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"?
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.
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)
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!
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. Some people steal and don't get caught. Thus why they all aren't in jail. Seems to me your logic is flawed.
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.
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.
Oh it was definitely Billy then.... 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!
True, so very true. Yahoo is all over the place, I'll rank #5 for a keyword oneday then #22 the next.