Odd question - got a personal site missing from Yahoo! for it's own unique name - when I search for the name and I just get some web scrapings and directory listings. A search for the domain name shows nothing, and site: has the domain itself unheard of.

The site was launched in October 2003, and Yahoo! definitely knows it's there because it lists 25,000+ links to the site.

Now...it's a site that I believe Yahoo! may have originally listed in the .com form, but that was 301'ed to the .co.uk version about a week after I launched last year - I started out on a .com for a couple of weeks, then moved everything to .co.uk for the UK market.

So I'm wondering if I've managed to trip some form of redirect issue, as I heard Yahoo! had issues with those on 302's - but how are they with 301's??

Odd question - got a personal site missing from Yahoo! for it's own unique name - when I search for the name and I just get some web scrapings and directory listings. A search for the domain name shows nothing, and site: has the domain itself unheard of.

The site was launched in October 2003, and Yahoo! definitely knows it's there because it lists 25,000+ links to the site.

Now...it's a site that I believe Yahoo! may have originally listed in the .com form, but that was 301'ed to the .co.uk version about a week after I launched last year - I started out on a .com for a couple of weeks, then moved everything to .co.uk for the UK market.

So I'm wondering if I've managed to trip some form of redirect issue, as I heard Yahoo! had issues with those on 302's - but how are they with 301's??
I have never had a problem at Yahoo for 301s... is it possible that Yahoo is separating their listings more and the passing of info is dropped from .com to .co.uk after a certain time?

Has Yahoo (slurp) even crawled your site as of recent? I would check your log files for this data, if not then it may be an abnormality within their database

A search for the domain name shows nothing, and site: has the domain itself unheard of.

The syntax for Yahoo! would be domain: and not site:

Give that a shot to see if you are indeed missing.

*cheers*
-detlev

The syntax for Yahoo! would be domain: and not site:

Well, I do believe that it works both ways ... I just tested it with 10 different domains using the "site:" & "domain:" syntax and the both yeilded the same results each of the 10 times.

They may be different commands, but I have always used "site:" and it has always worked for me

it works both ways

Hah!

Well, I suppose now it does work both ways. I assume supporting it is in reaction to the sheer number of qeries from Googlers with the habit.

The traditional syntax is domain: from Inktomi search. I always used domain: and never bothered with site: because it did not work before. That's why I suggested domain: here.

For example, if you look at the difference in the SERPs, highlighting currently goes away for the site: SERP which I think is indicative of a recent change for supporting the commonly used syntax.

Hey, they may begin supporting link: too if enough queries appear for it. You still need linkdomain: for the backward links in Yahoo!. But I guess that can change at any time!

*cheers*
-detlev

Hey, they may begin supporting link: too if enough queries appear for it. You still need linkdomain: for the backward links in Yahoo!. But I guess that can change at any time!
they do support the link: for links to a specific page, you just have to make sure to type in the http: // www part in after the link:

Slurp has certainly arrived but doesn't stay long - I pretty much expected that anyway. The concern is that there is no apparent record of the actual domain on Yahoo!, which is odd.

I suspect that the bots were mainly arriving via redirects from other sites - and that they really didn't like that.

I remember reading of Yahoo! having issues with 302's, but I believe I set up permanent redirects.

As for the question about redirects, here is how Yahoo! handles 301 & 302 http redirects (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/yahoo-redirect-rules.pdf). Jon Glick presented this slide at the Chicago SES, 2004. With 301 you should be good even though you redirect to a ccTLD from a .com.

they do support the link: for links to a specific page, you just have to make sure to type in the http: // www part in after the link:

Yes for a specific page that is true. For sitewide backward links, remember to use linkdomain: because with link:http:// you will only get a list of links to the homepage missing all the deeper ones. With linkdomain: do not use http: //.

-detlev