Why would someone reject a submitted URL of www.babyclassroom.com and list it under www.store.yahoo.com/babyclassroom ? Do yahoo storeowners get penalized for this?
URL Changed to a Yahoo store address http://www.babyclassroom.com/
- Thread starter aSmarterU
- Start date
Re: URL Rejected?
Because that is the destination URL .
In the submission form it states 'Do not submit any site with an address that redirects to another address.'
When I go to www.babyclassroom.com
The actual code that executes begins:
HTTP/1.1·200·OK(CR)
(LF)
Date:·Mon,·18·Nov·2002·00:31:15·GMT(CR)
(LF)
P3P:·policyref="http://www.yahoo.com/w3c/p3p.xml",·CP="CAO·DSP·COR·CUR·ADM·DEV·TAI·PSA· PSD·IVAi·IVDi·CONi·TELo·OTPi·OUR·DELi·SAMi·OTRi·UNRi·PUBi·IND·PHY·ONL·UNI·PUR·FIN· COM·NAV·INT·DEM·CNT·STA·POL·HEA·PRE·GOV"(CR)
LF)
Cache-Control:·private(CR)
(LF)
Connection:·close(CR)
(LF)
Content-Type:·text/html(CR)
(LF)
Expires:·Mon,·18·Nov·2002·00:31:15·GMT(CR)
(LF)
(CR)
(LF)
Content (Length = 26667):
<html><script·language="javascript">·(LF)
·<!--·(LF)
·if·(document.referrer·&&·(document.referrer!='')·&&·window.Image)·(LF)
·{·(LF)
·(new·Image).src="http://redirect1.vip.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/referadd?spcl=1&et=3dd835ff&catalog=babyclassroom&r="·+·escape(document.referrer);·}(LF)
This is URL cloaking, and is not permitted - and yes there are other sites already listed without the redirect being noticed, but they shouldn't have been. They will be altered as noticed.
No they don't get penalised, they get *listed* under their correct URL.
[edited to prevent code stretching - apeuro]
Because that is the destination URL .
In the submission form it states 'Do not submit any site with an address that redirects to another address.'
When I go to www.babyclassroom.com
The actual code that executes begins:
HTTP/1.1·200·OK(CR)
(LF)
Date:·Mon,·18·Nov·2002·00:31:15·GMT(CR)
(LF)
P3P:·policyref="http://www.yahoo.com/w3c/p3p.xml",·CP="CAO·DSP·COR·CUR·ADM·DEV·TAI·PSA· PSD·IVAi·IVDi·CONi·TELo·OTPi·OUR·DELi·SAMi·OTRi·UNRi·PUBi·IND·PHY·ONL·UNI·PUR·FIN· COM·NAV·INT·DEM·CNT·STA·POL·HEA·PRE·GOV"(CR)
LF)
Cache-Control:·private(CR)
(LF)
Connection:·close(CR)
(LF)
Content-Type:·text/html(CR)
(LF)
Expires:·Mon,·18·Nov·2002·00:31:15·GMT(CR)
(LF)
(CR)
(LF)
Content (Length = 26667):
<html><script·language="javascript">·(LF)
·<!--·(LF)
·if·(document.referrer·&&·(document.referrer!='')·&&·window.Image)·(LF)
·{·(LF)
·(new·Image).src="http://redirect1.vip.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/referadd?spcl=1&et=3dd835ff&catalog=babyclassroom&r="·+·escape(document.referrer);·}(LF)
This is URL cloaking, and is not permitted - and yes there are other sites already listed without the redirect being noticed, but they shouldn't have been. They will be altered as noticed.
No they don't get penalised, they get *listed* under their correct URL.
[edited to prevent code stretching - apeuro]
Re: URL Rejected?
This question is asked quite a lot on this, and other, fora.
See, for example: http://www.searchengineforums.com/Forum31/HTML/000891.html .
This question is asked quite a lot on this, and other, fora.
