> how do i get into the yahoo directory listings without paying ?
> mark
If your site is a commercial one, then you don't. You will have to pay.
With all the fuss about google lately, people seem to be forgetting how big Yahoo is. Certainly for those of us in the UK, a one off fee of £200.00 is well worth it.
> If your site is a commercial one, then you don't. You will have to pay.
> With all the fuss about google lately, people seem to be forgetting how big > Yahoo is. Certainly for those of us in the UK, a one off fee of £200.00 is > well worth it.
> Regards
> Eddie
The one time $200 fee free ride is over at Yahoo. Figure prices will be starting at $1,000 per url per month soon. You can put up with google spam problems and trying to figure out their algo for free or pay through the nose at Yahoo. Just because you pay at yahoo doesn't mean internet users will switch to yahoo from aol search google because they won't and you'll be wasting your money.
nothing is for certain in this game as anyone that has spent any time doing SEO knows, but working on the basis that Yahoo didn't buy Inktomi just for fun and now that they are "playing" with the SERPs online my guess is the game is changing and Google will not have it all their own way.
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:49:59 GMT, go...@kyboma.intelligent-beings-can-remove-this-part.co.uk (1keytools
david) wrote: >...which IMHO is evidence that google is filtering some sites out of >possible SERPS for some terms
No it doesn't. It shows (assuming the poster is correct) that Yahoo are testing a new database and it might not be Google's.
If this turns out to be true, it tells us nothing about Googles database etc....
You've basically said I can find my site at MSN and Alltheweb in the top 10, but not in Google therefore Google is filtering!! The two are not related..
Very Interesting, I crossed checked in another window and the difference was big. However, it is still the same old story, you can search for a town and all you get are pages and pages of hotel booking sites.
>>...which IMHO is evidence that google is filtering some sites out of >>possible SERPS for some terms
>No it doesn't. It shows (assuming the poster is correct) that Yahoo >are testing a new database and it might not be Google's.
>If this turns out to be true, it tells us nothing about Googles >database etc....
>You've basically said I can find my site at MSN and Alltheweb in the >top 10, but not in Google therefore Google is filtering!! The two are >not related..
Yes they are assuming search engines use some of the same critria to select pages (NB this assumption would not mean that SERPS would be the same. It means that a very high position for keywordX on SE1 PLUS *any* listing on SE2 ==> you should get a listing at least top 1000 for keywordX on SE2):
1. I can find my site at #11 on yahoo's sneak preview but not in the top 1000 on Google for the same search term.
2. The page found is listed on google for a longer search term including the words in #1.
Now assuming yahoo s.p. uses the same list of criteria. I.e. KWD on page. title, H1, bold etc on page Incoming link anchor text keyword in URL term on pages that link to that page
I think it is almost certain that Google is excluding my page for that sarch term. (= filtering)
In our last exchange you basically said that on the basis of the particular page being only partly optimised (partly due to deliberate DE-optimisation) on the above list you think I shouldn't have a serp at all. Well if I shouldn't have a listing (IE NOT in top THOUSAND) on google then I shouldn't have one anywhere else using the same set of criteria either. Even if they add and multiply points for each item differrently to get final position.
If I am quite high on a term with 3 million pages on one SE, I would expect to be at least in the top 1000 on google.
Again, there is no proof - I only said I think it's evidence.
If I get time I'll apply the next change which I think may be causing the filtering: 'Fraid it's a version of Sam's theory: this site doesn't have so very many pages but it has almost a sitemap at the bottom of each page and it could be that too many interlinks between pages is causing the filtering.
The other possibility in my mind now is lack of outgoing links. Now almost none as I accidently wiped the links page but anyway was very few and almost none from the pages that get hit on offline browser.
A third possibility is that things will change if I finish the froogle feed stuff.
If I sort all possible problems, I can always re-add them one at a time to prove which triggers the filter. Except google definitely changes it each dance so impossible to prove anyway.
LOL. Why am I discussing the reasons for being filtered out with you when you don't agree there's a filter.
>>>...which IMHO is evidence that google is filtering some sites out of >>>possible SERPS for some terms
>>No it doesn't. It shows (assuming the poster is correct) that Yahoo >>are testing a new database and it might not be Google's.
