive keyword repetition Ha! - You guys realise that this is a completly stock response right?

[TooHappy]

after a few more one on one discussions, they as much as admitted it. Take it for what you will.

Jeremy, did the site in question have incoming or outgoing links? Weight or co-op ads?

Thanks!

[Mia]

Ha! - You guys realise that this is a completly stock response right?

Yes, but I have two other responses that were repsonse to the "stock" response, that were written by an actual human. ;) The responses I received as much as spelled it out for me, quite directly.

[Mia]

Jeremy, did the site in question have incoming or outgoing links? Weight or co-op ads?

Thanks!

It had outgoing links only. No incoming. No weight thrown at it. Just 5 outgoing random links.

[TooHappy]

It had outgoing links only. No incoming. No weight thrown at it. Just 5 outgoing random links.

Not good! I guess this means that you can put the coop on sites that are not really important –or- made for co-op and use the weight for sites that you care about.

[Mia]

Not good! I guess this means that you can put the coop on sites that are not really important –or- made for co-op and use the weight for sites that you care about.

Kinda defeats the purpose of the coop doesn't it? I mean I am still under the impression that the Coop was just that, a "coop" for "advertising". I actually do see incoming referrals from several of the sites on the coop that display ads for many of my sites. Most of my ads are "banners", not text. They are meant to attract visitors, not backlinks.

I think the only way to truely legitmize the coop is to have it be contextually based so that relevant sites show up on the sites that advertise the coop ads.

Of course this begs the question of how that would fit in with Googles TOS. Of course if the Coop remains FREE, then who can say that the contextual based delivery of advertising delivered via the coop on an AdSense enabled site is deemed as a "competive" service?

[Matts]

IMO the SE's shouldn't be penalizing sites for using coop. They should learn to ignore it just like they do for adwords and Y! ads. I've himmed and hawed about removing the coop, and keep coming back to a free speach issue. The coop is just a low-cost way of trading Ads. So because the cost is low, it means lots of people use it. It upsets the quotient of heavy advertising $ = deep pockets == important site, but hey, the inet is built from ingenuity. The SEs ought not to be banning anyone, but should learn to resolve the problem in their algorithms. Why should it matter if I pay $0.50 a click or $0.00 a click? We're all using each other's resources and there are costs there. Maybe Y! needs to pay the FreeBSD foundation for it's use of FreeBSD, G pay royalties for Linux, and MSN pay, uh, me? Evolution is what the net's all about.

[rex_b]

Nice email there, thanks for postingI removed all co-op ads (as well as any links pointing to the site) from one of my sites that I manage. It's starting to come back to Yahoo SERP. It was not as high as it was before the ban (3-4 month ago). It used to be top 5 in Yahoo. Now it's around 15 on some of the keywords. I believe it will move up slowly..

I also emailed Yahoo regarding my site and why it was banned. I ask why I can be listed in the Yahoo directory (year after year) and paid $300 and be banned from Yahoo Search. This is the email I received:

========================================
Thanks for writing.

Yahoo! Directory does not have the same criteria for inclusion or ranking as the organic search results. For instance, Yahoo! Directory does not look at inbound links from other sites, whereas organic search is very sensitive to linking (and link-spamming.) That is an example of an area where rank can be quite divergent. Organic search is ranked by machine, not human, so a high rank in directory won't cause a high rank in organic.

We want to provide top quality search results for users, so an engineer will take a look at the ranking issue you describe.

Search Engine Spam Reporting
Yahoo! Corp.
=============================================

Reading this email, I immediately removed all co-op, a few weeks later, it started to come back in the SERP. Of course there is no way to know if my re-inclusion in the SERP is because the result of removing Co-op or because a Yahoo engineer manually included the site back in after reviewing my site. He did say a Yahoo engineer will look into it in the email.

I disagree that Yahoo brings no traffic/business. You and I may not use Yahoo to do our searches. But many users use Yahoo as their home page and use Yahoo Search Engine. Prior to the ban, it accounted for about 30-40% of my over all traffic. My site is and has been ranked in the top 5 also in Google and MSN. Google still brings the most traffic, but Yahoo is still a major player.

