Notice that their site is listed in the SERPS under different rules than competitors?

When I search a generic search for what my site would be described as we come up in the SERP top three, fine, I'm happy.

But.... the industry I work in is highly competitive so I try and use as much SEO in order that my descriptions not only give the "searcher" good information about where they are going if they click my listing but also try and differentiate our shop to our competitors as we have some serious USP's we work hard on and absorb cost for in order to rise above our competition.

Our listing has a ridiculously brief description that doesn't cover half of what we now sell, any of our USP's compared to our competitors, any of my meta's (I know this doesn't always count but when I check the source code for the listings around us all their description meta's are listed as their description!?)

Admittedly our site has been live for about 7/8 years now and some of the listing around us are new... Why do Yahoo treat us differently than our competitors?

Any ideas?

Cheers!

Google have been using either ODP or Meta descriptions for SERP descriptions, so perhaps submitting a change request to the ODP would help? Unlikely to be actioned anytime soon, but it sounds like that your description (outdated, brief) is typically ODP! ;)

If you mean Yahoo listings, then perhaps they do the same (not sure tbh) - maybe use Yahoo directory descriptions?

MG

G is fine... always uses my Meta's... only problem with that is as soon as I change mine to differentiate it prompts our competitors to do the same... sometimes I can't believe the people in my industry don't have the imagination to do their own thing...

It's Yahoo that I always struggle with?

Dumb question alert... What's ODP?

ODP is Open Directory Project (http://www.dmoz.org/).

By the way, do you have a Yahoo Directory listing, and if so is that what they're showing?

But what is and how does ODP help/hinder?

Ummmmmmmmmmm, if I search for our name in the yahoo directory we are listed, this is the listing that shows in the natural SERPS. Can I change this?

Yahoo! (and Google) fiddle with snippet part of listings. There are various reasons why they sometimes use a page's description tag, or an ODP description, or a description from somewhere else - in this case, from the Yahoo! directory - instead of snippets from the page's text. It actually sounds like being listed in the Yahoo! directory is detrimental to you, unless you get a lot of traffic from there, of course. I take it that your competitors are not listed in Yahoo!'s directory?

i've been experiencing the same problem (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=7268) those days. I think that when Yahoo! does not get hold of your site during a crawl then they show out the ODP description.
Would like to get confirmation of that from anyone here.

Riley

example of Yahoo not really providing truly relevent results... Sometimes I find it hilarious that they actually believe they are doing a good job... We've diversified into 5 other makets and they don't recognise this at all... If they used my meta description all this would be revealed...
Under some searches for products we sell, 7 out of the top ten natural listings on the front page go nowhere near what your searching for, or you have to trawl through tons and tons of affiliates, price comparison, review, blah blah blah sites before you get to anyone who ACTUALLY SELLS THE THING, nine times out of ten once your there they're more expensive than we are in the first place!!! And if you put "Buy" in the search it has no effect!!!

Ah well...

@PhilC

Ummmmmm, competitors in the directory.... One particular competitor is in there but their organic listings are definately not the same as their directory entry!? Weird!?

Looks like being in the directory is detrimental...? How ridiculous! Yahoo and it's methods/reasons/ideas/in fact anything they do baffles me...

It's not just Yahoo! that produce some non-relevant results, Tony. Google has fallen away a bit too. But most of the top results are relevant, so it's not too bad.

Getting to why your listed snippet is from Yahoo!'s directory, could it be that the page has no appreciable or suitable text on it - mostly graphic? You could experiment with putting some highly suitable text on the page. Since one of the competitors is listed in Yahoo!'s directory, but gets the page's Description tag printed, could it be that the Description tag is more suitable for the searchterm that the directory description? You could try writing something very similar to that Description in your page's Description.

I'd experiment a bit and see if you can switch the listing from the directory one. The listings are programmatically produced, so there must be programmatic reason why they are using the directory description. Play around with thing a bit and see if it changes.

But they seem to be the best at it!!! They also insist on listing our old site below a listing of our new site that has a refer ID attached onto it, so instead of listing our new site above the new site with refer ID, we have to pay someone... even though the destination and results are absolutely no different, except obviously we own the site and teh refferer just acts as a gatekeeper...! Amazing... I have really just given up with Yahoo...

