Yahoo Penalizing Affiliate Sites

[Garrett]

From the WebMasterWorld forums comes word that Yahoo's cracking down on affiliate sites. The thread, six pages long at the time of this writing, includes snippets of letters from Yahoo to the forum members, many of whom have been banned.

From what I gathered, Yahoo's weeding out sites with content that appears on duplicate sites. Affiliate sites are hit especially hard by the campaign.

Eyeinthesky said, "I got a reply from Y! that they don't oppose affiliate sites but they don't want their index to be full of the same stuff..."

Gavstar reported that, "they are saying that my site has been banned because I have traded links with other webmasters. And because I have affiliate links on my site."

Some consider the penalization to be more like persecution. "I think this is an awful decision and isn't being applied fairly either," said TravelMan.

"If you are a traffic passer, or have heavy affiliate content then your entire domain will be blocked from their index," continued TravelMan. He also claimed that, "there isn't a route back via pfi either, so don't waste your time or money. I've tried and failed."

Tim Mayer, Yahoo's Director Of Product Management, who posts there as "Tim," said early in the thread that if you've been banned and are not sure why you should "try emailing webmasterworldfeedback@yahoo.com."

Neither he nor any other Yahoo representatives appear anywhere else in the thread.

View the Yahoo What gives? How do you tell if you're penalized? (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum35/1845.htm) thread here.

Thanks to SEORoundTable (http://www.seroundtable.com) for the tip.

[cbp]

I guess that Google has gone done the scaleable algorithm route and Yahoo are going down the manual review/penalty route ... its just that they are using a different business model.

CBP

[Mel]

Not entirely unexpected as this is a backbone of search engines and directories - the elimination of dulicate content.

Adding 500 sites all with the same content does nothing to improve the search engines relevancy and the fact that you are making money off them makes no difference to Yahoo.

Looks like Yahoo are starting to back up their pledge to eliminate spam and duplicate content. If they are successful so much the better.

[Linda Buquet]

Yikes,

Thanks for sharing that Garrett, I had not seen that post. Hope it's OK but I'd like to copy this thread to the affiliate forum to make people aware of the issue.

[WebMetro]

Wow... thats huge!
Some of the most successful affiliates make all their money from SEO. If Yahoo starts getting aggressive with this, this will hurt the small companies, and the large companies that reply on their affiliates to generate sales. This will hurt a lot of people in the end.

[OneMoreBite]

Are we talking about a situation where someone buys a domain name, becomes an affiliate of another site, and then sets things up so his site points to his affiliate page? This site owner is then spending money on PPC, buying products, and generally is being what we here in the USA consider a good consumer, generating revenue and making a living on top of it, yet that's not okay because Joe's site looks the same as Sam's?

Setting up more than one identical site, with different domain names never was something the search engines enjoyed nor encouraged. I didn't realize they would penalize so harshly, since getting ranked and getting placement would indicate that "something" about these pages was done well.

An outright ban on these sites is nothing more than censorship. It's getting a tad bit worrisome how these search engines are dictating the business climate, especially since the affiliate model seems to be making money on the net; something a lot of the big companies can't yet claim to have done.

How with this type of restriction could you test different domain names, or looks of a site for saleability, etc. That's been the great thing about the net, the ability to make changes, and tinker with things, but not if you are stuck with whatever name you originally chose, or switch to a new one, but no overlap. Perhaps one site name greatly out performs another - so you eliminate the first name and adopt the second. How will you ever be able to do this without the right to have more than one domain name?

I've seen magazines with a different cover in different parts of the country for the same issue - I've even been fooled into buy them only to find the EXACT SAME CONTENT inside! Woe is me - where was Yahoo to police things then?

Better stop now before I go into "full blown rant mode."

Kathryn

[atimmins]

I could understand Yahoo not ranking an affiliate very well if at all if it's content where the same as the parent company. Google has been doing this for some time, but it doesn’t prevent them from indexing the content that changes i.e. company name, etc. And, GoogleBot will still make its rounds once a month to check up on things.

Will you show up on page 1 or even 10 for the parent companies main phrases? No! But, you do not get banned either. Does anyone else get the sense that Yahoo is trying to strong arm the search world? Did Bill Gates and MS take over Yahoo and not tell anyone?

Enough complaining, the time has come to fix it. If you rely on identical content to earn a living or spending money, it's time to EARN it. Begin writing your own content. Yes, you will have to actually create a website, instead of copying and pasting the source code. Write about the benefits of the products you are attempting to sell. Give your users a reason to buy from you instead of affiliate "B". At the same time give Yahoo and other SE's a reason rank you accordingly for your own creation.