[Design Agent]

Then it should be possible to ban yahoo from yahoo or anyone elses site.

[minstrel]

IMO the SE's shouldn't be penalizing sites for using coop.
There is still no evidence that they are penalizing sites for using coop.

[ferret77]

Yeah except for all the peoples sites who were using tons of coop disappearing around march/may.

But its probably just coicendence

[minstrel]

Yeah except for all the peoples sites who were using tons of coop disappearing around march/may.

But its probably just coicendence
Probably. That's the basis for superstitious thinking.

If you believe it is NOT just coincidence, how do you account for all the sites using the coop that did NOT disappear "around march/may"?

[Design Agent]

What is 'tons' of coop?

[ferret77]

all my sites that had greater the 54,000 i think

maybe a little less

[Design Agent]

Did you hit the top terms you were targetting then vanish?

[ferret77]

i hit em and held them for like a few months,

[ferret77]

Don't get me wrong I have sites kicked out all the time, it even says in yahoo guidelines, that affialte sites and sites that trade links are bad

and thats pretty much 95% of my sites

That one update around march may dumped a lot of people who used lots of coop, not just me.

[Design Agent]

For the first time in 3-4 years I have seen a site of mine take a bit of a dip on yahoo for some terms and disappear for others.

Though I only have about 8000 pointed at it. Looking at the tracker, my instant guess would be algo change as some rankings are still around.

*Edit, I've just seen a mirror ranking better than the main site on Yahoo.com, but not .co.uk (both domains are UK registered and hosted)

[minstrel]

That one update around march may dumped a lot of people who used lots of coop, not just me.
You haven't answered my question:

how do you account for all the sites using the coop that did NOT disappear "around march/may"?

[jazzylee77]

Couldn't we skip a few games of dodgeball and teach some basic logic in grade school?

[jazzylee77]

Wait! Dodge ball could teach some basic logic.

Assertion: If Billy hits someone with the ball and they don't catch it, then they are out.

This rule argues from a specific cause to a general effect.

If you are out, did Billy hit you with the ball without you catching it?

Not necessarily...other players may have hit you.

This is arguing to a specific cause from a general effect.

Saying Billy is the best player and gets most others out, or Billy doesn't like you, or you can't see why anyone else would want to hit you, does not mean Billy left that red mark on the side of your dopey face!

[Googles76]

Wait! Dodge ball could teach some basic logic.

Assertion: If Billy hits someone with the ball and they don't catch it, then they are out.

This rule argues from a specific cause to a general effect.

If you are out, did Billy hit you with the ball without you catching it?

Not necessarily...other players may have hit you.

This is arguing to a specific cause from a general effect.

Saying Billy is the best player and gets most others out, or Billy doesn't like you, or you can't see why anyone else would want to hit you, does not mean Billy left that red mark on the side of your dopey face!

http://www.bmwboard.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile_unsurelaugh.gif

ne comprend pas

[jazzylee77]

yeah...i confuse my nephews too...

[Design Agent]

http://www.bmwboard.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile_unsurelaugh.gif

ne comprend pas
Moi aussi :confused:

[minstrel]

Menage a trois.

But I think what jazzylee is saying is that there are serious logical flaws in the conclusions being drawn by rex_b and ferret77 and co... as I suggested above with my "superstitious thinking" reference.

[rex_b]

Menage a trois.

But I think what jazzylee is saying is that there are serious logical flaws in the conclusions being drawn by rex_b and ferret77 and co... as I suggested above with my "superstitious thinking" reference.

My conclusion easily came from the 4 or 5 things they listed, and 1 of them seemed more likely than the others.


Originally Posted by minstrel
how do you account for all the sites using the coop that did NOT disappear "around march/may"?



Some people steal and don't get caught. Thus why they all aren't in jail.

Seems to me your logic is flawed.

