1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Has Yahoo messed up?

Discussion in 'Yahoo' started by Arnie, Jun 11, 2005.

?

Do you think a "global internet community constituion" would be good and neccessary?

  1. Yes

    14 vote(s)
    29.8%
  2. No

    18 vote(s)
    38.3%
  3. Don't know

    3 vote(s)
    6.4%
  4. What's that?

    14 vote(s)
    29.8%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Arnie

    Arnie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,004
    Likes Received:
    116
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    #181
    a Yahoo search result ... someone seems to be angry with them ...

    FxxK OFF YAHOO YOU PACK OF DOGS!
    You list some shxt that's never been linked to on this page in the place of my main site - so i've deleted this entire site. Your search engine is a dog with fleas - fxxk you and the horse you rode in on... CUNTS!www.dbx3.com
    SEMrush
     
    Arnie, Jul 1, 2005 IP
    SEMrush
  2. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #182
    What was the search word that brought that result?
     
    Mia, Jul 1, 2005 IP
  3. Arnie

    Arnie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,004
    Likes Received:
    116
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    #183
    Fxxk off yahoo - replace the xx with the right letters

    :p Yahoo checks every site manually??? How can that slip in???:D
     
    Arnie, Jul 1, 2005 IP
  4. SEOGuru

    SEOGuru Peon

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    26
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #184

    I agree, Yahoo sucks. But that does not mean no one uses them. In fact, NO COMPANY has been able to unseat them as the #1 most visited site on the Internet for the last 6 years. For more than 2000 days, not for a single day has another site jumped ahead of them.

    My sites (over 300 of them) recieved nearly 1 million unique visitors per day. Prior to the update 43% of the search traffic came from Yahoo, 45% from Google and 9% from MSN. And I was ranked better in MSN than anywhere else on thousands of terms.

    I was making thousands of dollars per day from Yahoo. If you want to bash them, go right ahead, in fact I'll give you the iron pipe to do it, but don't for one second assume that Yahoo is not a HUGE piece of the search market and that this update didn't cost businesses MILLIONS.
     
    SEOGuru, Jul 1, 2005 IP
    classifieds and Infiniterb like this.
  5. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #185
    It might be the most visited, but that does not make it the most used for search. On that point I would argue it is NOT.

    While the update may have cost some a little bit of money, is there really anything illeagal about it? Not really. You are relying on an unknown and absolute chance to keep your site ranked in a posistion that brings in visitors to your site. If you were paying Yahoo for posisition that would be another story. SEO is a game of chance and at times relys on pure luck more than skill.

    So long as your eggs were not all in one basket you should be fine. We all see ups and downs from all the SE's. But I would not blame Yahoo or any updating they do on the loss of "MILLIONS". That is utter popycock IMHO. I am sure there are many more that were not making anything that are now making "MILLIONS".

    In the overall scheme of things it is quite nice to know there are many more options than just Yahoo. Relying on one is flirting with disaster if this is your livelyhood. Also, did everyone that is complaining about this think that things would always just stay the way they are?

    Personally I'd rather see people sharing ideas on how to beat Yahoo at their own game rather than bitching about the lost posistion/rank, revenue and everything else. Instead of others plotting to point their weight at competitors to prove a theory that already has a forgone conclusion, why not brainstorm with ideas on how to get back in?

    Anyway...
     
    Mia, Jul 1, 2005 IP
  6. Infiniterb

    Infiniterb Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    168
    #186
    That's all fine and dandy. But there are still people who use yahoo. There are over 280 million people in the US, billions all over the world. Yahoo is still an SE that is used by millions of people. You may not like it, you may not even receive conversions in the business you're in. For me, Yahoo converted great on many levels, and it sounds like others as well.

    We're all thinking of ways to get back in. But the best solution may be to wait it out. The update hasn't even lasted a full month yet. Making any drastic changes could harm more than help.
     
    Infiniterb, Jul 1, 2005 IP
    classifieds likes this.
  7. maha

    maha Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    123
    #187
    maha, Jul 1, 2005 IP
  8. SEOGuru

    SEOGuru Peon

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    26
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #188
    Mia, you are missing my point completely. I WAS NOT arguing that it is Yahoo's fault. I also WAS NOT arguing that you should rely on Yahoo as your only source of revenue. I didn't even say it was illegal nor did I say that single companies were making millions. I don't even remember saying that I didn't think things would change. Change in search technology is inevitable. Search engines will always want to try to make their results better and will be constantly tweaking their results.