See, for example: http://www.searchengineforums.com/Forum31/HTML/000891.html .
Re: URL Rejected?
That might be true but, if you go to http://store.yahoo.com/babyclassroom and view the source, it has the same "redirect" as you call it also.
<script language="javascript">
<!--
if (document.referrer && (document.referrer!='') && window.Image)
{
(new Image).src="http://redirect1.vip.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/referadd?spcl=1&et=3dd85212&catalog=babyclassroom&r=" + escape(document.referrer); }
// -->
</script>
That is something that Yahoo adds to everyone's storefront and it doesn't redirect to anywhere. You have your rules and thats fine, we all have to accept them in order to be listed here. I was just asking for clarification and will leave it at that. BTW ... don't all domain names point to somewhere else unless you have your own dedicated server? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
That might be true but, if you go to http://store.yahoo.com/babyclassroom and view the source, it has the same "redirect" as you call it also.
<script language="javascript">
<!--
if (document.referrer && (document.referrer!='') && window.Image)
{
(new Image).src="http://redirect1.vip.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/referadd?spcl=1&et=3dd85212&catalog=babyclassroom&r=" + escape(document.referrer); }
// -->
</script>
That is something that Yahoo adds to everyone's storefront and it doesn't redirect to anywhere. You have your rules and thats fine, we all have to accept them in order to be listed here. I was just asking for clarification and will leave it at that. BTW ... don't all domain names point to somewhere else unless you have your own dedicated server? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Re: URL Rejected?
>> BTW ... don't all domain names point to somewhere else unless you have your own dedicated server <<
Nope, domain names point at IP addresses (extremely simplified explanation). It is up to the server at the IP address to decide what to do: it can either issue a "Redirect - see http://www.example.com/" command or it can actually serve up the content.
To have your site "properly hosted" on a server (ie the IP address that the doman name points to is actually the IP address of the server that hosts your site) is not really expensive. You can get space on a "shared server" (ie a server that a number of other websites are hosted on) for extremely low cost now. An example is the company hosting my "personal" site - admiteddly their prices are at the "upper end" of the scale (because they offer quite a bit of functionality such as 120Mb space, PHP, Perl, MySQL, Java, full logs, unlimited email addresses etc), but they are $394 per year. No exactly "breaking the bank" for a small commercial website (and, in fact, is cheaper than Yahoo! Stores hosting fee). Of course, your "own dedicated server" is a bit more pricer than that: but considering you normally have 20_Gb_ of space and total control over the server - so, if you wanted, you could totally reformat it and install whatever you liked on it - it is sometimes worth considering).
You may find this category of interest to you.
>> BTW ... don't all domain names point to somewhere else unless you have your own dedicated server <<
Nope, domain names point at IP addresses (extremely simplified explanation). It is up to the server at the IP address to decide what to do: it can either issue a "Redirect - see http://www.example.com/" command or it can actually serve up the content.
To have your site "properly hosted" on a server (ie the IP address that the doman name points to is actually the IP address of the server that hosts your site) is not really expensive. You can get space on a "shared server" (ie a server that a number of other websites are hosted on) for extremely low cost now. An example is the company hosting my "personal" site - admiteddly their prices are at the "upper end" of the scale (because they offer quite a bit of functionality such as 120Mb space, PHP, Perl, MySQL, Java, full logs, unlimited email addresses etc), but they are $394 per year. No exactly "breaking the bank" for a small commercial website (and, in fact, is cheaper than Yahoo! Stores hosting fee). Of course, your "own dedicated server" is a bit more pricer than that: but considering you normally have 20_Gb_ of space and total control over the server - so, if you wanted, you could totally reformat it and install whatever you liked on it - it is sometimes worth considering).
You may find this category of interest to you.
T
tac2502
Re: URL Rejected?
