WTF - Yahoo?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Furtlingly trivial.

I changed for some
trivial reasons.  Not a commercial site - just a friendly thing I do
for a few musicians.  Odd little details - nothing of consequence.

I added the word "rock" to the <title>.

Less than ten minutes later - Yahoo has indexed it.

Google - eat your heart out.

Re: WTF - Yahoo?

__/ [ Phil Payne ] on Wednesday 09 August 2006 10:16 \__

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This  could be a coincidence. Your conclusion is based on  a
statistically-invalid case. It seems more like an hypothesis
that  you  want  to embrace rather than  a  reality.  Google
revolves  around many site more frequently than Yahoo, but I
agree  that  Google  is  notorious  for  having  out-of-date
content   (cache  is  also  days  behind),  for  which  news
aggregators  exist.  Take  for example:  Technorati,  Google
News, Yahoo News... and the brand-new Topix news feeds which
I subscribed to earlier today. It's quite okay, but there is
still a lot of 'noise' among the results.

Re: WTF - Yahoo?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hence my "furtlingly trivial" opening.

Everything is statistically valid until it's misused, which I accept in
this case is likely to be the norm.

With all of the search engines, indexing is an unpredictable process -
days are wonderful, weeks are normal, and months are frustrating.
Every now and then, the usuall months' delay has to be compensated by a

It's neat to see such a rapid response.  It's irritating that I get
this on a hobby site and not on a business one.

Re: WTF - Yahoo?

__/ [ Phil Payne ] on Wednesday 09 August 2006 12:10 \__

Quoted text here. Click to load it

True. I missed that one *smile*.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

True.  But too much lenient statistics lead to "damn  lies".
Was it Stalin who said that?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

A  nicer  model  for  the  Internet  would  involve  pinging
everything. There were some talks last year about submitting
our  Web  pages directly to search engines (notably  Google)
rather  than publish them independently. it saves traffic and
makes  updates quicker. This make you want to take a shower.
*smile, shivirs* The private Web, with no neutrality?

Best wishes,


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    Useless fact: sheep outnumber people in NZ  |     GNU/Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap:  1036184k total,   400904k used,   635280k free,    51552k cached - next generation of search paradigms

Re: WTF - Yahoo?

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:18:08 +0200, Roy Schestowitz  

Quoted text here. Click to load it,_damned_lies,_and_statistics


Re: WTF - Yahoo?

__/ [ Borek ] on Wednesday 09 August 2006 13:43 \__

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I must have thought about a quote that goes along the lines of: a death of
one is a strategy and a death of millions is statistics. I think I saw it in
some computer games, but admittedly it's no game. It's a very serious

Relating this to Google (not homicide), there is often the danger that the
individual Webmatser will be neglected and instead be perceived as a minor
fraction in a big game... a statistic.

Re: WTF - Yahoo?

Not to get snippy about it, but I'm pretty sure even Stalin called the
death of one a "tragedy", and the death of millions a statistic.  Not

Re: WTF - Yahoo?

__/ [ Joe ] on Wednesday 09 August 2006 18:08 \__

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Oops. The spellchecker offered a correction and I just accepted the wrong

By the way, further to my previous post, not only will search engines
perceive Webmasters as a statistics. Webmasters themselves perceive surfers
as a statistic, which leads to some sort of dangerous hierarchy and

Re: WTF - Yahoo?

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:18:08 +0100, Roy Schestowitz

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Samuel Clemens - Mark Twain to you.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Google nor the other engines will want to be indexing every crap
little site that's out there. Nor, as residents on this spinning ball,
would we want them to be so doing. Running server farms uses up an
awful lot of environment-unfriendly juice, and there's no point
screwing up the environment (and paying big bucks to do it, if you're
an engine) just to index every shitty little site (that no-one wants
to link to anyway), pointless (read "thin") affiliate sites,
content-less Adsense sites, and soon I'm guessing all the duplicated
book content sites for the same reasons. You might suggest that Google
won't de-index many of these as it makes money from Adsense but it
makes more money overall from the continued existence of the web as a
useful information resource and that's being threatened now by all the
useless sites that are out there clogging up the indexes. We've seen
Adsense sites taken to what might be their logical conclusion with
Smarticle Composer sites where the only way out of a site, once you
innocently stumble into it, is to click on an Adsense link. People
could navigate out using the back button in their browser but I doubt
that the majority of surfers would think of that first if at all. The
only way to fight these is not to de-index them and the sites that
link to them. As they have no merit in themselves, any Smarticle
Composer site that shows up high in the ranks must necessarily be
linked to by parties owning them or having an association with their
owners so the PR they accrue is falsely generated and acts like a
beacon to Google saying,"Lookee here: something not right going on!"
and by tracing the backlinks Google can work out who the link-spammers
are. This, I think, is one of the real reasons we still have page rank
in any shape or form.
So, for obvious reasons and in obvious ways, Google are cleaning
house. Can't blame them, really, can you?


Re: WTF - Yahoo?

Big Bill wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

... and they must be encouraged to keep penalizing artificially
enhanced rankings and rewarding those that play by the rules.
Unfortunately, the rule book is so contradictory in nature. The reality
also exists that the search engine continue to reward the spammers.

It is tough choice for an SEO to make when deciding on a strategy for a
new web site promotion client. I am running out ways to level the
playing field myself to find ways to beat out the enhanced

SEOs seem to be doing the trendy manipulation tactics in order to
attain a significant Internet presence; however temporary and feeble.
They choose for the web site clients to run the risk of jeopordizing a
web site's health. Most have not the innovativeness to invent a more
powerful plan that adhere to the wishy washy rules.

The alternatives for most web site owners is bleak. Pay more money to
the search engines in advertising is an option. Usually they take the
option for a while. That can bring exposure for a web site and make a
couple of telephone calls but this choice also keeps the spammers
interested in flooding out the SERPs, that's how they make a quick

In many countries including Canada, there exists better business
bureaus. My neighbours who get ripped off by a local business complain
to the BBB and the wrongdoer is punished, frequently in the form of a
fine. The real bad ones get their business licenses revoked. Canadians
are shocked when they get scammed. They are not used to buying a hollow
loaf of bread. They are easy prey to the Internet manipulators. These
are my neighbours that I go fishing with and sit around the fire pits
at nights freely singing songs at the full moon.

Not the same on the Internet, different rules in different countries.
Some countries don't even have child labour laws never mind business
ethics commissions. How can my neighbours in Canada who have business
web sites compete fairly in the organics against other businesses whose
countries who have no business ethics?

Internet Marketing Service /

Site Timeline