Your first point is potentially viable. We have tabs to our new markets but our site is framed... always has been and it's proving difficult to convince the powers that be that we should change.... so maybe... I just think Yahoo are lazy and should put more effort in. We spend a fortune with them on PPC advertising too!

I don't see why I should experiment... hey are supposed to be providing the service!

Search engines provide a service to searchers, not to websites. Also, it isn't their concern whether a site with an affiliate ID is ranked above the site that does the selling. If you want to get it right from your point of view, you have to do something about it yourself. It's not the search engines' job.

They also insist on listing our old site below a listing of our new site that has a refer ID attached onto it, so instead of listing our new site above the new site with refer ID, we have to pay someone... even though the destination and results are absolutely no different, except obviously we own the site and teh refferer just acts as a gatekeeperIf you check through the Affiliate forum here, you'll see that it's not an odd case -and it's likely a matter of how the SEO is done.

I don't see why I should experiment... Because you want the listings and the description different and because experimenting is part of SEO. And your competitors have probably already experimented and will continue to if need be. It's called competing, and that's how it is in business - those who snooze lose.

hey are supposed to be providing the service!No, they're not supposed to be providing anything. But they are, for free. They're including the site in the index. It isn't customer service unless you're a paying customer, and then it's subject to whatever the terms of the agreement are. There's no agreement for organic SERPs for sites picked up in crawls, they're under no obligation to list anyone's site at all, much less provide service to boot for billions of documents.

insist on listing our old site below a listing of our new siteYou have two sites for the company? Then they're including both your old site and your new one both. That's two sites, free of charge; that's a lot of free service, depending on how you look at it.

The way to get listings exactly how you want them is with PPC; otherwise it's done programmatically and if it's not the desired result you have to experiment, just like everyone else in SEO does.

Why do Yahoo treat us differently than our competitors?Here we go, start with the frames and look at the source code

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=5707

They've got no choice but to use the Directory listing, and it's lucky to have that, if that's the site in question.

@PhilC

"Search engines provide a service to searchers, not to websites"

When I refer to service I don't mean me... I mean the searcher, I genuinely am looking at this from a consumer perspective. I understand the organic listings are free; they are also the listings most people use so therefore I feel the SE's have an obligation to provide solid relevant listings; otherwise they may as well not bother... Providing something free is no excuse for doing a bad job of it! If it isn't free searching then the only other value added to the web by Yahoo is free email, I for one know for a fact that's all I use it for. If they don't provide people with good listings then it is just a platform for ad space. They have to provide something for free in order for people to use their site, so why can't they fulfil.

"it isn't their concern whether a site with an affiliate ID is ranked above the site that does the selling"

This is obvious. I know it isn't their concern, I just think ethically they have an obligation to provide a completely relevant search, like they say they do. If someone wants to buy something quickly (just an example, I know the net and SE's are used for other things), which is what most consumers want, it is in effect one of the major advantages of shopping online... The SE says they want to provide the most specific and relevant results, especially in the "Free" listings. Surely having to click through a load of listings in the top ten that take you through affiliates, review sites etc... before you actually get to a shop selling the product, only to find that it isn't the one you were originally looking for because someone has cleverly used tricks within SEO!

"you have to do something about it yourself. It's not the search engines' job."

True. I agree. But ultimately, the SE is in control of what works and what doesn't. I'm talking about different rules for one to the other, that makes it very difficult to have too much control. You can only go on what is working around you, if so and so is getting it right what are they doing...? Ah right, they're spamming keywords, didn't think you were supposed to... they're getting their meta's replicated in their listings, but I've sorted our meta's etc etc... Hold on, they aren't doing anything different to us... Hmmmmmmmmmm...

@Marcia

"If you check through the Affiliate forum here, you'll see that it's not an odd case -and it's likely a matter of how the SEO is done."

I know it's not odd. I know it is controlled by the referrer, I just don't think it's ethical is all.

"Because you want the listings and the description different and because experimenting is part of SEO. And your competitors have probably already experimented and will continue to if need be. It's called competing, and that's how it is in business - those who snooze lose."

I don't want the listings and description different, I want it the same as everyone else around us... Everyone else "Experiments" and has got results, we experiment and nothing changes, the point of my post in the first place was to try and understand why... I'm sure it's simple.
Marcia, I do appreciate your time, knowledge and wisdom, but that last sentence is a bit patronizing.

