about maybe 4-5 months ago yahoo booted many peoples sites that were heavy users of the coop all around the same time
Everything you've said here would suggest to me that whatever is causing certain of those sites to drop in Yahoo has nothing to do with the Coop. And many sites that were coop members were NOT kicked out of Yahoo. I think many of those kicked out were also heavy users of bread and milk. Some were heavy users of other substances. Personally, I'm starting to think Yahoo just doesn't like bread eaters.
please at one point I had over a million coop weight I tried all types of combinations of stuff with the coop , coop with recips, coop by itself , a little coop , a lot of coop, coop just pointing at interior pages, coop just at front pages, coop at multiple urls I often make 2 or 4 sites and that are all similiar in theme in one case I had 5 sites all almost identical i added coop to one and that was the one that tanked in yahoo , at the same time my bigger sites tanked I didn't say that anything is 100% because of coop, I just said I think the older version of the coop the 100% rotating links version seemed to increase the chances of being dumped by yahoo, ecspeically when you piled the weight on. I mean is it unreasonable to think that the SE might frown on a site suddenly have 50,000 disappearing and reappearing links that all appear in like 2 weeks? I have couple of sites with a lot of coop weight that survived that update but that doesn't mean it didn't increase the chances of being dumped. yeah and they might have some piddly ass bit of weight targeting the most non competitive terms there is. I didn't say anything was absolute, I'm sure you can find instances of cloaking sites , or sites using css to hide tons of invisible text doing good in the serps, that doesn't mean that those practices don't increase the chances of you doing bad in the future.
OK. Seems unlikely to me but you're right - it's possible. I still think it's the bread thing personally.
The original sites which got tanked.. seem to be tanked permanently in Yahoo. I would just move on to other domains... lately, Yahoo seems to be rewarding sites which use co-op heavily.
Remove the co-op if you really think that was the offending factor to your site falling from the Yahoo SERPs. You can the submit a re-inclusin request and wait, and wait, and wait. Or spend a little money on submit express.
Exactly. If you're convinced the Coop ads are a problem, why do you need three pages of forum posts to tell you what to do? Just remove the damn ads and be done with it. Problem solved.
What about that recent NIMH study* which proved conclusively that milk was NOT to blame? (*Full disclosure: Funding for this study provided by the Dairy Board of Wisconsin)
Yeap, maybe, the problem could be solved only for Yahoo, but if I'll remove coop the site could lose other se possitions.
afactory, I don't believe the problem is related to the Coop. Many other people have voiced that opinion as well. You have a choice: 1. Leave your site the way it is. 2. Change whatever it is about the site you think is causing the problem with Yahoo. If you believe that is the Coop ads, dump them. If I thought the ads were harming any of my sites, believe me I'd dump them in a heartbeat. BUT: This thread is now 4 pages long. Surely by now you have enough information to make a decision? Why continue to agonize about it publicly? Do or don't do, as Yoda would say.
My site that got banned in Yahoo because of the Coop just got the penalty lifted a couple days ago. I didn't do anything special to get the ban lifted other than send them an email telling them that they're idiots for delisting it (nobody could argue that this site is anything other than a top authority site in its industry).
1. how do you know you were banned as opposed to just dropping in rank? 2. if you were banned, how do you know it was because of the Coop rather than a hundred other factors? 3. if you were banned and "reappeared", how do you know it had anything to do with your email?
Couldn't even find the site by the name. There were no other factors. I don't know that, I'm just saying that's the only thing I did that may have caused it to be relisted.