Yahoo Directory a Good Deal?

I saw a post here some time back where someone suggested that the payment
for inclusion into the yahoo directory would be the best $300 ever spent. I
have never paid for inclusion into the yahoo directory and wonder what the
benefits I could expect.

As I see it, inclusion into the yahoo may result in direct traffic from
directory visitors and may also boost google PR.

With almost 300 sites in my category I'm not sure how much direct traffic I
can realistically expect from the directory. If course, I can use all the
google PR I can get.

I do wonder if I'll get $300 in benefits from my listing.

"RFI Admin" <rfi (AT) ruralfree (DOT) net> wrote

I saw a post here some time back where someone suggested that the payment
for inclusion into the yahoo directory would be the best $300 ever spent.
I
have never paid for inclusion into the yahoo directory and wonder what the
benefits I could expect.

As I see it, inclusion into the yahoo may result in direct traffic from
directory visitors and may also boost google PR.

With almost 300 sites in my category I'm not sure how much direct traffic
I
can realistically expect from the directory. If course, I can use all the
google PR I can get.

I do wonder if I'll get $300 in benefits from my listing.

There are two schools of thought on this.

As a professional SEO company, we would not recommend paying for Yahoo
Directory inclusion.

None of our clients ever have and most of them have top ten rankings in the
search results for Yahoo anyway...so the value is dubious.

For a new site built by someone who does not do a good job of SEO, it could
help.
The question you will need to task yourself is...how often do you go to the
directory to search?
The regular search textbox at Yahoo.com is not necessarily connected to the
directory and to be honest, I am not sure how many folks
would know where to go to find the directory.

True, the paid results at the top of some categories probably include the
directory results...but for the most part, we see no benefit in it. Yahoo
will spider your site pretty quickly and you're included and off to the
races..

--

James Taylor

http://www.aicompany.com
http://www.seo-highrankings.com

value is dubious.

Thanks, just trying to compensate for lost google traffic.

I was listed at dmoz at one time but my category was cleaned-out about a
year ago and replaced with other domains. I was never able to get listed
again. I suspect a closed group is now editing my category at dmoz. I was
thinking that a paid yahoo directory listing would compensate for not
getting relisted at dmoz.

"James Taylor" <james (AT) nothere (DOT) com> wrote in
news:104c7kn625uro99 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com:

"RFI Admin" <rfi (AT) ruralfree (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:kPn1c.26593$qL1.11744 (AT) fed1read02 (DOT) ..
I saw a post here some time back where someone suggested that the
payment for inclusion into the yahoo directory would be the best $300
ever spent.
I
have never paid for inclusion into the yahoo directory and wonder
what the benefits I could expect.

As I see it, inclusion into the yahoo may result in direct traffic
from directory visitors and may also boost google PR.

With almost 300 sites in my category I'm not sure how much direct
traffic I
can realistically expect from the directory.


There are two schools of thought on this.

As a professional SEO company, we would not recommend paying for Yahoo
Directory inclusion.

None of our clients ever have and most of them have top ten rankings
in the search results for Yahoo anyway...so the value is dubious.

Depends on the category, the site and the searchers.

Some people are just not search-focussed navigators. My husband is one.
He'll always click on a category rather than use a search box (even when
I am standing behind him, silently screaming 'just run a search, you
idiot' (I don't scream out loud, obviously. That would be rude).)

A yahoo listing can attract these users - particularly for local
services or more specialised products. Users with poor typing skills
are perhaps more likely to have this navigation pattern.

Some site owners want to establish themselves as blue chip authorities.
For them, it's important to be seen in all the right places, and one of
the right places can be the Yahoo directory. Same as Yellow Pages,
which can cost more.

Some site owners think it's really important to be *everywhere* the
competition is listed. They don't want a single user to see Bloggsco's
website without being offered the Jamesco alternative. I do Yahoo
submits for them, though I sometimes argue a bit first.

Some sites offer very high value products/services in very small
markets. I recommend that sort of site goes for a Yahoo listing,
because if they only get one sale in a year from it, it will have paid
for itself a hundred or more times over. If your market is only 200
people, then, say 1% of them is still worth having.

With 300 sites in a category, assuming that all the sites provide
comparable services/products, and the items are of low or moderate
value, I wouldn't bother though.