[minstrel]

Well, it seems to me we've had discussions about logic elsewhere previously, rex. I couldn't detect any in your posts then and I'm having the same problem here.

We're not talking about one or two coop sites that didn't get "penalized" - we're talking about quite a few, I'd say at least as many as theoretically did get penalized. Add to that the (high) likelihood that the ones that did differed in other more important ways from the ones that didn't, and I'd say your "proof" is nothing more than superstitious thinking.

[aeiouy]

The problem with coop sites getting banned is because Yahoo is goofy, I doubt it has anything to do with the co-op. I had a site that has co-op ads that had only the homepage listed in yahoo for a while. I contacted them several times and pages started to show up. Then I was entirely out of the index, and then again, doing sitemap and contacting them again, I have a lot of pages indexed.

Yahoo is just highly flakey, at least in my experience and they do some very odd things. I don't know there is any connection to the co-op at all.

[jazzylee77]

My conclusion easily came from the 4 or 5 things they listed, and 1 of them seemed more likely than the others.


Oh it was definitely Billy then....;)


Some people steal and don't get caught. Thus why they all aren't in jail.

Seems to me your logic is flawed.

You supplied the previously missing argument when you infer the other sites didn't get caught.

I guess I'm really out...but the coach didn't see it... na na na na na! :D

[frenchmen77]

Yahoo is goofy
True, so very true. Yahoo is all over the place, I'll rank #5 for a keyword oneday then #22 the next.

[rex_b]

Well, it seems to me we've had discussions about logic elsewhere previously, rex. I couldn't detect any in your posts then and I'm having the same problem here.

We're not talking about one or two coop sites that didn't get "penalized" - we're talking about quite a few, I'd say at least as many as theoretically did get penalized. Add to that the (high) likelihood that the ones that did differed in other more important ways from the ones that didn't, and I'd say your "proof" is nothing more than superstitious thinking.

What is your point. I argue A you argue B and nobody knows for sure what the C is....

And using the word superstitious (showing ignorance or the laws of nature and faith in magic or chance) is kinda dumb don't you think. It's more like my assumption on the facts in hand.

[minstrel]

What is your point. I argue A you argue B and nobody knows for sure what the C is....

And using the word superstitious (showing ignorance or the laws of nature and faith in magic or chance) is kinda dumb don't you think. It's more like my assumption on the facts in hand.
Again, betraying your failure to understand the basis of logical reasoning... :rolleyes:

1. you see a change in SE rankings and out of all possible causes for this you pick one out of thin air and conclude that that one factor is the culprit

2. you completely fail to rule out the contribution of all the other factors

3. you completely ignore the fact that the identified factor is also present for a large number of sites that did not drop in the rankings

4. you make no attempt to account for the fact that those other sites did not drop in rankings other than to suggest that Yahoo noticed your site but magically did not notice the others

That is the definition of superstitious thinking and the antithesis of logical reasoning. And THAT is the problem with your so-called "proof", which of course is nothing of the kind.

[rex_b]

Again, betraying your failure to understand the basis of logical reasoning... :rolleyes:

1. you see a change in SE rankings and out of all possible causes for this you pick one out of thin air and conclude that that one factor is the culprit

2. you completely fail to rule out the contribution of all the other factors

3. you completely ignore the fact that the identified factor is also present for a large number of sites that did not drop in the rankings

4. you make no attempt to account for the fact that those other sites did not drop in rankings other than to suggest that Yahoo noticed your site but magically did not notice the others

That is the definition of superstitious thinking and the antithesis of logical reasoning. And THAT is the problem with your so-called "proof", which of course is nothing of the kind.

1. I saw no change, the site has never ranked well if at all in yahoo, and I have had Coop since day 1.

2. I ruled out the other factors that could be possible because none of those factors could be the reason because I don't do any of those things.

3. I already answered this, maybe they have yet to be caught? I don't know how yahoo tracks billions of sites, do you?

4. read above


Wow your logic is great, you have a book I can read?

