Is yahoo really worth the bother?

temi · #1 (**permalink**) 11-01-2005, 11:05 PM

I know Yahoo is supposed to have a decent market share of the search market but I hardly get any traffic from they keywords some of my sites are well ranked for, I am beginning to disregard Yahoo and just focus on Google for my organic search engine placement. Anybody here getting decent traffic from Yahoo ?

SEOforGoogle · #2 (**permalink**) 11-02-2005, 10:13 AM

yes - and don't forget that you shouldn't focus all of your SEM efforts to Google: waht would you do if tomorrow, Google didn't exist(unlikely, I know).

the point is, you should place all your eggs in one basket, and you should always work to bring in traffic from multiple sources.

joesnow · #3 (**permalink**) 11-03-2005, 06:11 AM

I've noticed the same, getting some ok listings on yahoo but it well down our list of referrers, behind ask, msn and obviossuly way down on google..

dburdon · #4 (**permalink**) 11-03-2005, 07:04 PM

The impact of Jagger, Bourbon, Florida et al are all reasy why you shouldn't ignore Yahoo - or MSN for that matter.

Google has now passed the point of no return. You must respect it, but it has become all pervading. A healthy interest in developing alternative engines will ultimately be for the good of the SEO community.

collusion · #5 (**permalink**) 11-04-2005, 05:12 PM

I had the same issue except most of my traffic always comes from Yahoo and MSN even though I have high rankings on Google for many of my businesses. I am a loyal Yahoo fan and always will be!

jacobwissler · #6 (**permalink**) 11-04-2005, 05:39 PM

A lot of this has to do with geography. Here in Texas, SBC is offering DSL for $15 per month to new subscribers. That is cheaper than dial up, and almost everyone has signed up.

Each of those SBC DSL homes default to Yahoo as the search engine, making Yahoo the most popular portal (by far) in this part of the country.

greeneagle · #7 (**permalink**) 11-04-2005, 06:12 PM

That's enlightening Jacob!

I had no idea that they had moved to make DSL that cheap there.

We still pay quite a bit more in the "outskirts", and don't have a second option.

I think that the sour Jagger update repurcussions will play out, where more and more of these kind of Marketing alliances are offered utilizing so called secondary sources.

Ken

dburdon · #8 (**permalink**) 11-04-2005, 06:14 PM

Jacob,
the UK's biggest internet provider is British Telecom. It has a default arrangement with Yahoo. Nevertheless, Google outguns Yahoo 5 to 1.

I think less experienced searchers may well stick with the default search engine. But once people become proficient they drift towards Google.

edhan · #9 (**permalink**) 11-04-2005, 08:30 PM

There is no harm trying to get traffic from Yahoo and other search engines instead of just focussing on one. Every additional traffic can means profit if you are selling a product or service.

amabaie · #10 (**permalink**) 11-04-2005, 10:35 PM

A recnt study that I would like to cite (but can't, because I cannot remember where I saw it) showed that of the big three, MSN searchers were most likely to spend, followed closely by Google searchers, followed waaaaay back by Yahoo searchers. Hmmm...I wonder why? Could it be that there are no results showing? Zero. Zilch. Nada. ...unless, of course, you scroll down past all the ads.

DrTandem1 · #11 (**permalink**) 11-05-2005, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacobwissler

A lot of this has to do with geography. Here in Texas, SBC is offering DSL for $15 per month to new subscribers. That is cheaper than dial up, and almost everyone has signed up.

Each of those SBC DSL homes default to Yahoo as the search engine, making Yahoo the most popular portal (by far) in this part of the country.

When they morph into AT&T. probably later this month, I think you will a world-wide explosion soon after.

By the way, for the last 6 months or so, they were offering DSL (1.5 meg downstream, 384 upstream) for $14.95 for a year in San Diego. Alas, that promotion ended. Now, you have to pay $16.95/year. Boo-hoo-hoo. That's still cheaper than dial-up and about one third the cost of cable that is capped at 384kb downstream! Yahoooooo!!!!

texxs · #12 (**permalink**) 11-05-2005, 07:50 AM

Most of my traffic comes from Yahoo, recently I've been getting a lot of traffic from MSN too.

Most of my pages are ranked #! or near it for my target keywords on MSN and Yahoo and all the search Engines except google. It's always been that way.

I've also noticed in the last few years that for me personally I get the most relavant results by far from Yahoo. I suspect that Joe Public will soon learn this and start switching.

P. S. Dr. Tandem1 Cable is capped at 384 (approx) upstream, downloading I get about 4 MB's/second. Still the deal you mentioned is a hell of a deal and will increase their cutomer base. Of course it requiirew phone services with them and long distance service with them. At least here in Florida, which makes it a little bit less of a great deal. But still, for some people . . .

