What do Bing and Yahoo look for in a site?
-
Do Bing and Yahoo look for authoritative sites like google does? Do they punish sites for black hat or spamming?
The reason I ask these questions is because one of my competitors was ranking in first place for many great keywords in Google, they have the highest authority out of all of their competitors. They must have been punished by Google because now they are not ranking for any great keywords in Google. However they are ranking 1st in Bing and Yahoo for most the top keywords, getting the the most visibility out of all the sites.
I attached a small Graph with latest visibility for the sites with the top keywords from google and then I also included the company that was punished from google they are the green circles on the graph.
-
I think TEST is the keyword when Duane is talking about the index. Further down the page it makes it quite clear they will kick it back out again its no good.
“If the users love it, it stays. If the users don’t like it, it gets dropped. This is a way to determine if the users feel this was a quality result.”
Duane has said many times that they will not be indexing everything; they only want your best pages.
"Rand: Right, yeah. I was going to say, and Bing has been pretty good about
penalizing a lot of the links that look manipulative on the Web
too.Duane: Yeah. It's a natural part of keeping things clean, right?
At Bing, we are very keen on having a quality driven index. So, the main focus
we have is making sure that everything that gets in is a good resource, when
someone makes a query they get a realistic answer that is actually an answer to
their query. Not, here's some shallow depth data. I'm going to click on it, and
then oh, it's not really what I want. I go back and I try it again. We're trying
to shorten that number of searches to get to the final answer."Duane: Right, exactly. I love this idea, Rand, this whole pick your top 200, whatever the number happens to be for you, pick it and run with it. You don't need everything indexed. Pick your best stuff and make sure that's in there. Make sure your quality content is in there, right? Be sure that you look at the site and say, "What's the goal of this page? Is it to monetize ads? Is it to convert somehow? What is the goal of it? Is it optimized properly to do that? If it is, I want that indexed in the search engine ranking well."
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/bings-duane-forrester-on-webmaster-tools-metrics-and-sitemap-quality-thresholdsThat’s good news about the Social media, because every thing I build seems to rank high in Bing, with no social media. I guess that’s something I can fall back on, if rankings start to slip.
-
Here are some interesting insights from Duane Forrester, who is a senior product manager at Bing.
http://www.stonetemple.com/search-algorithms-and-bing-webmaster-tools-with-duane-forrester/
Two of the biggest things of interest are:
- The huge weight placed by Bing on user interaction with the search results as a ranking factor. This was amazing stuff. Basically, Bing is willing to test any page by indexing it. In fact you can pretty much directly inject any URL you want into their search results using the Submit URL feature of Bing Webmaster Tools. Then they will test it, and if the click interaction data is bad, out (or down) you go.
- The ranking of the priorities for publishers in Duane’s eyes. #1 Content #2 Social Media #3 Links. Links were rated as the third most important area. Third.
The article is very easy to read, with the highlights put in front. This is recent information from a couple of months ago.
-
Very interesting. I never knew that.
And wow, that's the oldschool Yahoo design. Haven't seen that look since viewing Yahoo.com in the WayBack machine..
-
Yahoo uses Google in Japan (not that you, or anyone really cares).
-
A large difference I've noticed with Bing vs Google in the years has been that Google is more inclined to index and place a site within the SERP's much quicker, basically giving a new site 'the benefit of the doubt'; however, that site must maintain a good standing throughout the course of the 'sandbox' period to ensure they don't drop off the map after a year or two.
Bing seems to show preference towards domains that are aged. Their search index, at least at one point; I'm sure they're working to update, or might have even done so already, doesn't seem to be as fresh as Google's, which has its advantages as well.
With Google, you'll often find many new sites at the top of the SERP's for any given search on a non-highly-competitive search term. Just Google's way of getting more information to the masses whether it's a scraped site of not (unfortunately, I'm still finding scraped sites in the index). Where Bing seems to have sites that are tried and true.
Just my observations over the years. However, it's been a while since I've really paid a whole lot of attention to this.
-
From what I have read and my own experiences, Bing is lot more fussy on what they index, its lot harder to get in the index,
I have found that Bing also likes clean code free from all violations. your site needs to be able to be crawled easily.
Bing is also quick to lose trust if you misuse things such as redirects, canonicals and sitemaps. Duane Forrester told me in regard to sitemaps that they will lose trust in your site map if your lastmod dates are not accurate, if you have any 404’s in it; they only want 200 status pages. You not only should have a sitemap. You should keep it up to date they have no intention of indexing everything that Google does.I have also got sites to well in Bing with no or few links, for pretty good keywords, so i dont think they rely on links so much.