Please do not think I’m preaching here, as I also have affiliate sites with duplicate content. I am in the same boat as most affiliates’, but I’ve just been prodded to get off my butt and do something about it. Who knows perhaps this will even be good for sales on those sites. Now I just need to find the time, I’m always forgetting where I keep that!


Enough complaining, the time has come to fix it. If you rely on identical content to earn a living or even spending money, it's time to earn it. Begin writing your own content. Yes, you will have to actually create a website, instead of copying and pasting the source code. Write about the benifits of the products you are attempting to sell. Give your users a reason to buy from you instead of affiliate "B". At the same time give Yahoo and other SE's a reason rank you accordingly for your own creation.

[fathom]

Admittedly I have not gone to the thread so I am posting without the benefit of reading or researching this situation out -- but things are unlikely "all that bad".

Affiliates are simply being held to the standard that everyone else lives by now.

If you are an affiliate and don't know what to make of this - go to your website copy any 10 adjoined words into Google and add quotes - if more than a few sites appear -- you are likely in the zone of having Yahoo problems and possibly Google problems.

If however only your website appears -- nothing to worry about.

Our own Matauri nailed this one, without looking at the thread, or posting a comment - as a matter of fact - she nailed it back when she started her own business...

Unique by design says alot and is also the solution.

[Linda Buquet]

I have to wonder how much of this may have to do with datafeeds. I am a big proponent of datafeeds as I have seen affiliate conversion rates quadruple because of them. But merchants who offer datafeeds to every affiliate that wants one can create lots of cookie cutter sites with thousands of products all with the same description, showing up on numerous sites.

Some merchants even offer template sites to affiliates, where every site is the same. So this could create even more problems.

I agree with atimmons and fathom that creating unique content that adds value is the key - not only to keeping your SE rankings, but also increasing customer conversion rates and cultivating repeat visitors.

[palfreymedia]

What exactly qualifies as "duplicate content?" I have a hard time believing that 10 adjoining words would lead to total Yahoo banishment ... after all aren't there lots of news sites that quote the same sources, or that are syndicating from some popular source like The Associated Press, or are even just reprinting something in the public domain, like Hamlet? What about all those e-commerce stores out there that sell the same products as other stores, using the same manufacturer's description? Are all those sites going to get banned under Yahoo's new policy?

This is of particular concern for me because I run several syndicated columns on my site (www.equinepost.com (http://www.equinepost.com)), and a lot of the articles I use are reprinted from other sources, so they also appear on other unrelated websites. I also have affiliate advertising on almost every page in the form of banners and a few text links. Am I a target for banishment?

[salth20]

We, at AsiaHotels.com, own and manage an affiliate program for those who wish to have online hotel reservation systems on their websites.
I've read the webmasters (in the Yahoo forum) ranting about this issue and I'm quite scared that Yahoo might ban one of our sites. I've seen quite a number of drop in our domains in Yahoo. (We usually do a weekly Total Pages or Search Engine Saturation report for our domains.)
And it looks as if the issue a double whammy. We provide an affiliate site and if Yahoo continues to ban these sites which we provide an affiliate program for, then we will not be able to attract new websites for such program. AND we maintain a Hong Kong website: http://www.hongkong-hotels.com which is simply an affiliate page for Hong Kong. It is still in the Yahoo directory (5,000+ listings). I'm thinking maybe since it's a special page for Hong Kong and since it didn't copy the whole affiliate program itself...it kinda avoided getting banned..for now. I do hope forever!
SO maybe the trick is changing the affiliate page that you have...changing the design, adding or editing more content (just a few keywords), and possibly altering the links would save affiliate sites from getting banned.[/url]

[cbp]

From a searchers point of view this may not necessarily be a bad thing and maybe why Yahoo are doing it.

Look at the DMOZ example. DMOZ "generally" does not list affiliate sites. If you have a hotel site (for eg), you will generally get a listing. If you have 100 affiliates, they generally will not get listed by DMOZ (a few exceptional ones will - ie good unique content) - the reason behind that is DMOZ do not want the Directory cluttered with all these 100 sites, pretty much offering the same thing, so only the main site gets listed.

Yahoo want to differentiate themselves from the market leader (ie Google) by trying to provide better (or different?) results to the searcher. Maybe they see giving a ranking penalty (not necessarily a ban) to sites full of affiliate links as one way to improve the quality for searchers in a similar way to what DMOZ does in its directory.

What say you?

CBP

[PastorRick]

Yahoo's cracking down on affiliate sites?