[minstrel]

You can read? :eek:

You certainly haven't demonstrated that here... :rolleyes:

[rex_b]

Wow canucks can post!!

You want a cookie?

[rex_b]

Getting back to the topic here *cough * cough

Anyone care to give their own interpretation of this:

- Massive domain interlinking- Use of affiliate programs without the addition of substantial unique content
- Use of reciprocal link programs (aka "link farms")

[minstrel]

I saw no change, the site has never ranked well if at all in yahoo, and I have had Coop since day 1.
OK. So it didn't drop. It never ranked. After 9 pages, I'd forgotten who said what.

The problem is that makes your "logic" even less valid. You claim to have ruled out all other factors because you got a form letter from Yahoo listing common black hat tricks that you claim you don't use.

This reminds me of the "logic" of webmasters who claim that Google is broken because their sorry sites don't make it to the top 10.

define: proof (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-35,GGLG:en&q=define%3Aproof)

any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it"
a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it
validation: the act of validating; finding or testing the truth of something
proof(p): (used in combination or as a suffix) able to withstand; "temptation-proof"; "childproof locks"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Proof theory, studied as a branch of mathematical logic, represents proofs as formal mathematical objects, facilitating their analysis by mathematical techniques. Proofs are typically presented as inductively-defined data structures, such as plain lists, boxed lists, or trees, which are constructed according to the axioms and rules of inference of the logical system. As such, proof theory is closer to syntax, while model theory is more purely semantical. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(logic)

In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that, given certain axioms, some statement of interest is necessarily true.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(math)

A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm

A proof is a sequence of statements (made up of axioms, assumptions and arguments) leading to the establishment of the truth of one finat statement.
ddi.cs.uni-potsdam.de/Lehre/TuringLectures/MathNotions.htm

[rex_b]

The truth will come out minstrel. Always had coop, never ranked in yahoo.

Coop is now gone, and we shall see I get any rankings.

The results will be proof enough, but then you will probably still bitch and whine as usual.

[minstrel]

- Massive domain interlinking- Use of affiliate programs without the addition of substantial unique content
- Use of reciprocal link programs (aka "link farms")
The Coop is neither of those critters.

[rex_b]

The Coop is neither of those critters.

Which is YOUR interpretation right? Subjective ehh???

[minstrel]

Coop is now gone, and we shall see I get any rankings.

The results will be proof enough, but then you will probably still bitch and whine as usual.
You're just not understanding this, are you rex?

Even if you now see an increase in your rankings, that STILL will not "prove" that it was Coop ads that prevented this from happening previously.

[minstrel]

Which is YOUR interpretation right? Subjective ehh???
No.

1. how does the coop meet the criteria in this description: "Massive domain interlinking- Use of affiliate programs without the addition of substantial unique content"?

2. how does the coop meet the criteria in this description: "Use of reciprocal link programs (aka "link farms")"?

[rex_b]

I understand your point of view here, but it doesn't work.

For example nobody can "prove" God exists yet 90% of the world believes in a God and most have their own "proof" that satisfies them.

NOTHING WILL EVER SATISFY YOU.

[rex_b]

No.



*blows french horn*

Here Ye, Here Ye,

The all mighty all knowing minstrel knows all.

[jazzylee77]

another case of invincible ignorance...

[Seiya]

"- Massive domain interlinking- Use of affiliate programs without the addition of substantial unique content"

without the substantial unique content....

so as long as your site has unique content your ok :)

also im not saying the coop is massive domain interlinking, im just proving you that even if it was its wrong

[Jade456]

I think the thing we are forgetting here is that Yahoo dropped the site. In my experience, Yahoo will drop a site FOR NO REASON. Sometimes they will admit it and re-include, sometimes not (usually) IHMO.

Just my two cents.

[rex_b]

I wrote:


Can you define these out for me a bit more?

- Massive domain interlinking- Use of affiliate programs without the addition of substantial unique content
- Use of reciprocal link programs (aka "link farms")

From Yahoo:

Thanks for writing the Yahoo! Search and Directory Support.