>>If this turns out to be true, it tells us nothing about Googles >>database etc....
>>You've basically said I can find my site at MSN and Alltheweb in the >>top 10, but not in Google therefore Google is filtering!! The two are >>not related..
>Yes they are assuming search engines use some of the same critria to >select pages (NB this assumption would not mean that SERPS would be >the same. It means that a very high position for keywordX on SE1 PLUS >*any* listing on SE2 ==> you should get a listing at least top 1000 >for keywordX on SE2):
>1. I can find my site at #11 on yahoo's sneak preview but not in the >top 1000 on Google for the same search term.
>2. The page found is listed on google for a longer search term >including the words in #1.
>Now assuming yahoo s.p. uses the same list of criteria. >I.e. >KWD on page. >title, H1, bold etc on page >Incoming link anchor text >keyword in URL >term on pages that link to that page
>I think it is almost certain that Google is excluding my page for that >sarch term. (= filtering)
>In our last exchange you basically said that on the basis of the >particular page being only partly optimised (partly due to deliberate >DE-optimisation) on the above list you think I shouldn't have a serp >at all. Well if I shouldn't have a listing (IE NOT in top THOUSAND) on >google then I shouldn't have one anywhere else using the same set of >criteria either. Even if they add and multiply points for each item >differrently to get final position.
>If I am quite high on a term with 3 million pages on one SE, I would >expect to be at least in the top 1000 on google.
>Again, there is no proof - I only said I think it's evidence.
>If I get time I'll apply the next change which I think may be causing >the filtering: > 'Fraid it's a version of Sam's theory: this site doesn't have so very >many pages but it has almost a sitemap at the bottom of each page and >it could be that too many interlinks between pages is causing the >filtering.
>The other possibility in my mind now is lack of outgoing links. Now >almost none as I accidently wiped the links page but anyway was very >few and almost none from the pages that get hit on offline browser.
>A third possibility is that things will change if I finish the froogle >feed stuff.
>If I sort all possible problems, I can always re-add them one at a >time to prove which triggers the filter. Except google definitely >changes it each dance so impossible to prove anyway.
>LOL. Why am I discussing the reasons for being filtered out with you >when you don't agree there's a filter.
Hi David, you echo my feelings too! I have a number of property websites built for a number of clients in different parts of the UK. My methods for seo are clean and vary little in approach (why change something that works?) I have without exception been able to get page 1 for all clients for their respective sites not only in Google but also Msn, Alltheweb, Altavists, Lycos etc without ANY incoming links at all. Since Nov ONLY my property sites have suffered (I have about 20-30 other non-property sites that have not been affected in any way and still hold all their page 1 positions) on Google and elsewhere. When I check my property site keywords in Google all I get is rubbish. Hardly any results are relevant, mostly stuff from Kelkoo and other non focussed sites but although I'm convinced (gut instinct) filters are in place in certain market sectors by Google I can't latch onto something tangible that I can get my seo teeth into. My biggest property site was on page 1 for all 184 keywords on Google as well as the other engines but now only shows up for aprrox relevant 30 keywords whilst other engines happily still deliver for all 184.
You are right. They have a free submissions process, but with the streamlining of the editorial process and head count reductions, you are better off paying the fee. Yahoo still gets a lot of traffic and when they drop google, it will even the playing field.
> If your site is a commercial one, then you don't. You will have to pay.
> With all the fuss about google lately, people seem to be forgetting how big > Yahoo is. Certainly for those of us in the UK, a one off fee of £200.00 is > well worth it.
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:30:52 GMT, go...@kyboma.intelligent-beings-can-remove-this-part.co.uk (1keytools
david) wrote: >If I am quite high on a term with 3 million pages on one SE, I would >expect to be at least in the top 1000 on google.
Hi,
Generally you don't see the same results (or even similar) between different search engines because they use different algorithms.
The way I optimise works really well in Google and any engines using Google's database, but I have never ranked highly in altavista or MSN.
All this means is they do things differently. Doesn't suggest to me Altavista is filtering it's results.
