Yahoo SERPs sneak preview
Matt
we know Inktomi will be the new source for Yahoo SERPs, but the SERPs
currently being displayed are Googles
by adding this code after the keyphrase
&tmpl=E088
you get on the Yahoo-Inktomi SERPs
e.g.
so a search in Yahoo currently for "big feet" returns the URL
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=big+feet&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt
by adding this code after the keyphrase &tmpl=E088
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=big+feet&tmpl=E088
you are now looking at the future results of Yahoo,
Yahoo is estimated to supply 24% of Global searches, their departure from
Google will cut Googles hold from 74% to 50%. Be there or be square.
--
Matt
mark | r
mark
mark | r
mark
SoftData
"mark | r" <ma...@nmd.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:402b65f5$0$9751$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> how do i get into the yahoo directory listings without paying ?
>
> mark
>
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
JD
it.
"Matt" <mj.p...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:ZrIWb.31$Vz.5...@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
James
Matt...I hope you are right, we'r e#1 for our SERPS with that code!
--
James Taylor
http://www.AICompany.com
http://www.SEO-highrankings.com
Sam
>
> "mark | r" <ma...@nmd.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:402b65f5$0$9751$cc9e...@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
>
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.
Matt
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.
--
Matt
"James" <james....@aicNOomSPpaAMny.com> wrote in message
news:laSdnT_7pOd...@adelphia.com...
1keytools david
wrote:
>Just been reading a post on the SEO Roundtable by Brette Tabke of WMW
>
>we know Inktomi will be the new source for Yahoo SERPs, but the SERPs
>currently being displayed are Googles
>
>by adding this code after the keyphrase
>&tmpl=E088
>you get on the Yahoo-Inktomi SERPs
>
Yippee,
I move from filtered out (not in top 1000)
to #11
Not super optimised but links+content DO rank it at 11
...which IMHO is evidence that google is filtering some sites out of
possible SERPS for some terms
So obvious question - when will they do the changeover.
I for one will switch to yahoo as my 1st choice SE.
David. 1keytools.
Software author. (please edit my email addr. to prove you're not a dumb 'bot)
Web Log Analyzer by Search Term http://www.1keytools.com/wlabstfeatures.htm
Kybie GetEmAll - Make IE an offline browser http://www.1keytools.com/offline_browser.htm
SEO Dave
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..
David replace SP@AM with @ to email me direct.
_
http://www.seo-serps.com - Free SEO Tips (23/01/2004)
http://www.seo-serps.com/serps.html - SERPs Competition Entry
http://www.seo-serps.com/seo-consultant.html - hire SEO Dave
http://www.bdsm-lingerie.com - BDSM Lingerie Shop
Dan
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.
1keytools david
<ooar...@AMntlworld.com> wrote:
>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..
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.
Tin
go...@kyboma.intelligent-beings-can-remove-this-part.co.uk (1keytools
david) 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
Kimberly Lauren
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
"SoftData" <m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<BNJWb.2638$NP5.26...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
Peter F
news:llmn20tmjt9mdd4r2...@4ax.com...
> 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.
I get a status bar error message on that page.
Line: 41
Char: 30
Error: Unexpected quantifier
Code: 0
URL: http: //search.yahoo.com/search?p=big+feet+tmpl=E088
--
Peter F
SEO Dave
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 :-))
Rob
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" <kimb...@kazazz.com> wrote in message
news:781f6443.04021...@posting.google.com...
Trusylver
"Dan" <jaz...@go.com> wrote in message
news:e2ff0c5.04021...@posting.google.com...
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
not bad but could be better.
Trusylver
1keytools david
<ooar...@AMntlworld.com> wrote:
>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.
>
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.
My page
http://www.1keytools.com/offline_browser.htm
has some amount of SEO for that term.
Half of the other products will also have that, less than half of the
other 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
.....
1keytools david
>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?
enaitee
gui.server.ntli.net:
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.
Mike Redrobe
> 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.....
--
Mike Redrobe
Ace Icons
> You can pay $8 instead of $200:
> buy an expired domain that is already in yahoo.....
Now THAT is a clever idea!