    I was arguing a single point. You said no one was using Yahoo. Hundreds of millions of searches per day are done on Yahoo. You also said that Yahoo didn't convert for you and I stated that I was making thousands of dollars per day on Yahoo so it converted for me.

    Talking about diversifying revenue streams is just preaching to the choir. ANY smart business man would do that. So to bring that up is irrelevant. There is "some" luck involved in staying ranked, but there actually IS a method to this maddness. I didn't get in the top 3 on thousands of terms by being lucky. That is why the word "Optimization" is in the term SEO. You can optimize your chances of being ranked.

    Now, the truest thing you said is about brainstorming a strategy to get BACK IN. But I don't know that there is one. I've applied for and have been approved for the Directory AFTER I was banned in the SERPs, not before. Which means they had to hand review it, and accept it. It didn't matter to them as they just wanted the $299. I've sent emails to the search team address and through their request form on their site. No response.

    My "test" that you mentioned is to try to figure exactly what happened so I can at least prevent it from happening to my other websites. Sure, it seems like the theory is true but I wont know until I can test it. It is hardly a forgone conclusion until it has been proven. And if the theory holds up, that certainly gives more firepower against pressuring Yahoo to let companies back in. If these thousands of sites were kicked out because of massive links, and if they know that the strategy can be used maliciously, it certainly makes for a compelling argument to them and an interesting story to the media and their shareholders.
     
    SEOGuru, Jul 1, 2005 IP
  9. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #189
    Ah, not really. That is why I did not quote you directly last time around. I have directed my comments to this thread itself and some of those that feel jaded and cheated by Yahoo. It sucks, I understand, but it's all part of the game.

    Fair enough. I am exagerating from my own experience. I know that people use Yahoo and I see about 20% or better of the referring sites are from Yahoo. However, we just do not convert in an equal proportion to the number of visitors/referrals as compared to say Google or MSN.

    Did I make money with Yahoo? Sure. But where it left off, other things have picked up. It has all balanced out. I've not seen a significant drop however. And, I have only seen 50% of my sites disappear. The rest are still there. I am pretty sure I know why some are and some are not.

    Not necessarily. You would be surprised how many may use several different SE's, directories, and multiple forms of promotion, but then rely on one Ad Generation company/affiliate, etc. and visa versa.

    There are some that do...

    I would have to disagree on the "method to the maddness". There is an there isn't. Things can change, so to must the methods. I guess I should have said it takes constant tweaking, luck and ever changing methonds. Sure you can Optimize all you want, but in the end, I think with a little work anyone can rank anything.

    There has to be. Look you just told me that you did not get top 3 on thousands of terms by being lucky. Well, let's brainstorm then. There has to be a way back in. There has to be a way around the filter too. Nothing is perfect or bullet proof. I am sure a few of us can come up with a way in.

    I have an idea of how the filter works. And coop weight, the amount of links or how fast you got them does not have as much to do with it was you think. It's part of it, but it depends on the site as well. It's not the Coop or Massive links. It is a combination of those things, and a few other factors. IMHO.
     
    Mia, Jul 1, 2005 IP
  10. SEOGuru

    SEOGuru Peon

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    26
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #190
    I guess the most important thing is to figure out how we were banned.

    Was it an algorithm ban (filter) that we tripped and therefore can "untrip" by the next update if we make some changes? OR, was it a manual ban, that would indicate someone also needs to manually place us back into the index.

    Because of the number of sites that were affected, I would lean to it being a new filter applied. But the next big question is: Can it be unfiltered or is it the case where once you are pegged, you're screwed forever?

    When I said there was a method to this maddness, I meant that there are things you can do to get ranked and keep ranked. The biggest problem is shortcuts. In all honesty the co-op is one of those short cuts. If someone had the patience to set up bunches of sites and grow them slowly over 2-3 years with a diversity of quality links and a bunch of quality content, it would be very difficult to get banned or even lose ranking no matter what the tweak.