Obviously you are going to be able to find some SERPs that are similar, but generally they aren't going to look the same.
When you consider the number of pages search engine index a very small algorithm change can cause dramatic changes to a SERP where the pages aren't optimised well and the off page factors aren't strong.
>Again, there is no proof - I only said I think it's evidence.
I did jump down your throat a bit with the last post. Sorry about that, long day :-))
If you are already listed on the first page of Yahoo, is there any benefit to paying to be in the Yahoo Directory at $200 / year for a business?
And, are you all talking about a different fee?
Thanks,
Rob
"Kimberly Lauren" <kimbe...@kazazz.com> wrote in message
news:781f6443.0402121351.49fd8e55@posting.google.com... | Eddie, | | You are right. They have a free submissions process, but with the | streamlining of the editorial process and head count reductions, you | are better off paying the fee. Yahoo still gets a lot of traffic and | when they drop google, it will even the playing field. | | Kim Lauren | KaZaZZ! Search Engine | www.kazazz.com |
<news:BNJWb.2638$NP5.26175650@news-text.cableinet.net>... | > "mark | r" <m...@nmd.freeuk.com> wrote in message | > news:402b65f5$0$9751$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com... | > > how do i get into the yahoo directory listings without paying ? | > > | > > mark | > > | > If your site is a commercial one, then you don't. You will have to pay. | > | > With all the fuss about google lately, people seem to be forgetting how big | > Yahoo is. Certainly for those of us in the UK, a one off fee of £200.00 is | > well worth it. | > | > | > Regards | > | > Eddie | > | > http://www.soft-data.net/ Software & Internet | > http://www.softdata.co.uk The Gloucestershire Portal
> Very Interesting, I crossed checked in another window and the > difference was big. > However, it is still the same old story, you can search for a town and > all you get are pages and pages of hotel booking sites.
My primary keywords are town names (two different sites) with the test results i go from number 1 to number 2 on one site number 1 to number 16 on the other
>>If I am quite high on a term with 3 million pages on one SE, I would >>expect to be at least in the top 1000 on google.
>Hi,
>Generally you don't see the same results (or even similar) between >different search engines because they use different algorithms.
>The way I optimise works really well in Google and any engines using >Google's database, but I have never ranked highly in altavista or MSN.
>All this means is they do things differently. Doesn't suggest to me >Altavista is filtering it's results.
>Obviously you are going to be able to find some SERPs that are >similar, but generally they aren't going to look the same.
Hmmm, don't think I explained too well what I want to say.
Not expecting the same serps. AM expecting that top 20 on SE1 are somewhere in top 1000 on SE2.
[Apart from anything else if they're not either SE2 results are not including all the most relevant sites or SE1 results are crap].
Also it depends how widely used a term is.
The term I'm talking about is offline browser - I'd guess there are 20-30 products which meet that description - 300+ software sites that list them. Then there will be odd mentions on other tech sites.
I therefore think it's reasonable to expect that it should appear in the top 1000. With the current (non-optimal) level of SEO I don't expect it to be p1.
The fact it is #11 for "offline broswer" on yahoo s.p. The fact it is #2 for "offline broswer internet explorer" (much more relevant term anyway - but little searched for ....) on google
all reinforces my belief that it should be top THOUSAND for offline browser on google.
>>Again, there is no proof - I only said I think it's evidence.
>I did jump down your throat a bit with the last post. Sorry about >that, long day :-))
No problem - I'm in a good mood today. I paid someone else to do some work and I shopped so progress and fun .....
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:20:21 +0000, Tin <play...@gain.sam> wrote: >Hi David, you echo my feelings too! I have a number of property >websites built for a number of clients in different parts of the UK. >My methods for seo are clean and vary little in approach (why change >something that works?) I have without exception been able to get page >1 for all clients for their respective sites not only in Google but >also Msn, Alltheweb, Altavists, Lycos etc without ANY incoming links >at all. Since Nov ONLY my property sites have suffered (I have about >20-30 other non-property sites that have not been affected in any way >and still hold all their page 1 positions) on Google and elsewhere. >When I check my property site keywords in Google all I get is rubbish. >Hardly any results are relevant, mostly stuff from Kelkoo and other >non focussed sites but although I'm convinced (gut instinct) filters >are in place in certain market sectors by Google I can't latch onto >something tangible that I can get my seo teeth into. My biggest >property site was on page 1 for all 184 keywords on Google as well as >the other engines but now only shows up for aprrox relevant 30 >keywords whilst other engines happily still deliver for all 184.