Victoria
--
Clare Associates Ltd
http://www.clareassoc.co.uk/
01822 835802
--

"Victoria Clare" <victoria (AT) markpoles (DOT) org.uk> wrote

"James Taylor" <james (AT) nothere (DOT) com> wrote in
news:104c7kn625uro99 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com:

"RFI Admin" <rfi (AT) ruralfree (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:kPn1c.26593$qL1.11744 (AT) fed1read02 (DOT) ..
I saw a post here some time back where someone suggested that the
payment for inclusion into the yahoo directory would be the best $300
ever spent.
I
have never paid for inclusion into the yahoo directory and wonder
what the benefits I could expect.

As I see it, inclusion into the yahoo may result in direct traffic
from directory visitors and may also boost google PR.

With almost 300 sites in my category I'm not sure how much direct
traffic I
can realistically expect from the directory.


There are two schools of thought on this.

As a professional SEO company, we would not recommend paying for Yahoo
Directory inclusion.

None of our clients ever have and most of them have top ten rankings
in the search results for Yahoo anyway...so the value is dubious.


Depends on the category, the site and the searchers.

Some people are just not search-focussed navigators. My husband is one.
He'll always click on a category rather than use a search box (even when
I am standing behind him, silently screaming 'just run a search, you
idiot' (I don't scream out loud, obviously. That would be rude).)

A yahoo listing can attract these users - particularly for local
services or more specialised products. Users with poor typing skills
are perhaps more likely to have this navigation pattern.

Some site owners want to establish themselves as blue chip authorities.
For them, it's important to be seen in all the right places, and one of
the right places can be the Yahoo directory. Same as Yellow Pages,
which can cost more.

Some site owners think it's really important to be *everywhere* the
competition is listed. They don't want a single user to see Bloggsco's
website without being offered the Jamesco alternative. I do Yahoo
submits for them, though I sometimes argue a bit first.

Some sites offer very high value products/services in very small
markets. I recommend that sort of site goes for a Yahoo listing,
because if they only get one sale in a year from it, it will have paid
for itself a hundred or more times over. If your market is only 200
people, then, say 1% of them is still worth having.

With 300 sites in a category, assuming that all the sites provide
comparable services/products, and the items are of low or moderate
value, I wouldn't bother though.

Victoria
--
Clare Associates Ltd
http://www.clareassoc.co.uk/
01822 835802

Very good points all Victoria but none deal with actual visitors and
qualified traffic to the site.

While I agree with your points as to WHY people would use the Yahoo
Directory, my concern is that the directory may not provide a site with
enough traffic flow to stream in qualified visitors....= no or little ROI.

While $300 could be earned back, it may take some time in that the ratio of
people who actually look at the directory, much less for your product, is
pretty low compared to the generic search.

While a few good clicks might win you a conversion or two and pay back your
investment, Google AdWords, done right, within a $300 budget might be able
to bring you tons more traffic and do it within a few days as opposed to
months.

Organic optimization, while costing more than $300, would definitely be a
better way to spend your money in my opinion.

Some SEO's shops will do a nice job starting for around $500 or so and if
you only have 300 results for your given keywords, one should be able to do
that with their eyes closed within 60 days..

That is what we call "shooting ducks in a barrel" :-)


--

James Taylor

http://www.aicompany.com
http://www.seo-highrankings.com

"James Taylor" <james (AT) nothere (DOT) com> wrote in
news:104ccmrjkucgv0e (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com:

Very good points all Victoria but none deal with actual visitors and
qualified traffic to the site.

I think your definition of qualified traffic is narrower than mine, and
you are only considering sites where there is an essentially unlimited
supply of prospects.

While I agree with your points as to WHY people would use the Yahoo
Directory, my concern is that the directory may not provide a site
with enough traffic flow to stream in qualified visitors....= no or
little ROI.

I actually said that the only type of site to which I would definitely
recommend such a listing was one where the potential sales value is very
high.

Some sites are not working on volume - it's worth their while paying to
be in *all* the right places, not just most of them.

I agree that if you have just $500 to spend, Yahoo is not the first
stop. The sites I was thinking of would not be in that price bracket,
and would probably already be using the other channels you mention.

If you are already paying for all the relevant ppc terms and working on
natural optimisation, then Yahoo is simply part of the mix.

I'd also consider recommending a listing if I had a site to promote
where I knew the potential audience was nav-focussed rather than search-
focussed, but that kind of thing is hard to test.

Victoria
--
Clare Associates Ltd
http://www.clareassoc.co.uk/
01822 835802
--

--

James Taylor

http://www.aicompany.com
http://www.seo-highrankings.com
"Victoria Clare" <victoria (AT) markpoles (DOT) org.uk> wrote

"James Taylor" <james (AT) nothere (DOT) com> wrote in
news:104ccmrjkucgv0e (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com:

Very good points all Victoria but none deal with actual visitors and
qualified traffic to the site.