One of the reasons arrogant corporate giants are able to get away with harming their own cutomers is that they know few will do anything about it.

Yahoo is trying to rebuild itself and needs listings. If everone would band together and boycott yahoo: eg. don't list with them, don't click any ads, don't buy anything through them, don't use their search engine, I am sure they would consider being a kinder and gentler organization.

I only started using Yahoo after they agreed to pull their public porn as a result of Christian boycots and complaints.

Maybe yahoo needs to hear from the multitudes that they are mad and aren't going to take it any more.

I agree that identical replicated sites would be useless. But for those whose affiliate information are incorporated into their own sites should not be banned. Most people link to affiliate sites because they want to help support their own site by defraying the cost of doing business.

Perhaps the best thing we can all do is to have relevant focused content including the affiliates we link to. I personally don't link to sites that aren't somehow themed to my own site.

As a Christian for example I wouldn't have an affiliate relationship with a Casino or other Gambling site. However, as a Christian webmaster though you may want to be an affiliate with a variety of companies who do site promotion, website tools and resources etc.

So I guess my approach has been to have relevant interesting and useful content and link to those of like theme who do the same.


Just a thought,

[cbp]

But for those whose affiliate information are incorporated into their own sites should not be banned

My understanding is that they won't be banned, but get a penalty. Yahoo staff have used the word 'ranking penalty' in another context.

Heres another eg that I responded to in another forum.
Have a look at these Google results:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=NFL+apron+and+Mitt+Set

Almost all the first 20 sites are affiliates of the first site (at least they were yesterday unless G changed). They are all seperate legitimate business's that have SEO'd their sites to rank well (no spam, doorway pages etc.), From the searchers point of view - wheres the choice? Google have let down the searcher here. All I assume Yahoo want to do is give some sort of ranking penalty to all those affiliate sites (and maybe leave the main site) so there is a greater mix in the results so that they searcher gets some variety and choice(I assume) - unfortuanlty the same search on Yahoo does return only a small difference in the ranking of the same sites returned by Google ...

CBP

[OneMoreBite]

Almost all the first 20 sites are affiliates of the first site (at least they were yesterday unless G changed). They are all seperate legitimate business's that have SEO'd their sites to rank well (no spam, doorway pages etc.), From the searchers point of view - wheres the choice?

Unless I misunderstood your post, I see a lot of choice. This is no different than multiple brick-and-mortar stores carrying the same merchandise - the choice is deciding who you do business with. The fact that the wares are the same doesn't matter. Target sells many of the same goods as Wal-Mart, yet they are very different stores with very different policies regarding their employees, exchanges, etc. The experience of dealing with one is very different than the other.

Just because in this case we know who is the ultimate wholesaler (site No. 1, I think you said?), doesn't take away from the fact that these are legitimate businesses, using an acceptable method of obtaining merchandise at wholesale called "affiliate marketing."

Going from store to store down the list, I see nothing wrong and wasn't offended to find the same merchandise. That tells me they carry the same brand as a lot of other stores. The sites may display a common look to the way they display their wares (this is still the early Internet remember - we don't yet have window dressers), but the stores are not the same - which is easily apparent as soon as you arrive. Maybe they are owned by the same person or group, that's impossible to know. I don't know who owns the local Sears store either. As the potential customer, I'm the one who decides which business earns my trust, who I want to do business with, who has the best customer service, who's got the word-of-mouth buzz, etc.

If the page you landed on were the same, despite different domain names, then yes, that is annoying and I'm okay with that practice being limited, but this example of different sites with the same merchandise is not the same thing. This appears to be a good example of the restriction of fair trade in denying legitimate businesses the right to display similar content.

I remember Google came out of nowhere and set up shop one day - maybe another search will appear to save us all.

Kathryn

[cbp]

Just because in this case we know who is the ultimate wholesaler (site No. 1, I think you said?), doesn't take away from the fact that these are legitimate businesses, using an acceptable method of obtaining merchandise at wholesale called "affiliate marketing."


Yes. Thats what I said. Google want to rank them that way. Yahoo want to approach it differently, which is the point of this thread.


This appears to be a good example of the restriction of fair trade in denying legitimate businesses the right to display similar content.


Its not. A court case has already ruled that SE's can rank whichever they like (~free speech) - its not restriction of fair trade - Google are ranking sites one way and Yahoo want to do it another way. What is wrong with that?

CBP

[OneMoreBite]

I did misinterpret your post, sorry.


Google are ranking sites one way and Yahoo want to do it another way. What is wrong with that?