DrTandem1 · #13 (**permalink**) 11-05-2005, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texxs

P. S. Dr. Tandem1 Cable is capped at 384 (approx) upstream, downloading I get about 4 MB's/second. Still the deal you mentioned is a hell of a deal and will increase their cutomer base. Of course it requiirew phone services with them and long distance service with them. At least here in Florida, which makes it a little bit less of a great deal. But still, for some people . . .

No, I had it right. I'm talking about the San Diego market, where cable has made huge inroads into telco dominated markets. The cable companies have capped their downstream (from network to user) to 384 kb and their upstream at 128 kb. They do offer the higher speeds at a much higher price. They first sucker the subscriber with a low three month promotional offer and then the poor subscriber is stuck with a contract of a year and $150/month (SURPRISE!) for TV, internet and crappy phone service.

By comparison, the local telco offers DSL, Dish TV, phone service (unlimited calling anywhere in US) for less than $80/month. If you just want DSL, it's $16.99 plus whatever telephone service plan you choose.

The basic DSL offering by telco is 1.5 meg downstream max. The further from a CO you live the slower the speed down to the 384. They also offer a 3 meg and a 6 meg downstream for a bit more. Still nowhere near the cost of cable. Plus, your line is dedicated between you and the CO. Unlike cable, which pumps your data all through your neighborhood (and into your neighbor's homes) to the cable node. Anyone that's got a sniffer program has your data. What a bargain...not.

chipkonrad · #14 (**permalink**) 11-05-2005, 09:47 AM

Last week I got 43% of my traffic from Yahoo, 46% from MSN, and less than 9% from Google. Can anyone tell me why Google is ranking me so low? www.AmishGourds.com

jacobwissler · #15 (**permalink**) 11-05-2005, 09:49 AM

dbordon:
Those inexperienced Internet users (who use the default search engine) are more apt to pay for web design or SEO services than an IT professional using Google.

sysop9999 · #16 (**permalink**) 11-05-2005, 10:41 AM

chipkonrad:
Wait for the Google algorithm update to finish, then you might rank properly again.

If not, then just read the forums here - some might be able to give more exact information about what things there need to be changed, what to look out for etc.

dburdon · #17 (**permalink**) 11-05-2005, 05:29 PM

Jacob,

I personally believe that Yahoo is a better B2B engine than Google. It doesn't upgrade the "authoritative" like Google. I have a client who laughs every time he punches in his prime keyword on Google and sees a complete load of "Pony". For the same word on Yahoo he's ranked 3 or 4 and surrounded by direct competitors.

ozchris · #18 (**permalink**) 11-05-2005, 07:12 PM

Most of my sites rank very well at Yahoo (and MSN) because those engines seem to rely more on onpage optimisation than IBLs.

For recent sites, I optimised them, blog-and-pinged them, and they were quickly on Yahoo (and MSN).

That then gives me time to build links and to tide me through the Sandbox barriers of Google.

So no, I couldn't do without Yahoo for traffic.

ozchris · #19 (**permalink**) 11-05-2005, 07:14 PM

Most of my sites rank very well at Yahoo (and MSN) because those engines seem to rely more on onpage optimisation than IBLs.

For recent sites, I optimised them, blog-and-pinged them, and they were quickly on Yahoo (and MSN).

That then gives me time to build links and to tide me through the Sandbox barriers of Google.

So no, I couldn't do without Yahoo for traffic.

dburdon · #20 (**permalink**) 11-06-2005, 02:33 PM

If you've got the time there's nothing stopping you ranking well across Google, Yahoo and MSN.

shoeman · #21 (**permalink**) 11-07-2005, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipkonrad

Last week I got 43% of my traffic from Yahoo, 46% from MSN, and less than 9% from Google. Can anyone tell me why Google is ranking me so low? www.AmishGourds.com

Chip
Keep reading around here, esp. the Google Discussion forum. I've found alot there. Run a couple of your pages through the w3c markup validator http://validator.w3.org/ you might find some work to do there.
May the forbes be with you ...geo...

CreditFN · #22 (**permalink**) 11-09-2005, 02:18 AM

Rankings for the three major search engines all rank different information into their alogorithms. Yahoo! mainly reads your meta keywords, if you have these set up in highly targetted keywords you will have a high likelyhood of being ranked. Then make sure your meta description text bounces back some of the keyword phrases.

As for Google create word phrase links to related pages. Google is more contextually based and wants something to grasp.

I have found Yahoo! to have a large amount of female users based on surveys. If you are marketing a female product it may be lucrative to be on Yahoo!