In general both refers to if a site is using excessive linking, designed with primary focus on archiving a higher ranking in Yahoo! Search due to the fact that incoming and outgoing links are part of what our ranking algorithm considers. Link farms are networks of sites specifically designed for this purpose. There is no specific number of links we consider excessive; it depends on the site overall with the best experience for our users in mind.

[Design Agent]

Thanks for writing the Yahoo! Search and Directory Support.

In general both refers to if a site is using excessive linking, designed with primary focus on archiving a higher ranking in Yahoo! Search due to the fact that incoming and outgoing links are part of what our ranking algorithm considers. Link farms are networks of sites specifically designed for this purpose. There is no specific number of links we consider excessive; it depends on the site overall with the best experience for our users in mind.

From Yahoo:

I thought everyone's primary focus was google right now ;)

Also, I hope thats not a direct quote from Yahoo. (it has typos)

[minstrel]

Thanks for writing the Yahoo! Search and Directory Support.

In general both refers to if a site is using excessive linking, designed with primary focus on archiving a higher ranking in Yahoo! Search due to the fact that incoming and outgoing links are part of what our ranking algorithm considers. Link farms are networks of sites specifically designed for this purpose. There is no specific number of links we consider excessive; it depends on the site overall with the best experience for our users in mind.

:confused:

How does that help your claim that your poor showing in Yahoo was due to Coop ads?

[Design Agent]

1.In general both refers to
2. archiving
3. due to the fact that i (no full stop/ capitalization)
4. incoming and outgoing links are part of what our ranking algorithm considers- (ambigious)
5. it depends on -(it is dependent on)

Im starting to doubt that quote was from an email from yahoo in the first place.

[minstrel]

By the way, rex, did you ever have a look at the thread referenced in the link from this post on page 1 of this thread?

Doubt it's the coop. Almost the exact same issue (and canned e-mail from Yahoo) was discussed here (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=28855).

In particular, this post from palespyder:

Dude I got this same email for two of my sites, fixed what I thought needed fixing (had some old landing pages that we had forgotten about) and now I am back in the in index, never touched the link network stuff and they put me back.

[rex_b]

1.In general both refers to
2. archiving
3. due to the fact that i (no full stop/ capitalization)
4. incoming and outgoing links are part of what our ranking algorithm considers- (ambigious)
5. it depends on -(it is dependent on)

Im starting to doubt that quote was from an email from yahoo in the first place.

You want the email?

[rex_b]

:confused:

How does that help your claim that your poor showing in Yahoo was due to Coop ads?

Never said it did, just posting it for information. People do come here for that.

[jazzylee77]

it's not inconceivable Yahoo! would have a language challenged employee...suspiciously quick turnaround on that question though!

[ferret77]

If you believe it is NOT just coincidence, how do you account for all the sites using the coop that did NOT disappear "around march/may"?

Mostly because they have a fraction of the coop weight I had

[minstrel]

So it's NOT the Coop Ad Network ads per se but the sudden appearance of a large number of links? Is that what you're saying?

I don't believe that was the point rex_b was trying to make. He was saying he had "proof" that Yahoo doesn't like the Coop.

[Matts]

There is still no evidence that they are penalizing sites for using coop.
I agree. I see no direct signs of trouble and have been using coop for a year. If the SE's are truly looking at the big picture then they shouldn't -- they just need to account for it.

[Matts]

Some people steal and don't get caught. Thus why they all aren't in jail. Seems to me your logic is flawed.
How can sharing free ads be compared to criminal activities? Most of us are using lots of free tools like php, freebsd, mysql, linux, apache, gd, etc giving us a competitive advantage over those paying thousands of dollars to license Windoze or IBM Websphere. Microsoft has been whining about this for some time and but they don't have a real argument. Back to the coop, I don't feel the SEs can make a moral case against free ad networks. If they really had a case they'd contact Shawn and have him do something to help them -- but's it's really the SE's issue to resolve any extra ranking caused by the coop.