"No, they're not supposed to be providing anything. But they are, for free. They're including the site in the index. It isn't customer service unless you're a paying customer, and then it's subject to whatever the terms of the agreement are. There's no agreement for organic SERPs for sites picked up in crawls, they're under no obligation to list anyone's site at all, much less provide service to boot for billions of documents."

Sorry Marcia I'm not sure whether I agree... Y! aren't doing us or anyone else in the free listings a favour by including us in the index! They want and need people in the index otherwise they wouldn't have a business... If all those people searching for the service we offer or even us specifically as a brand couldn't find us as a result of Y! not gracing us space in their hallowed index who the hell would see any of the ads they make cash from....!?!? They need us, we don't necessarily need them.

If a company says it is going to do something (Y! provide the truest, relevant organic results) and people come online to check that out, in the process they are subjected to advertising/promotion, they are fulfilling their part of the deal i.e. they are being exposed to what Y! makes it money from. Therefore, if somebody comes online, for the purpose of getting the most relevant results to his her search (Like Y! say they provide), and they don't get them, but they still see all the ads etc... then I believe they have rights to some sort of level of service. They have not paid for anything.... but they might.... But this is, of course, just my opinion.

"You have two sites for the company? Then they're including both your old site and your new one both. That's two sites, free of charge; that's a lot of free service, depending on how you look at it."

No... Old site is now new site... one site.

I am just enquiring, I know most people come on forums to moan and b1tch but I am simply trying to understand... Of course having two listings is great... what I can't work out is why they (Y!) don't list the "actual" site, us (we are listed but with old title, description etc...) before they list us (with the new titles and descriptions I have experimented with etc...) but with a refer ID attached!?

"The way to get listings exactly how you want them is with PPC; otherwise it's done programmatically and if it's not the desired result you have to experiment, just like everyone else in SEO does"

I know this, and in fact, we make more money from PPC on Yahoo than we do on Google, I regularly see ROI's of 20%+. I have been experimenting but to no effect, otherwise I wouldn't be here asking questions!

Again, I appreciate both your comments but I think this has gone away from my original post, why do we get a directory listing description but all our competitors get their meta's...?

You're getting the Directory as the snippet because of lack of clarity in the content the crawler can fetch. They generally pick up relevant phrases that reflect the keywords from within the page text that's written for users. Not from meta keywords tag - which should be used very sparingly, only with a few highly relevant phrases for the specific page - and they don't use what's in comment tags at all.

I don't see why I should experiment... You should because it's the only way the modifications that need to be made will get done.

hey are supposed to be providing the service!Nope, they are not going to re-do that site for you. You have to do it or hire someone to do it for you.

First, you need to get that site out of frames and use text that's spider food that's meant for human consumption so that they can decipher the meaning of what's on the page. If the powers that be won't pull it out of frames, even though it's common knowledge that frames are not search engine friendly, then you need to completely re-do the no-frames so it reads as though a human user were reading it.

Then, pull all the keyword stuffed comment tags out, whittle the meta keywords down to just a few relevant phrases, and craft a well-formed meta description tag of about 25-30 words. And use absolute URLs in links, not relative.

If you want the search engine to respond to what you're feeding them then you need to give them something tasty to digest.

Can I pm you an example please? :)

Sure, be glad to take a look :-)

Cool... I'll do it now...

It's explained right here, by Tim Mayer at the current SES in San Jose

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=7276

Tim Mayer from Yahoo up first. The current behavior at Yahoo: (1) Feed titles and descriptions, (2) Yahoo! Directory descriptions, (3) Best match to query between contextual abstracts (on page) and meta title and meta description (on page), (4) If we cannot generate anything they use the ODP (implemented 1.5 years ago) or anchor text for the title.

Abstract challenges; sites don't provide titles, sites use the same titles and descriptions for every page, meta tag T&Ds are not query specific, many sites over optimize their T&Ds and it does not accurately describe the page's content and different types of abstracts are appropriate for different types of queries (e.g. navigation versus informational).

Going forward, Yahoo! will take all these different inputs and decide which is best based on user experience.So that's how they do it; that's the sequence, and I think we can assume it's universally applied. If there isn't enough on-page and the metas are over-optimized beyond legibility, which is too often the case, it stands to reason that the most reliably accurate source would be used.

We can't assume that what shows in the snippets is an indication of what's used in scoring - that's something we've got no way of knowing just by observation.