14 replies to this topic

[sg1]

http://www.linkbuild...inal_word_.html


agree or disagree?

I actually didn't know that getting listed in the Yahoo Directory is a good Sandbox Beater. I guess that is one way to get out of the sandbox.

[Nadir]

Agree. To me, any link from a well known source, which often means a site that has a high PR, can help you avoid the sandbox effect.

However, the stange thing is that many new sites that get dozens of "trusted" links naturally are stuck in the sandbox. That's probably the most annoying thing that SEOs can face in their job.

[send2paul]

Nope. I disagree for the same reason MattC posted a comment on the blog about - paying $299 to Yahoo only gets you a review - it does not even guarantee a listing. ( I remember rattling on about this on another forum some time ago).

Whether or not, (if you do get listed), that is actually works..... welll - I'd have to see more eveidence of it first before I could reach a definitive conclusion.

sg1 - were you considering splashing out $299 to Yahoo for any new websites of your own?

Paul

[joedolson]

Personally, I'm still pretty unconvinced about the existence of the sandbox at all. I think the Yahoo Directory is worthwhile if you want to pay for it, purely because it has a lot of history and a lot of authority as a directory. But getting somebody out of the "sandbox"? No, I wouldn't guess that's going to make a bit of difference.

[yannis]

Personally, I'm still pretty unconvinced about the existence of the sandbox at all.

Joe I totally agree with you.

Speaking from a personal experience there is no such thing as a 'sandbox'. I have a site that got some very good links very quickly withing two or three weeks and had no problems with Google. Having said that I believe that there is a 'link aging filter' i.e all the links you get tend to be discounted by a factor based on the age of your domain.

After about three months things seem to stabilize. There is value to get listed in Yahoo and worth the $250 or so. In marketing terms this is a negligible amount. Worth the risk of trying to get a listing.

Yannis

[sg1]

Whether or not, (if you do get listed), that is actually works..... welll - I'd have to see more eveidence of it first before I could reach a definitive conclusion.

sg1 - were you considering splashing out $299 to Yahoo for any new websites of your own?

Paul

Well, isn't it somewhat safe to assume that if you are listed in Yahoo's directory, then you're out of the sandbox? Assuming there is one to begin with?

re: Yahoo sandbox.

I'm not totally convinced there is a sandbox either. I can only speak on my limited SEO experience [i do mostly web design]. I had an SEO client who saw pretty immediate results on Yahoo with top 5 rankings in about 4-6 weeks.

Strangely, my own website only ranks for one KW phrase on Yahoo- my company name. But the other KW phrases won't even show up but the same phrases are ranking top 10 on Google. How wierd considering G has tougher algorithms than Y. If anyone can shed light on that, I'm happy to listen.

Paul- I'm not really considering paying for Yahoo's directory service because my site is about 8 months old now so it's kinda pointless at this time.

Thanks.

[JohnMu]

Well, isn't it somewhat safe to assume that if you are listed in Yahoo's directory, then you're out of the sandbox? Assuming there is one to begin with?

Why should that be a safe assumption?

Assuming Google has "age/value" filters on certain competitive searches, why should it be worried about what Yahoo has to say to that? Yes, Yahoo is a manually edited directory and Google does place some value into links from Yahoo, but why should it be safe to assume the this one link will have enough value to override any other factors involved? It might. So might a link from CNN or BBC, or perhaps a link from "Oncle Joe's Fish Warehouse". Why should you automatically go out and spend money to possibly get a single link when you don't even know what's all involved? To me that sounds like getting a new car-stereo when you're really having trouble with the car in general.

It can't be bad, so let's just shell out $$$ for a directory listing at Yahoo , perhaps that'll fix whatever's wrong.

John

[MrCrip]

Trust is a word that should be used more often. I would for any site recommend submitting a site via Yahoo Express especially if a site is new and has no history.

If you are serious about your online business, why would you not want to appear on one of the oldest sites on the web?

The fact that Yahoo submissions are manually checked by a human editor gives any site that is accepted additional credibility. Whether Google do or do not take this information into account is open to further debate.

Let's be honest, many people only submit to DMOZ because of the Google association, but even if the Google association ceased tonight, the value that the link over the longer term from a reliable and trusted source will still be respected throughout the web.

What I would say that is that a listing in Yahoo further underwrites your overall credentials. Too many choose to put all their eggs in the Google basket. I prefer to make sure that a site is well represented throughout the various engines.

I like the idea of a site having trust before it is catapulted into the higher reaches of a search engine. Whose to say that any new business is going to succeed? No matter whether a business is web-based or not, it typically needs to age before it begins to flourish.

Edited by MrCrip, 11 September 2006 - 08:29 AM.

[Black_Knight]

What I would say that is that a listing in Yahoo further underwrites your overall credentials.

Total agreement from me on that one. I'd put a Yahoo directory listing way above a DMOZ one in terms of value and indeed in terms of authority and trust.

[vangogh]

I'd say a link from the Yahoo directory is a good one. It has all of the characteristics of the high quality kind of link we should all be looking for. I won't go so far as to say it's a necessary link or that there's ever a final say on anything in regards to how a search engine views something.

I've never believed in the existence of the 'sandbox' either. There is a certain amount of natural aging any site needs to do to compete for certain keyphrases. However most any site can rank well very quickly for less competitive phrases. The existence of a 'sandbox' would say sites couldn't rank for any phrase, regardless of competition until a certain time has passed.

Google also uses trust and age as criteria for determining where to rank a page to a given query. The 'sandbox' is really just an effect from these criteria. New sites will typically take a certain amount of time to earn Google's trust. There are certainly things you can do to earn their trust quicker and a link from the Yahoo directory will be one of those things.

[JohnMu]

Is it worth hoping for a free inclusion in the Yahoo directory (for a non-profit site)? Or do they not do that anymore?

John

[Black_Knight]

Is it worth hoping for a free inclusion...

It isn't only non-profits that may get a free inclusion. There are also circumstances in which commercial sites will be listed for free. This is usually when the Yahoo Editor decides for himself that the category simply isn't complete without listing a certain definitive site. A sportswear category without Nike? A TV News category that doesn't include Fox, ABC, and CNN?

If a site is truly definitive (an epitome of the category, a true landmark) then any editor of any real quality directory will list it right when creating the category, not waiting for a submssion. Any directory that fails to list such sites simply brands itself as an obviously poor and incomplete resource. A good directory is never, ever about submissions, but instead will succeed or fail on the active dilligence and work of its editor(s).

I would say that it is only worth bothering to actively submit registered Non-profit type websites. The "Registered" part is important there. Just because a site doesn't make money does not automatically make it the type of registered charity that Yahoo offers to waive fees for. It is never worth submitting anything that doesn't 100% qualify, because all that does in the long term is make the editors question the validity of bothering to read/consider submissions at all. They really don't have to, provided they find the truly important worthwhile sites for themselves.

[real_estate]

Well, i watched your website & i got very excellent knowledge from it for LinkBuilding & High PR.

Website: <a href = "http://www.sbalanpro...lanprojects.com
</a>

[directom]

Thanks for starting this post and the original link, sg1. It's an issue I can't make up my mind about and getting other professional opinions is a huge help.

A question that I also left on linkbuildingblog for all here:

Assume a new site and that you have decided it's worth it to do the submission cost. Does there come a point when it's no longer worth it to re-up? If so, when?

Thanks again for everyone's previous posts and in advance for any light you can shed on my question.