>Tin
There are people ar WMW who claim they have been banned (or perhaps only penalised - not sure when folk say I am nowhere) and got back post Florida.
In addition to the three possible problems I may correct now triggerring the filter I listed in the post you replied to: 1. too many internal links on each page 2. not listed in froogle 3. lack of outgoing links to external site
my previous tries (all corrected on my pages without effect) were: 4- Too high KWD on page (too many occurrences of "offline browser") 5- Too high KWD for stemmed phrase on page (too many occurrences of "offline browser" or "offline browsing" or off-line browser" or ... ) 6- Links to external site that is regarded badly by google (nothing spammy but just removed all that I wasn't 100% about) 7- Use of keyword too much on page (e.g. <a href='#offline-browser'> <A NAME='offline-browser'>)
(correcting these potential problems has had no effect)
Which of any of these or others have you tried correcting?
Hi..I think you've got an extra + between "feet" and "tmpl"? I never could enter anything in the yahoo search bar and have it work but entering the url as in the original post does work.
> > how do i get into the yahoo directory listings without paying ? > You can pay $8 instead of $200: > buy an expired domain that is already in yahoo.....
david) wrote: >On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:20:21 +0000, Tin <play...@gain.sam> wrote:
>>Hi David, you echo my feelings too! I have a number of property >>websites built for a number of clients in different parts of the UK. >>My methods for seo are clean and vary little in approach (why change >>something that works?) I have without exception been able to get page >>1 for all clients for their respective sites not only in Google but >>also Msn, Alltheweb, Altavists, Lycos etc without ANY incoming links >>at all. Since Nov ONLY my property sites have suffered (I have about >>20-30 other non-property sites that have not been affected in any way >>and still hold all their page 1 positions) on Google and elsewhere. >>When I check my property site keywords in Google all I get is rubbish. >>Hardly any results are relevant, mostly stuff from Kelkoo and other >>non focussed sites but although I'm convinced (gut instinct) filters >>are in place in certain market sectors by Google I can't latch onto >>something tangible that I can get my seo teeth into. My biggest >>property site was on page 1 for all 184 keywords on Google as well as >>the other engines but now only shows up for aprrox relevant 30 >>keywords whilst other engines happily still deliver for all 184.
>>Tin
>There are people ar WMW who claim they have been banned (or perhaps >only penalised - not sure when folk say I am nowhere) and got back >post Florida.
>In addition to the three possible problems I may correct now >triggerring the filter I listed in the post you replied to: >1. too many internal links on each page >2. not listed in froogle >3. lack of outgoing links to external site
>my previous tries (all corrected on my pages without effect) were: >4- Too high KWD on page (too many occurrences of "offline browser") >5- Too high KWD for stemmed phrase on page (too many occurrences of >"offline browser" or "offline browsing" or off-line browser" or ... ) >6- Links to external site that is regarded badly by google (nothing >spammy but just removed all that I wasn't 100% about) >7- Use of keyword too much on page (e.g. <a href='#offline-browser'> ><A NAME='offline-browser'>)
>(correcting these potential problems has had no effect)
>Which of any of these or others have you tried correcting?
One property site has been seo'd for 28 keywords all using the same density etc. All were on page 1 there are just 5 remaining pages now on page 1, the other 23 pages are not in the top 1000.
I've changed some of the 23 pages in terms of KW density etc and also made subtle changes to some stemmed words as I've nothing to lose with them now but as the other pages are still solid on page 1 I'm not drifting to far from my norm, the other 23 pages are still on page 1 on other major engines.
> Hi..I think you've got an extra + between "feet" and "tmpl"? > I never could enter anything in the yahoo search bar and have it > work but entering the url as in the original post does work.
|