Just to add a few more encouraging words:
You should be able to get real hosting that supports direct mapping of your domain (instead of redirection) for $8.00 to $20.00 per month. "Virtual" hosting is just fine, you don't need a dedicated server. Many hosts also include shopping cart services, although when added to the credit card fees, it can get somewhat expensive if you have low volumes. You can continue to use your yahoo store if you create your new web site using frames - although don't create your pages so that the Yahoo store frame is the whole page - that's equivalent to a redirect in most people's eyes. Make sure your new hosted page includes either a strip down the left or across the top that displays your logo and/or information about your business.
A decent list of provider reviews can be found at:
http://dmoz.org/Home/Consumer_Information/Computers_and_Internet/Internet/Web_Hosting/
TAC
Just to add a few more encouraging words:
You should be able to get real hosting that supports direct mapping of your domain (instead of redirection) for $8.00 to $20.00 per month. "Virtual" hosting is just fine, you don't need a dedicated server. Many hosts also include shopping cart services, although when added to the credit card fees, it can get somewhat expensive if you have low volumes. You can continue to use your yahoo store if you create your new web site using frames - although don't create your pages so that the Yahoo store frame is the whole page - that's equivalent to a redirect in most people's eyes. Make sure your new hosted page includes either a strip down the left or across the top that displays your logo and/or information about your business.
A decent list of provider reviews can be found at:
http://dmoz.org/Home/Consumer_Information/Computers_and_Internet/Internet/Web_Hosting/
TAC
Re: URL Rejected?
>>To have your site "properly hosted" on a server (ie the IP address that the doman name points to is actually the IP address of the server that hosts your site) is not really expensive.<<
The IP address for www.babyclassroom.com points to the IP address of the server that hosts the site which is Yahoo.
So if your statement is true, then how is that a URL redirect? They registered the domain name, changed the IP records to point to the Yahoo server hosting the store - isn't that what you do to get your site online and running? Isn't that (simplified) how most people do it? Like I said before, it's not going to change anything and "rules are rules". Thank you for your time. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
>>To have your site "properly hosted" on a server (ie the IP address that the doman name points to is actually the IP address of the server that hosts your site) is not really expensive.<<
The IP address for www.babyclassroom.com points to the IP address of the server that hosts the site which is Yahoo.
So if your statement is true, then how is that a URL redirect? They registered the domain name, changed the IP records to point to the Yahoo server hosting the store - isn't that what you do to get your site online and running? Isn't that (simplified) how most people do it? Like I said before, it's not going to change anything and "rules are rules". Thank you for your time. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
Re: URL Rejected?
I understand that there are many legitimate reasons for someone to have a "redirector URL". And to be perfectly honest, our policy of NOT listing the redirector sometimes causes extra effort: for instance, a webmaster buys a domain name, and then points it to wherever his website can be hosted most cheaply (and when the host goes broke, he can merely update the redirection. But _WE_ have to track down the original domain name, find the new forwarding address, and change the listing to that.)
Unfortunately, we find that listing redirector domains causes even more extra effort; and our experience has led us to prefer the consistency of listing the "real" URL (even with the problems it brings us, and the frustration we know it brings webmasters.)
We know you won't like that, and we know that some of you have good reasons for preferring a different approach -- hey, some of the redirector-users are editors, too, and their side of the issue has been well-represented in our internal discussions -- but, sorry, we think we need to do it this way.
I understand that there are many legitimate reasons for someone to have a "redirector URL". And to be perfectly honest, our policy of NOT listing the redirector sometimes causes extra effort: for instance, a webmaster buys a domain name, and then points it to wherever his website can be hosted most cheaply (and when the host goes broke, he can merely update the redirection. But _WE_ have to track down the original domain name, find the new forwarding address, and change the listing to that.)
Unfortunately, we find that listing redirector domains causes even more extra effort; and our experience has led us to prefer the consistency of listing the "real" URL (even with the problems it brings us, and the frustration we know it brings webmasters.)
We know you won't like that, and we know that some of you have good reasons for preferring a different approach -- hey, some of the redirector-users are editors, too, and their side of the issue has been well-represented in our internal discussions -- but, sorry, we think we need to do it this way.