    This is because there are certain truths that all search engines are built on. For instance, they assume that if one site about a topic links to another site about that topic, then that second site must be important. It is a hubs and authority system. The problem the search engines have is when you own both sites and they try to find ways to prove it and devalue the link or eliminate both sites completely from their results. But if you can find a way to keep many sites anonymous (different domains, registered on different dates, by different companies, hosted on different IPs, on different C-blocks who were also registered by different ISPs, each with different site templates, content, directory structures, and non-reciprocal linking, etc.)

    In time, that strategy WILL work. In fact that is exactly what I'm doing. I have 290+ sites that WERE NOT banned in Yahoo and are still doing well. It is my main 3 sites that got banned and coincidentally had all of my co-op weight pointing to them.

    I tried to take a short cut by using the co-op. And it was working great, until the last update.

    I guess that is why I am so convinced about this massive linking issue. I've personally experienced both sides of the update and the only difference was the co-op. In fact the sites that were banned were actually older, more established, and well respected sites so if it wasn't links, then those 3 sites should have stayed in and the other 290+ should have been banned.

    I don't have any answers. But I'm trying to find some and hopefully my test will show us something (good or bad).

    But let's say you take that slow methodical approach... it can be frustrating when you are being outranked by companies who ARE taking the shortcuts. Often times search engines do not really provide much incentive to play by the rules.
     
    SEOGuru, Jul 1, 2005 IP
  11. ferret77

    ferret77 Heretic

    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    230
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #191
    guys the sites are dead in yahoo, they arn't coming back

    you guys got to starting moving thru the greiving cycle

     
    ferret77, Jul 1, 2005 IP
    Blogmaster likes this.
  12. SEOGuru

    SEOGuru Peon

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    26
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #192
    Who's greiving?

    I'll find a way back in, I gaurentee you that. Though I'm not sure how long it will take. My 3 sites that were banned were not just some little domains with AdSense on them. My partners and I have 1.4 million dollars invested in development and marketing so we aren't just going to start over.

    The marketing investment is actually a good thing because if we were banned in Google, Yahoo, and MSN we'd still get 15,000 uniques per day. But that isn't to say I don't want back into Yahoo. A lot of traffic was coming from there.

    So if building a new domain from scratch is out of the question, I came up with two more solutions (working on both at the same time).

    Solution 1 - getting back in
    First, I'm going to try to prove the existence of the filter related only to link acquisition, then prove to them that it can be used against other sites. Second, I will keep sending these people letters every other day until they respond. Third, I'll send representatives to every shareholders meeting and bring up every question they don't want asked until they are forced to deal with it. Fourth, I'll send out press releases to media organizations and emails to thousands of bloggers on the subject. If all of that together doesn't work... fine, but I WILL do far more damage to them then they've done to me.

    Solution 2 - alternate sites
    Since changing my main site is out of the question. I'll set up countless lead-in sites and get them all ranked. I have many other sites already that weren't banned so I'm already starting to re-optimize those for the new algo. And if they ban those sites, I have more ready to go after them.

    This whole thing is unfortunate. I'm not even saying I didn't deserve to be penalized. I used the co-op and got a lot of artifical links. So yeah, maybe I got what was coming to me. But that doesn't mean that the websites themselves were not respectable and offered quality services. Why not devalue all of those links and drop the site in the rankings? Why outright ban someone (then accept their $299 for the directory)? And if the results actually got better, then there isn't much I could complain about, but countless people have confirmed that the new update made the results worse. Not just because their own sites aren't ranked but in looking at the spammy sites that they were replaced by.

    There is always a solution, but it is not one that I was planning on. We'll see what happens I guess but this isn't something that will simply fade away. Not for me.
     
    SEOGuru, Jul 1, 2005 IP
  13. kepa

    kepa Peon

    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #193
    Posted by Mia:
    Oh please...so what you are telling us is that it had something to do with the quality of the site itself as opposed to the number of links obtained? Do you honestly now think that the results are better in Yahoo!? Stop backpedaling unless you actually do think that.