--
Susan Pichotta
Ace Icons www.aceicons.com
San Antonio, Texas
"Mike Redrobe" <mi...@redrobe.net> wrote in message
news:tzUWb.3094$6k3.31...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Tin
go...@kyboma.intelligent-beings-can-remove-this-part.co.uk (1keytools
david) wrote:
Hi again.
One property site has been seo'd for 28 keywords all using the same
density etc. All were on page 1 there are just 5 remaining pages now
on page 1, the other 23 pages are not in the top 1000.
I've changed some of the 23 pages in terms of KW density etc and also
made subtle changes to some stemmed words as I've nothing to lose with
them now but as the other pages are still solid on page 1 I'm not
drifting to far from my norm, the other 23 pages are still on page 1
on other major engines.
As an example:
phrase: scottish properties
MSN 1 #5
AllTheWeb 1 #4
Altavista 1 #4
Excite 1 #2
Lycos 1 #4
Google: not in top 1000 (used to be page1 #1+2 for 8 months) until
Florida?
Tin
David Barnes
news:Xns948DA87D3DC8...@130.133.1.17...
+tmpl=E088 should be &tmpl=E088
Martyn Fewtrell
category is correct!
I am not aware of any price increase in the UK at the moment, but from
a commercial point of view £200 is the cheapest advertising I've ever
paid for in the UK. Done correctly Yahoo offers very good value for
money - if you don't get £200 back from your listing your business has
probably got serious issues anyway.
Martyn Fewtrell
http://www.networkclub.co.uk
Peter F
news:ix1Xb.4730$vo1...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
Sorry that was my bad when typing the error message into the post - I put a
+ instead of a &
The url http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=big+feet&tmpl=E088 loads the page
ok but still warns about the unexpected quantifier (looks like it might be
specific to my IE though)
--
Peter F
enaitee
news:ZrIWb.31$Vz.5...@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net:
> Just been reading a post on the SEO Roundtable by Brette Tabke of WMW
>
> we know Inktomi will be the new source for Yahoo SERPs, but the SERPs
> currently being displayed are Googles
>
> by adding this code after the keyphrase
> &tmpl=E088
> you get on the Yahoo-Inktomi SERPs
>
> e.g.
> so a search in Yahoo currently for "big feet" returns the URL
> http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=big+feet&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt
>
> by adding this code after the keyphrase &tmpl=E088
> http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=big+feet&tmpl=E088
>
> you are now looking at the future results of Yahoo,
>
> Yahoo is estimated to supply 24% of Global searches, their departure
> from Google will cut Googles hold from 74% to 50%. Be there or be
> square.
>
Hi...Many thanks for the tip. Like so many others I vanished from
Google for my best two word search phrase after Florida and of course,
Yahoo as well. If this preview turns out to be accruate I'll be sitting
in No. 3 position! Florida did allow me to retain a no. 1 position for
a much less desireable three word phrase search term that had about 1/4
the search traffic (Overture tool). I know the Overture numbers are
likely way off but I think the relative amounts are realistic. There
may be life after Florida yet. Thanks very much.
Sam
engine and I also imagine directory as well. Perhaps Yahoo, MSN new to
be released end of year, and new coming amazon.com search engine will
keep Google on its toes and force them to improve. But I'm pretty
sceptical about any of those 3 ever being any good. They see the search
engine as a means to make money and as a business in itself instead of a
means to the end. Google realizes that the search engine is the heart
and soul of the internet and without search engines that are free for
people to list their sites that there's be no internet but just a lot of
paid for boring ads. Yahoo, MSN and probably amazon.com too don't see it
that way nor did inktomi at the end or Overture. To them the search
engine was the ends not a means to the ends and they just saw it only as
a business to make money. None of them understand the internet or how it
works and what makes it tick. Google does and the owners of Google
understand the internet and know what it's about. That's why they will
win and probably yahoo will wind up being sold to someone else in a year
or so from now.
Matt
bone of the search engine world. But I regret as soon as they go public and
get "share holders", dividends will be the name of the game, and whatever
self righteous notions existed in the past will dissolve in to the need to
turn a fast buck and keep the shareholders from bailing out, resulting in a
dip in share prices and seeing their retirement plans vaporise in a puff of
smoke.
Maybe I'm just cynical
--
Matt
"Sam" <.@mail.com> wrote in message news:402CDA...@mail.com...