T
tac2502
Re: URL Rejected?
So I did a whois for babyclassroom.com
The technical contact and name server are listed as yahoo.
This is not a redirect issue, this is a virtual hosting issue. Anyone who has set up a Windows or Unix server knows that it is perfectly reasonable, if not responsible in these days of diminishing IP addresses, to have multiple domains resolve to the same server using a single IP address. The server reads the HTTP header, and uses that to determine which account to use, instead of using an IP address to make the determination. It's becoming more and more the standard in virtual hosting (again, because IP addresses are a limited commodity). In this arrangement, the URL in the browser address bar continuously reflects the full path to the current page, including the account domain name (babyclassroom.com in this case). The fact that yahoo offers an alternate path to this account through the Yahoo domain is irrelevant. A hostpro account with a shopping cart would work the same way, except they don't offer an alternate path.
Redirects (from the ODP guidelines page)
"A redirect URL points to a page that will redirect your browser to a completely different URL. An automatic redirect will immediately redirect your browser if you click on the URL, or type the URL in your browser's address bar. Sometimes you may come across a redirect page. Redirect pages area sometimes set up when site is moved to a new URL. You should never add automatic redirects or redirect page links to the directory."
My additional 2 cents: A Redirect is when a site has a single page that when loaded includes a command to the browser to reload another page without user interaction. The browser actually goes to the new page, or as is often the case, a new domain. The typical use for this is when an owner has multiple domains names and wants a simple way to "point" them all at the same individual domain. The give away here is that you see the new address in the browser address bar. A more benign use is when a site is designed such that the default home page is not index.* or default.* or the owner wants to place their default page in a lower directory, but within the same domain. Of course the better way to do this is by configuring the server to use the preferred file name as a default for the domain, but that may not always be practical.
There is a strong argument not to list a redirect to a different domain, but the argument that ODP should list a specific page in a deeper directory instead the the domain address for a web site would not be very strong. That would result in users getting 404 errors should the owner ever change their internal structures.
And what about cloaking - the claim here. Cloaking is almost always accomplished via a silent frame. As the novice user clicks away in their browser window, they never see the real URL in their browser address bar. In fact, this is the give-away. The address never changes to reflect the actual file loaded - because the framing window itself never changes. This is the example given in the editor page:
"If URL cloaking is being used, the target page will be displayed in a full size frame, so that the redirect URL is kept in the browser's address bar and the real URL of the displayed page remains invisible. Cloaked URLs are sometimes called "vanity URLs." Some well known vanity URLs include: come.to, welcome.to, go.to, surf.to, listen.to, fly.to, move.to, jump.to, run.to, and talk.to.
Example: Go to http://www.welcome.to/Boomers_from_Mars . Right click on a frame, and open it in a new window. The URL resolves to a different URL. The real URL being cloaked is http://www.geocities.com/boomers_from_mars "
The extra javascript code that was referenced as proof that babyclassroom was some sort of redirect actually appears to be yahoo's way of forcing a pop-up to trigger referral tracking. It's not a redirect of the page itself - the HTML that goes to the browser is all contained in the index.html file.
Babyclassroom is neither a redirect nor a cloak. It is an example of virtual hosting with a very smart host. The confusing issue is that the host, Yahoo, offers an alternate path to the domain through their own domain as well. But that is irrelevent.
TAC
So I did a whois for babyclassroom.com
The technical contact and name server are listed as yahoo.
This is not a redirect issue, this is a virtual hosting issue. Anyone who has set up a Windows or Unix server knows that it is perfectly reasonable, if not responsible in these days of diminishing IP addresses, to have multiple domains resolve to the same server using a single IP address. The server reads the HTTP header, and uses that to determine which account to use, instead of using an IP address to make the determination. It's becoming more and more the standard in virtual hosting (again, because IP addresses are a limited commodity). In this arrangement, the URL in the browser address bar continuously reflects the full path to the current page, including the account domain name (babyclassroom.com in this case). The fact that yahoo offers an alternate path to this account through the Yahoo domain is irrelevant. A hostpro account with a shopping cart would work the same way, except they don't offer an alternate path.
