LEADCRITICWhen A Page 1 Yahoo Listing Means Nothing
Filed Under: Yahoo!, iLeads, featured
Digg.com | Netscape.com | Reddit.com | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon.com | Google.com | Socialogs.com | Others social services
I have been doing more and more research regarding the Yahoo search algorithm lately and trying to find the right SEO strategy to make both Google and Yahoo happy. This is like walking a tight rope, because obviously Google has the most traffic and at the same time a Yahoo page 1 listing has value too, but both have different factors that determine a relevant result.
While searching through Yahoo and analyzing the sites that rank well I came across an incident that would negate the value of a page 1 listing, especially for the mortgage lead industry.
Let me premise this by stating that I do not use Yahoo for my personal search engine very often, however I do use from time to time and I have never come across this example until very recently. Yahoo has named this beta test “Search Scan”.
Something else to note before I move on. Yahoo must have had an update yesterday or today, because 85% of the page 1 listing for ‘mortgage leads’ shifted and changed. Not only that the number two listing, that is brand new, links to a 404 error page with no topical content.
After searching for Mortgage Leads on Yahoo you will come to see these results. You will need to scroll down below the fold to find an iLeads result that has a bright red warning that filling out a form on this website may result in receiving unsolicited emails, Spam.
This is a major problem for a company that specializes in selling internet leads or any other type of internet marketing services for that matter. Lead buyers are already very leery of most lead companies and are concerned with buying from companies that do not follow CAN-Spam laws and this literally raises a big red flag.
After clicking on the warning link you learn more about McAffee findings.
The McAfee interface allows the abused consumers to leave comments and reviews. It also allow the site owner to respond to the complaints in an effort to squash the potentially harmful comments.
I think this is a very nice addition to Yahoo! search results and give another layer of security and transparency. To find out more about SearchScan you can visit the Yahoo! site here.
.
.
.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Loading ...
Trace | Jun 10, 2008 | Reply
Every minute you spend optimizing for Yahoo is one more minute you spend NOT optimizing for Google and every change you make for yahoo will possibly be one optimization that will not work well in Google. Optimizing for yahoo is also a bad strategy because in theory, as they improve their algorithm, there will be a need to undo yahoo centric optimizations that no longer work….
Optimizing for Microsoft? That’s just crazy talk.
Lead Critic | Jun 11, 2008 | Reply
Trace,
First, that is not necessarily true. There are simple things you can do that will help in Yahoo and not effect your Google placement, however obviously this wasn’t a post about SEO so I didn’t go into it in detail, but as I said there is fine line you want to walk for the very reason of not losing Google placements. No one is suggesting you optimize for Yahoo only or at all, quite frankly, this was talking about SearchScan and how it can negate a good Yahoo! placement.
Thanks for the comment
Drew Warmington | Jun 11, 2008 | Reply
We’re very aware of the McAfee flag, and in fact have been trying to undo the situation for weeks. If you do some quick research, you will find that when McAfee rolled out the service, they quickly listed (among others) Google as a source of Spam with the same comments as they tagged us with. Since Google is Google, McAfee quickly reversed their decision, but they have admitted that their release version of the service does make mistakes, (hence the form to “undo” the rating).
The problem with the system is that McAfee is a black hole when a company needs to undo their determination, and prove themselves innocent of what they claim you did.
Here is a log of our correspondence with McAfee
> > ————————————————
> > Yahoo - McAfee - SiteAdvisor Log
> > ————————————————
> >
> > 05/15/08 4:00pm Shannon
> > - Informed about the “Red” rating for ileads.com on Yahoo
> >
> > 05/16/08 10:00am Shannon
> > - Filled out Yahoo SearchScan support form
> >
> > 05/16/08 3:00pm Shannon
> > - Called McAfee at 800-338-8754 (Corporate CS Dept)
> > - Issued Request # 140340074
> > - Asked to be put in touch with SiteAdvisor team for a site retest
> > - CS Rep stated I would receive a callback or email within 48 hrs.
> > (did not receive either)
> >
> > 05/17/08 3:00pm Shannon
> > - Received response from Yahoo SearchScan support form
> > - Email says to contact
> > support@siteadvisor.com or fill out form
> >
> > http://www.siteadvisor.com/feedback.html
> >
> > 05/19/08 11:00am Shannon
> > - Submitted ileads.com for immediate retest at
> >
> > http://www.siteadvisor.com/feedback.html
> > - Sent email to
> > support@siteadvisor.com asking for a retest of ileads.com (no
> > response)
> >
> > 05/20/08 10:20am Shannon
> > - Called McAfee at 800-338-8754 (Corporate CS Dept)
> > - CS Rep stated they could not pull Request #’s in that Dept and
> > gives alternate #
Here is our email correspondence to McAfee…you’ll quickly see why this is a black hole:
—–Original Message—–
From: McAfee SiteAdvisor Support [mailto:support@siteadvisor.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:34 AM
To: wrote:
> Thank you for your rapid response,
>
> Could someone on the SiteAdvisor Team give me a call at 877-245-3237
> M-F 8am-5pm PST to discuss this any further. I only want to communicate in an efficient way. > Please help.