-
Well, to begin, Yahoo search is now run off the Bing algorithm (algo). So while there may still be a "Yahoo Slurp" crawler out there, it's based on a different algo than once before. Bing now completely runs Yahoo search.
Search engines have their own algorithms. There is no specific algo that they all must adhere to. So while rankings for your site might go up in one engine, they might very well go down in another (or not move at all).
And I can assume Bing watches for black-hat SEO tactics, although I don't have any physical data to back that up. But it's safe to say they do.
Huge mistake website owners make is to optimize their sites for Google only. Google only makes up 65% (?) of the search market, so by optimizing for Google, and Google alone, you're cutting off a potential 35% of traffic.
There is a ton of forums, documentation, webmaster tools for Bing, just as there is Google, so you need to put in that extra effort to see what makes a site rank well in Bing.
As long as you stick to the fundamentals, ie. proper internal link structure, attain solid/safe, relevant backlinks to your site, use your Webmaster tools (and SEOmoz ;)) to make sure site errors and such are taken care of, and get your HTML error free with proper H1-H6 tags (where applicable)/title tags, meta tags, etc., then, and only then, should you start tweaking your site for direct optimization for each engine.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Is this campaign of spammy links to non-existent pages damaging my site?
My site is built in Wordpress. Somebody has built spammy pharma links to hundreds of non-existent pages. I don't know whether this was inspired by malice or an attempt to inject spammy content. Many of the non-existent pages have the suffix .pptx. These now all return 403s. Example: https://www.101holidays.co.uk/tazalis-10mg.pptx A smaller number of spammy links point to regular non-existent URLs (not ending in .pptx). These are given 302s by Wordpress to my homepage. I've disavowed all domains linking to these URLs. I have not had a manual action or seen a dramatic fall in Google rankings or traffic. The campaign of spammy links appears to be historical and not ongoing. Questions: 1. Do you think these links could be damaging search performance? If so, what can be done? Disavowing each linking domain would be a huge task. 2. Is 403 the best response? Would 404 be better? 3. Any other thoughts or suggestions? Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this question. Mark
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MarkHodson0 -
Site build in the 80% of canonical URLs - What is the impact on visibility?
Hey Everyone, I represent international wall decorations store where customer can freely choose a pattern to be printed on a given material among a few milions of patterns. Due to extreme large number of potential URL combinations we struggle with too many URL adressess for a months now (search console notifications). So we finally decided to reduce amount of products with canonical tag. Basing on users behavior, our business needs and monthly search volume data we selected 8 most representative out of 40 product categories and made them canonical toward the rest. For example: If we chose 'Canvas prints' as our main product category, then every 'Framed canvas' product URL points rel=canonical tag toward its equivalent URL within 'Canvas prints' category. We applied the same logic to other categories (so "Vinyl wall mural - Wild horses running" URL points rel=canonical tag to "Wall mural - Wild horses running" URL, etc). In terms of Googlebot interpretation, there are really tiny differences between those Product URLs, so merging them with rel=canonical seems like a valid use. But we need to keep those canonicalised URLs for users needs, so we can`t remove them from a store as well as noindex does not seem like an good option. However we`re concerned about our SEO visibility - if we make those changes, our site will consist of ~80% canonical URLs (47,5/60 millions). Regarding your experience, do you have advices how should we handle that issue? Regards
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | _JediMindBender
JMB0 -
Ecommerce sites we own have similar products, is this OK?
Hello, In one of our niches, we have a big site with all products and a couple more sites that are smaller niches of the same niche. The product descriptions are different with different product names. Is this OK. We've got one big site and 2 smaller subsides in different niches that cross over with the big site. Let me know if Google is OK with this. We will have a separate blog for each with completely different content. There's not really duplicate content issues and although only the big site has a blog right now, the small ones eventually will have their own unique blog. Is this OK in Google's eyes now and in the future? What can we do to ensure we are OK? Thank you.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW1 -
How to gain links to this site
Hello, How would you suggest I gain backlinks for bobweikel.com in light of all present and future Google updates? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW0 -
How should I use the 2nd link if a site allows 2 in the body of a guest post?