Redirects (from the ODP guidelines page)
"A redirect URL points to a page that will redirect your browser to a completely different URL. An automatic redirect will immediately redirect your browser if you click on the URL, or type the URL in your browser's address bar. Sometimes you may come across a redirect page. Redirect pages area sometimes set up when site is moved to a new URL. You should never add automatic redirects or redirect page links to the directory."
My additional 2 cents: A Redirect is when a site has a single page that when loaded includes a command to the browser to reload another page without user interaction. The browser actually goes to the new page, or as is often the case, a new domain. The typical use for this is when an owner has multiple domains names and wants a simple way to "point" them all at the same individual domain. The give away here is that you see the new address in the browser address bar. A more benign use is when a site is designed such that the default home page is not index.* or default.* or the owner wants to place their default page in a lower directory, but within the same domain. Of course the better way to do this is by configuring the server to use the preferred file name as a default for the domain, but that may not always be practical.
There is a strong argument not to list a redirect to a different domain, but the argument that ODP should list a specific page in a deeper directory instead the the domain address for a web site would not be very strong. That would result in users getting 404 errors should the owner ever change their internal structures.
And what about cloaking - the claim here. Cloaking is almost always accomplished via a silent frame. As the novice user clicks away in their browser window, they never see the real URL in their browser address bar. In fact, this is the give-away. The address never changes to reflect the actual file loaded - because the framing window itself never changes. This is the example given in the editor page:
"If URL cloaking is being used, the target page will be displayed in a full size frame, so that the redirect URL is kept in the browser's address bar and the real URL of the displayed page remains invisible. Cloaked URLs are sometimes called "vanity URLs." Some well known vanity URLs include: come.to, welcome.to, go.to, surf.to, listen.to, fly.to, move.to, jump.to, run.to, and talk.to.
Example: Go to http://www.welcome.to/Boomers_from_Mars . Right click on a frame, and open it in a new window. The URL resolves to a different URL. The real URL being cloaked is http://www.geocities.com/boomers_from_mars "
The extra javascript code that was referenced as proof that babyclassroom was some sort of redirect actually appears to be yahoo's way of forcing a pop-up to trigger referral tracking. It's not a redirect of the page itself - the HTML that goes to the browser is all contained in the index.html file.
Babyclassroom is neither a redirect nor a cloak. It is an example of virtual hosting with a very smart host. The confusing issue is that the host, Yahoo, offers an alternate path to the domain through their own domain as well. But that is irrelevent.
TAC
donaldb
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 5,146
Re: URL Rejected?
I think that this question has been answered. See hutcheson's post:
We know you won't like that, and we know that some of you have good reasons for preferring a different approach -- hey, some of the redirector-users are editors, too, and their side of the issue has been well-represented in our internal discussions -- but, sorry, we think we need to do it this way.
And this has nothing to do with being a commerce site. All web sites and URLs are treated the same way regardless of the content of the site.
I think that this question has been answered. See hutcheson's post:
We know you won't like that, and we know that some of you have good reasons for preferring a different approach -- hey, some of the redirector-users are editors, too, and their side of the issue has been well-represented in our internal discussions -- but, sorry, we think we need to do it this way.
And this has nothing to do with being a commerce site. All web sites and URLs are treated the same way regardless of the content of the site.
Re: URL Rejected?
What happened to the 7 or more posts that were after the donaldb post at 19/11/02 09:08 AM?
What happened to the 7 or more posts that were after the donaldb post at 19/11/02 09:08 AM?
T
tac2502
Re: URL Rejected?
Wirth25 noted:
What happened to the 7 or more posts that were after the donaldb post at 19/11/02 09:08 AM?
Also of note is that my earlier post was cut back a bit; parts that supported some of the later posts that were removed.