>
> I have performed the same type of email test as SiteAdvisor and weeks
> since have received no spam, only four to five legitimate emails from
> our lead product submitted for. We review our security practices
> regularly, including a review for the specific “email form snatching”
> you’ve suggested. From the previous email you state “We believe that
> websites own some responsibility for the Internet and computer safety
> of their users”. That includes you too, right. It is just as likely
> that the “unique” email addresses that you used were “somehow”
> acquired by spammers. You have made it your responsibility to
> correctly handle these situation by contracting with Yahoo, who
> publicly and in an involuntary way displays these inappropriate
> “scarlet letters” on the unknowing and, in our case, innocent
> bystanders. As I’ve previously stated, certain other companies were
> somehow able to traverse the SiteAdvisor support “black hole” and get
> at least an immediate and expedited spam retest. Therefore, I know the
> process is not completely automated and the capability for human
> intervention is available. We could also be satisfied by our site being
put on “gray status” until a email retest can be performed.
>
> Please call me for any further correspondence.
>
> Thank you again for your help,
>
> Shannon Dickey
> iLeads.com
> Network Administrator
> 877-245-3237
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: McAfee SiteAdvisor Support [mailto:support@siteadvisor.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:55 AM
> To: Subject: SPAM-Prem Re: Please Help with McAfee SiteAdvisor and Yahoo
> SearchScan
>
> Hello,
>
> Thank you for writing in and we appreciate your interest in our
> automated web safety rating for your website. We understand this must be aggravating.
> SiteAdvisor views this correspondence as a positive first step toward
> a green web safety rating in the future.
>
> We believe that websites own some responsibility for the Internet and
> computer safety of their users.
>
> Our web safety rating for this site is based solely on empirical data.
> Our rating summarizes what happened to a unique email box when our
> crawlers submitted one to this site. It is possible that spammers have
> somehow acquired email addresses that were submitted into a form on
> your site. We suggest that you audit your website’s seurity system,
> especially in regard to your email address handling practices. If your
> email security is improved, please write back to let us know.
>
> Please keep in mind that a red web safety rating based on email
> handling isn’t a negative judgment about your site’s content. Our
> automated bots will retest your site in the future and attribute it
> with a green web email safety rating should we not receive unsolicited
> commercial email. We appreciate your patience and sympathize with your
aggravation.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jim
>
> McAfee SiteAdvisor
> ————————
> Please reply directly to this email for all future correspondence
> pertaining to this issue.
>
>
> On May 27, 2008, “Shannon Dickey” wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Please do not reply with any standard form responses. Thank you.
> > My name is Shannon Dickey and I’m the System Administrator with iLeads.com.
> > I need your help. I have just learned that Yahoo recently launched
> > SearchScan which is powered by McAfee’s SiteAdvisor. I have been in
> > touch with Yahoo and they have delegated all support of this system
> > to McAfee. My company has been listed in all Yahoo search results
> > with the label:
> >
> > Warning: Unsolicited Emails
> >
> > We have unsuccessfully exhausted all avenues of support to remove
> > this incorrect label as quickly as possible. Since we do not send
> > any unsolicited emails or spam., we believe that we are being
> > falsely portrayed to the public and should receive immediate
> > attention in this matter. In researching the product, I have found
> > that, McAfee’s SiteAdvisor system for testing has been repeatedly
> > proven to be unreliable enough for concern. There have been many
> > other occasions in which companies such as Google, Excite, and
> > AnyCoupons.com have found the SiteAdvisor results to be in error and
> > were somehow able to get past the support black hole the McAfee has
> > setup for this product (see support log). McAfee needs to take a
> > more responsible role in supporting it’s products, especially one
> > that has such a critical impact on others.
> >
> > I would very much like to speak with someone who is on or has direct
> > contact with the SiteAdvisor Team in order to initiate an expedited
> > retesting of ileads.com.
> > Any help that you can give in getting this issue resolved will be
> > very much appreciated. The following is a log of my support actions
> > in order to resolve this issue:
In the end, the damage is done (as you correctly point out). The issue is that at least in this case McAfee is nearly bullet proof…that is unless you are Google.
Drew Warmington
Managing Partner
iLeads.com
Lead Critic | Jun 11, 2008 | Reply
Drew,
I feel for you!
A Lead Buyer | Jun 12, 2008 | Reply
Drew its amazing how quickly people respond to a well drafted letter from an attorney. Have them use the word injunction often and see where it gets you.
Drew Warmington | Jun 12, 2008 | Reply
That’s great advice!
A Lead Buyer | Jun 12, 2008 | Reply
Hope it works. I’ll try and catch up with you guys soon to see how it turns out.
A Lead Buyer | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
How did this work out for you Drew?