I think your definition of qualified traffic is narrower than mine, and
you are only considering sites where there is an essentially unlimited
supply of prospects.

Possibly, although my definition is simply those who are looking for what my
clients are selling AND if I can tell...are ready to make a purchase.
I am not interested in the rest :-)

I am not necessarily assuming that there are an unlimited number of
prospects...I am assuming that my client has no money to waste and as a
result, we need to target every dollar. Every descretionary dollar my
cleint has should go into my pocket, paying for my services, and not some
other good or service.

I never liekd the "shotgun" approach to marketing. It tends to waste money
or at least tie it up unnecessisarily.
We, as marketers have a responsibility to produce maximum return for the
client dollar. As a result, we have to look for the greatest bang for the
buck. When I worked for Chevron, we were able to afford to experiment in
large ways because a million dollar loss did not kill us (you might get
fired but the company was not really affected).

Things have changed over the past five year however and even companies that
make 2.5 billion net profits per year scrutinize their efforts.

Now, if I breadcrumb a website that ranks well in the SE's and lead a
prospect through a "layered qualification" then they come out more
"pre-qualified" than just clicks from a link.

While I agree with your points as to WHY people would use the Yahoo
Directory, my concern is that the directory may not provide a site
with enough traffic flow to stream in qualified visitors....= no or
little ROI.

I actually said that the only type of site to which I would definitely
recommend such a listing was one where the potential sales value is very
high.

OK...but how would that be determined prior to ad placement? Are you saying
that the good this client sells ends itself to a higher closing ratio than
the norn, whatever that is? I am not sure I understand the client position
yet.

Some sites are not working on volume - it's worth their while paying to
be in *all* the right places, not just most of them.

Understood, liek a Chevron or some larger enterprise, where they can afford
to trydifferent campaigns that might result in a loss but that loss will not
necessarily affect their bottom line?

I agree that if you have just $500 to spend, Yahoo is not the first
stop. The sites I was thinking of would not be in that price bracket,
and would probably already be using the other channels you mention.

If you are already paying for all the relevant ppc terms and working on
natural optimisation, then Yahoo is simply part of the mix.

I respecfully disagree. We have seen GoogleAdwords outperform Yahoo PPC and
Overture PPC at least 4 to 1 on a wide variety of campaigns. It seems the
yahoo surfers are not as inclined to to cleik through as Google folks. This
is based upon 9 different campaigns we have run over the past 6 months.
None of our clients has obtained any sort of success with the Yahoo PPC.
The exact same keywords and sites.

I'd also consider recommending a listing if I had a site to promote
where I knew the potential audience was nav-focussed rather than search-
focussed, but that kind of thing is hard to test.

Agreed, it is a had thing to test. I did speak with a site owner in one of
the forums a few weeks ago who said he was getting hits immediately after
paying for his ad. No proof but we have not seen anything liek that from
any of our sites that we manage SEO campaigns for.

I would be interested to hear of some success stories from that directory
from anyone posting to this group.

Victoria
--
Clare Associates Ltd
http://www.clareassoc.co.uk/
01822 835802
--

As far as I can see the Yahoo directory is nothing more than a way of buying
a link from a well established site with PR.

Its value as a referrer of traffic is, I feel, overshadowed by the "search
box". For this kind of money ,with care and effort you can buy quite a lot
of links from other sites.

The question should be, is the incoming PR worth £199?


--
Matt

http://www.xseo.com

Search Engine Toolbox
http://www.xseo.com/download.htm

Matt wrote:

The question should be, is the incoming PR worth £199?

This is my question too.

--
Rustic Stone House Signs
www.rusticstone.net

Extract the "URINE" to e-mail

"Matt" <mj.paines (AT) virgin (DOT) net> wrote

As far as I can see the Yahoo directory is nothing more than a way of
buying
a link from a well established site with PR.

Its value as a referrer of traffic is, I feel, overshadowed by the "search
box". For this kind of money ,with care and effort you can buy quite a lot
of links from other sites.

The question should be, is the incoming PR worth £199?


--
Matt

http://www.xseo.com

Search Engine Toolbox
http://www.xseo.com/download.htm

Not since last week when Google onceu again changed its algorithm and now
places more empetus on on-page elements than they did two weeks ago.

We have sites with no page rank and one PR4 in-comming link ranking at #!
for mid-competitive terms.

Whitness the following.
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...d+sports+racer
AND
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...ports+race+car

PR is no longer king. Google is moving in the right! direction

--
James Taylor
http://www.AICompany.com
http://www.SEO-highrankings.com