I've been doing some guest posting, and some sites allow one link, others allow more. I'm worried I might be getting too many guest posts with multiple links. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the following: 1. If there are 50+ guest posts going to my website (posted over the span of several months), each with 2 links pointing back only to my site is that too much of a pattern? How would you use the 2nd link in a guest post if not to link to your own site? 2. Does linking to .edu or .gov in the guest post make the post more valuable in terms of SEO? Some people recommend using the 2nd link to do this. Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | pbhatt0 -
The purpose of these Algo updates: To more harshly push eCommerce sites toward PPC and enable normal blogs/forums toward reclaiming organic search positions?
Hi everyone, This is my first post here, and absolutely loving the site and the services. Just a quick background, I have dabbled in SEO in the past, and have been reading up over the last few months and am amazed at the speed at which things are changing. I currently have a few clients that I am doing some SEO work for 2 of them, and have had an ecommerce site enquire about SEO services. They are a medium sized oak furniture ecommerce site. From all the major changes..the devaluing of spam links, link networks, penalization of overuse of exact match anchor text and the overall encouraging of earned links (often via content marketing) over built links, adding to this the (not provided) section in Google Analytics, and the increasing screen real estate that PPC is getting over organic search...all points to me thinking on major thing..... That the search engine is trying to push eCommerce sites and sites that sell stuff harder toward using PPC and paid advertising and allowing the blogs/forums and informational sites to more easily reclaim the organic part of the search results again. The above is elaborated on a bit more below.. POINT 1 Firstly as built links (article submission, press releases, info graphic submission, web 2.0 link building ect) rapidly lose their effectiveness, and as Google starts to place more emphasis on sites earning links instead - by producing amazing interesting and unique content that people want to link to. The fact remains that surely Google is aware that it is much harder for eCommerce sites to produce a constant stream of interesting link worthy content around their niche (especially if its a niche that not an awful lot could be written about). Although earning links is not impossible for eCommerce sites, for a lot of them it is more difficult because creating link worthy content is not what eCommerce sites were originally intended for. Whereas standard blogs and forums were built for that exact purpose. Therefore the search engines must know that it is a lot easier for normal blogs/forums to "earn" links through content, therefore leading to them reclaiming more of the organic search ranking for transaction and non transaction terms, and therefore forcing the eCommerce sites to adopt PPC more heavily. POINT 2 If we add to the mix the fact that for the terms most relevant to eCommerce sites, the search engine results page has a larger allocation of PPC ads than organic results (above the fold), and that Google has limited the amount of data that sites can see in terms of which keywords people are using to arrive on their sites, which effects eCommerce sites more - as it makes it harder for them to see which keywords are resulting in sales. Then this provides further evidence that Google is trying to back eCommerce sites into a corner by making it more difficult for them to make sense of and track sales from organic results in comparison to with PPC, where data is still plentiful. Conclusion Are the above just over exaggerations? Can most eCommerce sites still keep achieving a good percentage of sales from organic search despite the above? if so, what do the more niche eCommerce sites do to "earn" links when content topics are thin and unique outreach destinations can be exhausted quickly. Do they accept the fact that the are in the business of selling things, so should be paying for their traffic as opposed to normal blogs/forums which are not. Or is there still a place for them to get even more creative with content and acquire earned links..? And finally, is the concentration on earned links more overplayed than it actually is? Id really appreciate your thoughts on this..
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | sanj50500 -
Can someone explain how a site with no DA, links or MozTrust, MozRank can rank #1 in the SERPs?
I do SEO for a legal site in the UK and one of the keywords I'm targeting is 'Criminal Defence Solicitors'. If you search this term in Google.co.uk this site comes top www.cdsolicitors.co.uk, yet in my mozbar it has 0 links, 0 DA etc, I noticed it top a few weeks ago and thought something spammy was going on; I thought if I was patient, Google would remove it, however it still hasn't. Can someone explain how it is top in the SERPs? I've never seen this before. thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TobiasM0 -
Is someone trying to sabotage my site?
I think I may have a problem with someone trying to get me in trouble for paid links. If you look at the following websites, scroll to the bottom and look at the featured links area. There is a link to my website with my keyword on all of them. mercurynews.com contracostatimes.com twincities.com insidebayarea.com marinij.com Now I see a lot of the same links here which leads me to believe these sites are all owned by the same group. Also, 4 of the 5 are Bay Area news sites. The question I have is, are these links hurting me? I did not buy these and did nothing to put them there. I asked the previous owner of the domain who I am in touch with. He is the only other person to own it and he never purchased those links. My guess is a competitor is targeting me perhaps? Just wondering on everyone's take on this. I really can't afford to be getting hit by these potentially penalizing links right now, not when the busy season is starting up. Should I try to get them removed? Does anyone have experience with this or know how it might have happened?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | DanDeceuster0