All-in-all, the Gods have spoken. Yahoo stores, and most likely any other shopping carts that are hosted and accessible through a parent domain, are probably going to be listed as deep links from the parent domain, not through the virtual-host domain. As per tradition, asking, pleading, whining, and arguing otherwise will not change the ODP editors' stance.
"Ours is not to ask why, ours is simply to do or die."
(My mother always said this when I questioned why we had to do something that didn't make sense to me. I'm not sure of its real origin, but I remember that it was always a clear signal to stop arguing and just accept it.)
Wirth25 noted:
What happened to the 7 or more posts that were after the donaldb post at 19/11/02 09:08 AM?
Also of note is that my earlier post was cut back a bit; parts that supported some of the later posts that were removed.
All-in-all, the Gods have spoken. Yahoo stores, and most likely any other shopping carts that are hosted and accessible through a parent domain, are probably going to be listed as deep links from the parent domain, not through the virtual-host domain. As per tradition, asking, pleading, whining, and arguing otherwise will not change the ODP editors' stance.
"Ours is not to ask why, ours is simply to do or die."
(My mother always said this when I questioned why we had to do something that didn't make sense to me. I'm not sure of its real origin, but I remember that it was always a clear signal to stop arguing and just accept it.)
Re: URL Rejected?
The original version was "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die", and it was written by Alfred, Lord Tennyson in his poem 'Charge of the Light Brigade'. Strangely, almost everyone that re-uses the words changes them to 'do *or* die', in an attempt to suggest punishment rather than bravery.
The original version was "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die", and it was written by Alfred, Lord Tennyson in his poem 'Charge of the Light Brigade'. Strangely, almost everyone that re-uses the words changes them to 'do *or* die', in an attempt to suggest punishment rather than bravery.
T
tac2502
Re: URL Rejected?
Thanks for the correction. I always thought the "do OR die" wasn't appropriate for leading troops into battle - "do AND die" makes much more sense. Perhaps the "or" was simply an implied threat from my mother <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />
(If I was more cultured I would have known the origin of the quote, but instead of the old world masters, I grew up reading Asimov and Clark.)
TAC
Thanks for the correction. I always thought the "do OR die" wasn't appropriate for leading troops into battle - "do AND die" makes much more sense. Perhaps the "or" was simply an implied threat from my mother <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />
(If I was more cultured I would have known the origin of the quote, but instead of the old world masters, I grew up reading Asimov and Clark.)
TAC
Re: URL Rejected?
Perhaps because 7 consecutive posts by the same person was interpreted as an attempt to spam the forum?
Clear, concise, on topic posts will probably not be deleted, but ones moderators/administrator perceive as 'rants' and the like will probably be deleted. (Disclaimer: I'm not a moderator/administrator of this forum).
Once a decision has been made and agreed by editors in our own internal forums - then that is how the editors will work. If the editors decide that sites hosted on Yahoo! Stores will have the Yahoo! Stores URL (despite them having 'redirects'/'masked' domains and the like) listed - then that is how it is going to be. Yes, we are open to rational debate: but it's gotta be good and extremely convincing - to and from an editors point of view. If we can't see a d--n good reason for changing the status quo, then it won't be changed (as it'll involve thousands of editors changing the way they currently work).
Perhaps because 7 consecutive posts by the same person was interpreted as an attempt to spam the forum?
Clear, concise, on topic posts will probably not be deleted, but ones moderators/administrator perceive as 'rants' and the like will probably be deleted. (Disclaimer: I'm not a moderator/administrator of this forum).
Once a decision has been made and agreed by editors in our own internal forums - then that is how the editors will work. If the editors decide that sites hosted on Yahoo! Stores will have the Yahoo! Stores URL (despite them having 'redirects'/'masked' domains and the like) listed - then that is how it is going to be. Yes, we are open to rational debate: but it's gotta be good and extremely convincing - to and from an editors point of view. If we can't see a d--n good reason for changing the status quo, then it won't be changed (as it'll involve thousands of editors changing the way they currently work).
bostonscott
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 4
Yahoo Store Linking
Hello,
I wanted to see if it would be possible to understand the qualitative reasons for indexing the "store.yahoo.com/xxxxx" instead of www.site.com besides the technical ones clearly stated above. I'm having trouble seeing that side, and I’m hoping you can help me with that.