I was under the impression they weren't "ranking" sites differently so much as outright deleting them? I see a lot wrong with that, but obviously it's not my call. ;-)

I still think as far as choice is concerned, I'd rather see six sites with the same goods and be able to choose which is the better company to do business with, than be restricted to the "home" company as my only choice. Plus, and probably more importantly, that home company wants those affiliate sites, as it increases its revenue, the affiliates make money, it's win/win for the business. Yahoo's model creates a win/lose, thus the company attempting to set up or maintain affiliates will likely lose business.

It strikes me as anti-affiliate which up until now has been one of the few successful business models on the Internet (makes money for companies, makes money for affiliates).

Kathryn

[SoloUK]

Quick where is my check book - I need to pay $89 to be able to join in this debate.

Is it not possible you could C & P the post or has that also been censored?

[cbp]

I still think as far as choice is concerned, I'd rather see six sites with the same goods and be able to choose which is the better company to do business with, than be restricted to the "home" company as my only choice

BUT, in the eg I cited, you are not dealing with the "six" sites. They are all affiliates of the one site - as soon as you click on one of the products, you are taken to sportsfanfare to do the actual business with. Thats not choice.

It may be anti-affiliate, but its pro-searcher. All search engines are in the business of providing quality search results so that the searcher keeps coming back and hopefully click on a paying ads.

CBP

[OneMoreBite]

I didn't click on any items, so wasn't aware of that aspect. That kills my argument about doing business with one or the other, doesn't it?

We're still back to the basic premise that I think you are making: That being only the original (or top level) site should be listed, and affiliates should just go somewhere else to play?

I have a few affiliate ads scattered around my sites, but no domains set up specifically to sell an affiliates products - are those type ads okay, or do you think they shouldn't be there either, since they also lead to the original seller?

It's a very interesting situation.

Kathryn

[coniston]

I have two websites I work on at work, one I use for testing and the main one. The testing one http://www.encore.uk.com I use for new designs and to make sure that it works with the search engines with content, meta tags, etc... Once I am happy and the bosses are then I put it up on the main site at http://www.anagram-sys.co.uk.

I leave the testing one up, does this mean that Yahoo will penalize me for two sites having the same content.

[cbp]

Don't know about Yahoo, but Google will.
Look at this thread:

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=15536

CBP

[coniston]

Thank you for your help

[OneMoreBite]

Why would you test the site using one url, and then when you are happy, set it up with a second url, except to have two separate sites with identical content? They are exactly the same, so yes, I'd think you'd end up with worse placement overall, if the search engines realize they are duplicate content.

Kathryn

[juzzme]

I run a affiliate site. If you offer unique content as well as your affiliate link.. then you should remain in yahoo. I maybe wrong.. but I think the key is to have your own content vs the affiliate link. Not a 100% sure yet.. since my traffic has dropped from yahoo.. but still listed and traffic is still coming. juzzme

[cbp]

I run a affiliate site. If you offer unique content as well as your affiliate link.. then you should remain in yahoo. I maybe wrong.. but I think the key is to have your own content vs the affiliate link

DMOZ looks for unique content on sites with affiliate links. Yahoo are saying that there will be a ranking penalty for sites with affiliate links. We don't know if its done manually or by algorithm - I assume its done by algorithm as looking at the URL's, they probably can detect an affiliate referral. If it is to be done this way, the algorithm is not going to be able to detect unique content.

At this stage we do not know how they will doing, exactly what a "ranking penalty" consists of, amd the impacts of this...

CBP

[juzzme]

I stand corrected. Interestingly enough my site just dropped out of yahoo. My unique content remains, my links from other sites remain, but not my front page url. This will definately have an adverse affect on the affiliate industry. My feeling is this.. Although I have an affiliate site I generate my own traffic.. in my case these are joining members. If they are happy with my site content.. then they found what they were looking for. I'm a member of both worlds.. I have an affiliate site as well as a unique content site.. both deserve recognition. The search market is so diversified that to truly offer what the visitors are looking for.. you have to offer both.. the established and the new. This means affiliate sites. They are well established.. have members.. and many times are what the visitor wants. Yes I would love to have the revenue my affiliate provider makes.. but is'nt always about the money. Sometimes you hafa give the searcher what they want.. Just my opinion.. juzzme

[cbp]

Don't jump to a conclusion that this is related to the Yahoo affiliate issue. Other sites have dropped from the Yahoo index which do not have affiliate links. Sites come and go on Google as well.

CBP

[juzzme]

The site I'm referring to is in dmoz.. has been a couple yrs. Not throwin stones but looks like a reality.. juzzme