In my opinion, it's more likely that a sudden large jump in back links caused by joining the coop that could hurt SERPs and not the coop in general. That's part of the google patent. Sitting quiet and staying with the coop could have been just as rewarding as leaving -- maybe better.

As for crooks, the number is about 1 in 10, so we each know a few and probably don't even know it.

[Design Agent]

You want the email?

Not particularly, but you can send it if you like ;)

[minstrel]

You want the email?
Not particularly, but you can send it if you like
Unless it is forwarded in its entirety, with headers intact, it won't mean a damn thing. Even rex can edit text, I presume. :rolleyes:

[rex_b]

Wow so now I'm faking emails. You guys are pathetic.

[elkiwi]

I'm not an SEO expert but the program I use to analise my pages (web ceo) always tells me that the major se's don't like keyword repetition in description and keyword tags.

<meta name="keywords" content="Cruise Line Forums - Cruise Reviews, Cruise Ports, Cruise Destinations, Cruise Ships, Cruise Excursions, carnival, royal carribean, western carribean, eastern carribean, hawaii, cruising, travel, alaskan cruise, cruise ships, norwegian cruise line, disney cruise line, cruise critics, fun ships, freestyle, cruise news, princess cruise, europe cruise, mexico cruise" />

<meta name="description" content="Cruise Line Forums - Cruise Reviews, Cruise Ports, Cruise Destinations, Cruise Ships, Cruise Excursions" />

You don't need to repeat the word cruise in either...your description could be:

Cruise Line Forums - Cruise Reviews, Ports, Destinations, Cruise Ships, and Excursions

I rekon this is a more likely reason for your serps.

[Design Agent]

Wow so now I'm faking emails.

More? :D

You guys are pathetic.

Send minstrel the email and he'll tell you if its fake..

[minstrel]

Or just see elkiwi's post above. :rolleyes:

[rex_b]

I'm not an SEO expert but the program I use to analise my pages (web ceo) always tells me that the major se's don't like keyword repetition in description and keyword tags.

<meta name="keywords" content="Cruise Line Forums - Cruise Reviews, Cruise Ports, Cruise Destinations, Cruise Ships, Cruise Excursions, carnival, royal carribean, western carribean, eastern carribean, hawaii, cruising, travel, alaskan cruise, cruise ships, norwegian cruise line, disney cruise line, cruise critics, fun ships, freestyle, cruise news, princess cruise, europe cruise, mexico cruise" />

<meta name="description" content="Cruise Line Forums - Cruise Reviews, Cruise Ports, Cruise Destinations, Cruise Ships, Cruise Excursions" />

You don't need to repeat the word cruise in either...your description could be:

Cruise Line Forums - Cruise Reviews, Ports, Destinations, Cruise Ships, and Excursions

I rekon this is a more likely reason for your serps.

I'll give it a try.

[SportsOutlaw]

let me know how that works out for you Rex. I may need to take a close look at my keyword and description usage as well.

I rank pretty well on google, and MSN, but for the past couple months my rankings have been dead for yahoo. I have one keyword ranking high, the rest dont even achieve top 200 presense.

The only common denominator we both have is coop ads. In the past couple weeks, my coop weight has finaly increased from 2,000 to 23,000. As a result, google rankings and MSN rankings have both climbed rather well. My lone yahoo keyword ranking dropped.

[hunter]

No proof in that canned message got one today exactly the same. Never heard of coop might have to give it a try.

Two points
1. I got reply way too fast for Yahoo to have checked my site (just a few hours). To get actual human support from Yahoo takes days (sometimes weeks) not hours. The message is generic and doesn't help in the least.

2. I checked my server logs No accesses from Yahoo corp IP addresses. The email did in fact originate from Yahoo-inc IP block. I halfway expected it to come from Yahoo China. I doubt they would mask or spoof the IP and it would have been obvious what they looked at. I wish they had bothered to check my site, my server logs would have told more than any email ever could.

I am thinking about sending an inquiry about somebody elses domain at random that have decent but not stellar rankings in Yahoo just to see if I get same reply.