    An afterthought about the comment about it being unethical. What if what happened was really that your competitor got you (and my competitor got me) BANNED!? :eek: :eek: :( How would we tell? :rolleyes:
     
    kepa, Jul 1, 2005 IP
    SEOGuru likes this.
  14. Arnie

    Arnie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,004
    Likes Received:
    116
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    #194
    Yesterday I tried some random searches like "gardening", "monica", Bauer" they all were nearly exactly the same as Google.
    Then I used a general term "marketing" Here it starts to be more different but still close to Google.

    The sites recently hit are about particular subjects and the results are completely different.

    So it seems that's not an algo they are using it must be manual and they are going through subject by subject, starting at the most lucrative businesses.

    Otherwise why can sites be top ranked without content? Why can the robots not clear about the search term "fxxk you yahoo" - look at the contents, what's there? So many signs that are pretty obvious.

    That's what screams INTRIGUE.
     
    Arnie, Jul 1, 2005 IP
  15. SEOGuru

    SEOGuru Peon

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    26
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #195
    Though I won't doubt that they have manually banned many sites, I do not think the new algo filter is a content filter. And therefore sites with horrible content or even "F**K You Yahoo" might not get banned.

    I also don't believe they only have a single filter. They could have hundreds or thousands. Often the formulas are usually based on Neural Nets like the Gradient Decent model that Microsoft is currently using. So it is more like a score given to a certain page based on combinations of words found in various page segments combined with scores given to each link that page and that domain receives.

    Anyway.... all 3 of the big three search engines are working on similar models but it is this NEW filter that I believe got so many sites banned and so far the mountain of data I've gathered points to link acquisition methods. (link type, link latency, link growth rate, etc.) They didn't target all users of the co-op. Nor did every user of the co-op get banned. But if you had a lot of weight in the co-op, chances are you were caught in the perfect storm of the new filter.

    Though I am almost positive as to the "how" the sites got banned. I'm not sure as to the "where". It is entirely possible (though virtually impossible to prove) that the filter itself is a sliding scale based on topic/industry. So not every topic or industry was effected identically.

    The equation could even work off of statistical averages. For instance. If under the topic "travel" the average (total links, link growth, and link latency) of the top 1000 SERPs could be different than the topic "baby gifts". There would be a standard deviation of error within this formula and as long as you fall within it, you would be ok. So 100,000 links in one industry might be way above normal and trip the filter while 200,000 links in another industry might be below average.

    This is all conjecture of course, but just based on my own independant research over the last 6 years and several PHDs in Mathematics/Statistics that I've consulted with, most search ranking algorithms aren't set in stone but are actually dynamically changing based on indexed data. I simultaneous equation that is contantly having data added or changed as it is trying to solve itself.

    Here you can take a look at the RankNet theory that microsoft had been working on:
    http://research.microsoft.com/~cburges/papers/ICML_ranking.pdf
     
    SEOGuru, Jul 1, 2005 IP
  16. Arnie

    Arnie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,004
    Likes Received:
    116
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    #196
    That's a great move, congrats and all the Best and lots of support.
     
    Arnie, Jul 2, 2005 IP
  17. Tuning

    Tuning Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    138
    #197
    I don't know what happened yesterday, but now i got back in index @ #6 for a competetive 2 term word. I have't changed my site, coop weight, nor acquired any new links.

    Any idea ? :confused:
     
    Tuning, Jul 2, 2005 IP
  18. SEOGuru

    SEOGuru Peon

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    26
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #198
    Really? That could be a good sign. I'd love to look into your case more. Where you completely banned before and not being indexed or ranked under a search for the name of your site? Sorry for all of the questions but you are the first person I've heard of that got back in.
     
    SEOGuru, Jul 2, 2005 IP
  19. wizardofx

    wizardofx Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    140
    #199
    Very cute, the first good chuckle in this whole, foul
    thread!
     
    wizardofx, Jul 2, 2005 IP
  20. wizardofx

    wizardofx Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    140
    #200
    Arnie, this might explain the new algorithm. When you type in a request, Yahoo immediately checks Google to see what they think, then messes about with that a bit and displays it.

    I have more evidence. For years I have been whining that
    I get great positions from Google, but Yahoo and MSN hate me. Well, within the last 7 days my reputation has shot up
    on Yahoo, and bubbled up in MSN.

    Best regards
    wiz
     
    wizardofx, Jul 2, 2005 IP