I guess my position would be that there are a lot of Yahoo Stores. Probably at least 60,000 active ones. Many of these Yahoo Stores promote themselves as www.StoreName.com, rather than store.yahoo.com/xxxxxx, and don’t maintain any public association with the Yahoo network. I'm having trouble finding principled reasons why user experience would somehow be jeopardized by linking to www.StoreName.com versus the version that you link to. So that would be one question… what impact does user experience have, if any, on your rules, and to making exceptions for issues like this one?
I can understand why, as a matter of policy, you would link to the "redirected to" URL, but since there are so many Yahoo Stores, and since there is no threat to user experience or reliability of results (that I have been exposed to)... it would seem to me that making an exception to the rule would be both possible, and a reasonable request.
If you could please help me understand the principles behind the rules, I would appreciate it. It would be easier to make a case for changing how Yahoo Stores are indexed if I understood the criteria that would be used to make the decision.
Scott
Hello,
I wanted to see if it would be possible to understand the qualitative reasons for indexing the "store.yahoo.com/xxxxx" instead of www.site.com besides the technical ones clearly stated above. I'm having trouble seeing that side, and I’m hoping you can help me with that.
I guess my position would be that there are a lot of Yahoo Stores. Probably at least 60,000 active ones. Many of these Yahoo Stores promote themselves as www.StoreName.com, rather than store.yahoo.com/xxxxxx, and don’t maintain any public association with the Yahoo network. I'm having trouble finding principled reasons why user experience would somehow be jeopardized by linking to www.StoreName.com versus the version that you link to. So that would be one question… what impact does user experience have, if any, on your rules, and to making exceptions for issues like this one?
I can understand why, as a matter of policy, you would link to the "redirected to" URL, but since there are so many Yahoo Stores, and since there is no threat to user experience or reliability of results (that I have been exposed to)... it would seem to me that making an exception to the rule would be both possible, and a reasonable request.
If you could please help me understand the principles behind the rules, I would appreciate it. It would be easier to make a case for changing how Yahoo Stores are indexed if I understood the criteria that would be used to make the decision.
Scott
beebware said:
How can "we" tell whether www.StoreName1.com, www.StoreNameInCalifornia.com, www.StoreNameForDummies.com all link to the same http://store.yahoo.com/xxxxx unless we use the latter in the directory?
(And I'm not saying that the store owner would necessarily be the one to suggest the sites -- which would be spamming -- satisfied customers might also suggest the sites.)
I'm also not saying this is the only problem with listing redirectors -- but it's one of the more important ones.
(And I'm not saying that the store owner would necessarily be the one to suggest the sites -- which would be spamming -- satisfied customers might also suggest the sites.)
I'm also not saying this is the only problem with listing redirectors -- but it's one of the more important ones.
bostonscott
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 4
Re
That's a good point, it helps me to understand the reason behind the redirect rule.
It raises the question of how you handle the same issue of when multiple domain names managed on the same name server point to the same website (a regular site, not a yahoo store). A redirect is easy to detect, but as you probably know, on any server it is easy to present the same exact website through multiple domains without any redirects.
Can you offer some insight in to how you address those same issues on typical, non yahoo websites?
That's a good point, it helps me to understand the reason behind the redirect rule.
It raises the question of how you handle the same issue of when multiple domain names managed on the same name server point to the same website (a regular site, not a yahoo store). A redirect is easy to detect, but as you probably know, on any server it is easy to present the same exact website through multiple domains without any redirects.
Can you offer some insight in to how you address those same issues on typical, non yahoo websites?
arubin said: