Several of you have asked how the order of groups is determined when someone searches (or browses) for a group within the Groups Search Directory, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to explain.
The order is based on a combination of factors that includes the number of members, the frequency of activity, and whether or not the group moderates messages or members. To prevent gaming of the system we can’t divulge the exact algorithm (just as search engines can’t tell you exactly how they rank results), but all of these elements play a role and may explain the fluctuations that some of you have reported.
Our ultimate goal is to serve up the highest quality Groups based on the topic or keyword being searched. If you feel that our algorithm isn’t performing well, we’d love for you to share examples of searches or categories that aren’t providing the best results first, so that we can work to improve the algorithm over time.
Thanks!
Jami
Groups Community Manager
P.S. Just to be clear, we see moderation as a positive not a negative.
P.S.S We don’t rank groups overall, just related to particular searches or categories. To see how your group ranks, go to http://www.groups.yahoo.com and type a search term related to your group.
nancy wright said,
July 7, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
so what is the ranking of my group
elvis-the-flaming-star
yolanda said,
July 7, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
Okay and where do you go to see what your group is ranking??
Anne Lake said,
July 7, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
I appriciate your help. I am trying to put into action your suggestions. Thank you
Anne Lake said,
July 7, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Where do you go to see what your group is ranking?
Antonio De Vido said,
July 7, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
What is the effect of a moderator on the ranking?
Antonio
EDWARD SCHWARZMANN said,
July 7, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Hi Jami,
Correct me if I misunderstood, but it looks like a group with 100,000 members but only one post per month will rank lower than a group with 100 members and 25 posts per month, (numbers exaggerated) right?
Geneva Coats said,
July 7, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
Bouncing members should be subtracted from your equation.
Our PomForum group has a low rating despite high activity and many members. It can only be due to the fact that the list is completely moderated,this must be a negative in your estimation. I think this is unfair, we moderate to keep the peace, to trim to to make digest format more easily readable, and to reduce spam content. Our members love it! Although it is a lot of work for the moderators. Also, more messages do not equal more quality, some lists are 100% chit-chat.
Why not do a survey of the best lists in different catefories? That at least might be more fair.
Here is my main list, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PomForum
If you search under Pomeranian(s) we don’t rank well any more.
So please rethink how you do your rankings.
Best wishes,
Geneva
owner of PomForum and several others….
wayne said,
July 7, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
The ranking was for a long time the amount of members in a group. Is there still a way to check your group on number of members only.
Administrator said,
July 7, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
To see how your group ranks within your category, click on the Groups Search Directory link in my post or go to http://www.groups.yahoo.com and type in your group name or topic or keywords in your group description.
- Jami
Valerie said,
July 7, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
I’ve also noticed that if the first letter of the first word is capitalized rather than lower case, the group moves up higher.
Geneva Coats said,
July 7, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
I see groups ranked highly in our category that are unmoderated, with 1/5 the membership of ours, some others that have practically NO activity (I know because I belong to them). So to me your system is not working. Geneva
Gordon said,
July 7, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
If you think the system isn’t working as it should, please let us know the specific search term or category where the results are off so that we know where to investigate. Thanks!
- Gordon
Yahoo! Groups Team
Bill Murdoch said,
July 7, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
I did what you said, typed in AllTurquoise and search and the number it came up with is 1. If we’re number 1 I guess that’s great. We only have a little over 100 members but there are probably an average of 25 to 30 posts each day, sometimes as much as 50 or more.
FRED STEVENS K2FRD said,
July 7, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
For a long time up until about a month ago, I used my Buddipole Users Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddipole/ group’s ranking in the “Amateur and Ham Radio” (a redundancy, BTW) category of the Directory http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/1600063108?st=0 as a measure of our success or to indicate potential growth problems. We were #16 by membership (now at 4004 members), moving up the ranks as our popularity and success increased. This all changed when Yahoo changed the ranking system. Now, I have no idea whatsoever where we stand. To me, the listings not only appear completely randomized but are meaningless to someone looking for an antenna group. Further, at least in the Amateur Radio category, we drew a number of new members from the directory since we are easily the largest ham radio antenna group. Now, we have lost that source of growth; this loss is statistically measurable.
Please put it back the way it was.
Fred K2FRD
bekalex said,
July 7, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
I can’t even find my group! The All-Nonfiction group. Category “Reading Groups.”
We have 343 members and have had lots and lots of regular posts every monty since 1999. We are a very ongoing group (moderation and all).
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/All_Nonfiction/
I checked back through the “Reading Groups” list that turned up from the search = to number 500+ where there were few members and few postings - no All-Nonfiction group. I ran a search for (specifically, because it’s the group name) “All-Nonfiction” - and it finally turned up at number 50 out of 279. Number 1 there is Stephen King with 5000+ members but very few posts. This is not really comprehensible to me.
John Barree said,
July 7, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
Just let the algorithm bring up my group at the top when a search for “golf Texas” or “Texas golf” is done. lol
Chrissy said,
July 7, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
Jami,thanks for explaining how it works.I have noticed that some groups with say 100 members is higher then those with 800.I like how fast a group update shows up but I think it would be better if you kept the order for groups with higher numbers and just show that the group updated their groups.3 out of my groups are moderated and I have noticed it takes 24 hours for my group to be “ranked” I think thats not fair.
I also agree with what Geneva Coats said about bouncing members and about reducing spam and like they said my members like that we keep out spam and control flooding mail boxes.I have worked hard to keep my groups “spam free” and make a high quality group.
Luccha said,
July 7, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
I liked the earlier format of ranking i.e. based on group members. It always motivated me to have more group members. Now when I see a group with around 200 members ranked above the one with 20000 members, it pisses me off. I think you should change it back to based on highest members or create a directry like googlegroups in which you can easily browse groups with reference to membership levels
Raj said,
July 7, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Does not seem to do justice, I run a high quality group with good activity but some smaller groups with far lower activity is ranked higher. The earlier system was better! Weight must be given to members number + approval required factor + moderation + message posts.
Dawn said,
July 7, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
Question.
Why when you do a group search, there is one group, listed multiple times under that particular group type. And it will have several different rankings. I’ve noticed this alot mainly among PSP(paint shop pro), graphics or tags(as in signature tags made using PSP).
Dawn
Charmaine Voisine said,
July 7, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Nancy your group rates #1 - I checked!
Stephanie Stevens said,
July 7, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Hi Jami,
Thanks for the update, some of substance of which you should pass along to all Yahoo Groups members.
Stephanie
Owner/Moderator, Transgender News, TNUKdigest, etc.
Tom said,
July 7, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
It seems to me that activity should be the chief consideration, an indication of how members are enjoying and using a group. A group with 100,000 members and few messages is one whose list is well padded. A group with a few members and lots of activity (messages, files, links and photos, included, as well as messages), in my estimation, is a successful group. It simply means that its members are making use of the facilities.
Of course it depends on the type of group and I’m referring to those based on conversation. A conversational group must have conversation, must it not? So please don’t chastise me if yours is not a conversationally oriented group.
Tom
Cyndi said,
July 7, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
Wow, I was wondering.
When I 1st had a group, I wanted to give it a name that would be seen 1st, so I gave it a name that was close to the beginning of the alphabet.
Later, I realized in my searches that this didn”t matter.
Now, all this makes sense: for it is rather by popularity: as to what is listed 1st.
Allan said,
July 7, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
I think that amateur radio should be under the catagory of communicatios as well as hobby, reason amateur radio is widely used for emergancy communications beside a hobby and is controled by the F.C.C. and Backing of the A.R.R.L. If this can not be done by listing under two catagorys then list it under communicatios.
D C Rose said,
July 7, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
Don’t rank just by membership numbers. Some unmoderated sites have high membership numbers, most of them bogus and bouncing, and no activity except spammers advertising curious services.
Can there be a record of hits on the goup even when these are not followed by applications for membership?
Stefan said,
July 8, 2008 @ 1:00 am
I’m the founder of “Forum Wissenschaft”, a german science group. My group is the most active in its category and has the most members.
Since the beginning of Yahoo Groups Germany it was always Number 1 in its category.
Why is it now only number 23?
Why are a lot of ENTIRELY DEAD groups (1 member, no messages for years!) before mine??
This is contrary to the ranking criteria stated in this blog entry.
With such a bad listing for my group I can’t find new members and the group will die.
Stefan
marion barnett said,
July 8, 2008 @ 2:37 am
I think this is an interesting article, in that it defines ‘best’ groups as ‘heavy traffic’ groups. I run a small, relatively quiet list, which many of its members see as the ‘best’ that they belong to precisely because it isn’t heavy in traffic, or tremendously high in membership, but it does stick to the theme of the list, and doesn’t have a lot of extraneous chatter. To me, that’s perfect. But then, of course, I don’t particularly care who ranks higher or lower than me; I’d rather have a good conversation with like minded individuals.
Dave said,
July 8, 2008 @ 3:43 am
Have enjoyed reading comments and find some to be very helpfull, HAVE A WONDERFULLY PLEASENT DAY
RS said,
July 8, 2008 @ 6:33 am
I’d really REALLY like to be able to filter my search results by statistics like activity level, moderation status, membership size, etc. With random results, its much harder to find what I am looking for. I hope to see refinements in your search feature someday.
Robyn Phillips said,
July 8, 2008 @ 7:02 am
This new system stinks. I have 22,000 members and never show up in the top 10 any more. Actually I have been ranked 2nd for some time in my groups lisitngs.Hobbies Crafts > Crafts > Needlecrafts > Embroidery
I have 1-2 postings a week.. People love my group as there is no posting, but the value of belonging to my group is great in my catagory. I give free samples of my work weekly. They can try my designs before purchasing.
As this was a way for me to advertise it is now useless for me
I need to be shown at the top again as a valued group. Now I will never show up near the top.
Please go back to the old way.. So many of us use this as a news letter not a chatting group and using postings in the algorithm does not make sense. for Yahoo or for us
Robyn Phillips Owner of Skeldale House
http://www.skeldalehouse.com/
ACEY said,
July 8, 2008 @ 7:28 am
What is this need for human beings to be #1. As long as you are doing something you love and able to share it with others, that is all that should matter. Right?
Cheri Alexander said,
July 8, 2008 @ 7:34 am
This group isn’t listed it seems nor is my /group/cheristravelites. Any suggestions?
Cheri
Cathy said,
July 8, 2008 @ 9:02 am
My group is listed as 20th. I have 226 members in my group, and we’ve had anywhere between 65 and 409 messages each month for the past year, yet the number 1 group in my category has over 2300 members and has had no more than 4 messages per month since January and prior to that it had NO messages for 10 months! All the groups listed ahead of my group have at least 1000 members. It seems to me that this ranking was done only by number of members, NOT by activity.
Smooth said,
July 8, 2008 @ 9:32 am
my group doesn’t even show up.
Doug said,
July 8, 2008 @ 10:03 am
I searched my group by group name and of course was the only group listed, so how could you tell were it’s ranked??
Duane Lawrence said,
July 8, 2008 @ 10:18 am
When I do a search for “php”, I get a list of user groups that are bigger than my group but have nothing to do with php web pages. They have web page names in them like this “somename.php” and the php will be bolded.
Cathy said,
July 8, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Doug,
Do a search by the Category that your group is in, such as mine was in the category “Morocco”.
Cathy
Duane Lawrence said,
July 8, 2008 @ 10:39 am
Another topic. Does Yahoo groups have the ability to revenue share a sponsor for a group? IE I (the group owner) find a sponsor, the sponsor goes to yahoo groups and agrees to pay X USD per month, then yahoo collects every month and then sends the list owner a cut of the revenue.
?
doctor_aet said,
July 8, 2008 @ 11:07 am
At least I’m not satisfied as I was number one when searched as plain Pfaff but now I’m something like 15th. Hows that?
Loren Jensen Carter said,
July 8, 2008 @ 11:15 am
HI! I just checked our ranking for canine freestyle and was confused to see that most of the ones listed before us are smaller and much less active than Sonorancaninefreestylers. It was confusing that Front and Finish would be listed first, when they rarely mention freestyle. The other three listed above us are smaller and less active than we are, so I am unclear why they are listed before ours. Could you help to clarify this for me? Thanks! Wags, Loren
jonathon said,
July 8, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
I just took a look at the groups in the keyword(s) I moderate.
First group has 2342 members, but no posts since February.
Second group has 6703 members with 63 posts in the last seven days.
Third group has 1275 members, with 1 message in the last seven days.
Thinking that maybe new members affects things, there are 5, 16, and 6 respectively.
Maybe total messages affects things: 780, 16328, and 1222,respectively.
Maybe age affects things: Jan 2003, Dec 2003, and Feb 2004, respectively.
Group # 4 has 3416 members, 34 messages in the last 7 days, 27 new members in the last week, 1813 messages, and a march 2006 start date.
Group # 5 has 1306 members, 1 message in the last 7 days, 9 new members in the last seven days, 1062 messages and a december 2004 start date.
Here is where things get interesting. Using a slightly different keyword search, those same five lists appear in the top five, but in a different order! #6 on one search is # 9 on the other search. (On the second search, lists 6, 7, and 8 have nothing to do with the keyword that is searched for. Roughly three quarters of the hits on the second keyword are _not_ related to the keyword.)
#7 on the first search is #11 on the second search. #10 on the second search should be, but isn’t found using the first keyword search.
#10 on the first is # 20 on the second.
# 9 on the first is # 23 on the second.
# 8 on the first is # 21 on the second
If the algorithm was reliable, both search terms would list the groups in the same order.
OTOH, if keyword search was both reliable, and consistent, it wouldn’t produce a result where roughly three quarters of the lists neither contained the keyword that was searched for, nor had anything to do with the topic that was searched for.
xan
jonathon
Cher said,
July 8, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
I have three groups, BIRDWISE Avian List, BIRDWIZE Avian List and LIneolatedParakeetList or Group.
I am unable on Vista to copy and paste URLs…it doesn’t allow it. But it goes soemthing like animals-pets-parrots yet no one can ever ever find us and I don’t have tiem eto belong to alot of other groups anymore to advertise mine. There must be another way to get members> My groups simply do not show up regardless of what we type in tehsearch bar. i loes moer members every day, although we have tons of lurkers…..We ask newmembers to tell us why they wish to join our groups but do not moderate posts. bad behavior doesnt happen and it iw warned tht if it does you are out eg disrespect towards anyone on the groups. How can we make ourselves seen?? Cher owern Moderator
Coly Hope said,
July 8, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
I have a Civil War group called the 20th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment with 266 members and in the past 6 months have been averaging about 200 posts a month (all messages have to be approved as of last week). I have a lot of photos, files, polls and even have tables in the database section and only ranked 20th in the American Civil War. I am not saying that I deserve a higher ranking but I would like to know how to improve my group.
Pat Osborne said,
July 8, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
Anyone with half a brain can make their own judgement about size and activity of a group. Your “rating” system is useless and annoying. Please return to listing the largest groups first so that potential new members can check the activity themselves!
Or at least provide the option to arrange by SIZE or ACTIVITY; Yahoo has no idea (nor any logarithm) how I judge what groups I wish to join.
Thank you!
Nancy said,
July 8, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
The group rankings in Plastic canvas groups has problems
1. Some groups are listed TWICE
2. Some groups are no longer active at all
3. Groups that share patterns should be deleted
4. Many groups with smaller numbers are ranked higher
The old way of ranking by number of members was better
5. Some groups are private and still listed for joining
Nancy said,
July 8, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
Forgot
Some groups accept anyone that applies thus there membership numbers are higher then GOOD Groups.
dat said,
July 8, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
The method you are using to rank groups makes NO sense. I cannot understand your rankings. Please return the ranking back to the way they were!
Here’s a sample - my group is number 18. Below are the number of members, the date group formed, and the number of posts in 2008.
HOW CAN THIS BE? Group 18 clearly has more members than the smaller groups….and certainly has more activity! why am I listed as number 18?
There are other smaller groups above the ones I have listed.
group 14) - 316 - Sep 1999 - (2008) 709 778 712 524 821 648 149
group 15) - 108 - Jul 2006 - (2008) 6 7 38 27 101 47
group 16) - 309 - Apr 2004 - (2008) 355 424 210 405 124 75 40
group 17) - 723 - Jul 2001 - (2008) 584 469 805 1271 636 846 281
group 18) - 690 - Sep 1999 - (2008) 4541 4444 5456 3914 4205 4911 721
dat said,
July 8, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
I think you are punishing the good and active groups by forcing the rank to be different according to whatever system you have decided. This is very unfair to the moderators and group owners who work hard to keep a group active and informative. JMHO
shanmugaraja said,
July 8, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
I appriciate your help. I am trying to put into action your suggestions. Thank you
Pheona said,
July 9, 2008 @ 1:11 am
am a new member how can i get to see and get the people of my group i just don’t get it help.
OldOnliner said,
July 9, 2008 @ 8:42 am
I see complaints coming from a lot of commenter’s that I don’t agree with.
Look… if two groups are about equal I don’t see how you could justify ranking a group where membership requires approval higher than a group that does not require it.
Say I’m looking for a group via search and I get a list by keyword from search. Myself, as the person searching for a group to join, want to get results with groups that are - gasp! - easy to join. Simple.
So… don’t cry about search results when your group requires membership approval. It SHOULD be ranked lower than one that does NOT.
Ron said,
July 10, 2008 @ 6:54 am
I don’t see you applying your own standards. My group has 7700 members, 1000 posts a month, and moderates all messages. Yet a group with 1000 members, 500 posts a months and which does not moderate message is ranked 2 slots higher. We’re ranked #4.
#7 in the same category has 330 members, has had 9 messages this entire year (all spam), and obviously doesn’t moderate messages. #13 in the category has 400 members, averages about 400 messages a month, all meaningful. Those rankings make no sense at all.
The new system makes some sense in that there have always been groups with large numbers of members but virtually no activity, or have been taken over by spammers. But frankly, you’re doing a terrible job with it.
Valerie said,
July 11, 2008 @ 5:54 am
I think Yahoo should take a poll designed for Group Owners and ask the questions related to how they produce their algorithm. Such as:
Which order do you think the statistical features of a Yahoo Group should be counted in Group Rankings?
1. Member Count
2. Message Count (whether by Month and/or Year)
3. Date of Creation
4. Moderated vs. Unmoderated Status
5. Alphabetical Order
6. Keyword Search (given to fluctuations can change the group ranking making it nonsensical)
This is just an idea as I don’t know the magic formula Yahoo uses but wouldn’t it make sense to Poll their Users through Moderator Central?
The consensus could be interesting.
theeladytech said,
July 11, 2008 @ 6:43 am
I have a new group created at the end of May, my messages are not moderated but I have a Blackberry group members have to be approved before joining and there is absolutely NO SPAM in my group. I now have 45 members and we average 100+ posts a day. I started out ranked as number 20 now I’m number 67 behind groups with 5-6 members and no activity. This is absolutely ridiculous! I’m advertising all over the place because Yahoo Search is doing me a great injustice! I am very active in my group and we have quality technical and news related post everyday.
Mark Phillips said,
July 11, 2008 @ 7:58 am
There is something seriously wrong with the new ranking system when I create two beta groups with only me as a member and no activity which out rank my main group which is the most active and has almost five times as many members than the next most popular group in it’s category.
I don’t know what you want me to do to make my group better. I have contests, make free PC wallpaper, upload pictures, movies, add useful links and info, and moderate everything more and better than any group in it’s category. If my group is now ranked 9th and has more than 3 times as many members and activity than all 8 groups above it, then well I rest my case!
I’m guessing with this new ranking system Yahoo is trying to pimp the smaller groups so they get more attention and penalize the bigger groups because they don’t necessarily need the higher rankings to survive. However, I have worked on this group for 9 years and have put a lot of time into making it the best. My group deserves to be number one no if ands or buts about it!
If the other groups want to be number one then they should earn it by putting in the time and effort to make their group better than mine. They shouldn’t just be handed a number one ranking which makes new members think they are joining the best group in that category when they are not. My group is close to being on the second page for it’s category which nobody will see. I’m sure it will be there in a few days after the yahoo’s at Yahoo read this lol.
Mark Phillips said,
July 11, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
My group is back at #1! Thanks for correcting the problem.
Airman Cordova said,
July 11, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
I have been selected to represent one the the oldest network of groups that began during the golden age of Yahoo,ten years ago.1998 witnessed the innovative Yahoo clubs.New groups were prominently displayed in a category of their own.Groups were ranked by popularity.A spirited competition existed between owners of groups.There was a pride in clubs.They reflected the best owners and members had to offer.
The decline in my opinion began when Yahoo acquired egroups and the trend setting ‘clubs’ became ‘groups’.The new group category was eliminated.Later,the chat rooms were eliminated.By 2004,the dye was cast.A new direction and new sort of group came into vogue and started a spin-off of similar groups.That is when several long time Yahoo customers left Yahoo.The group listing began to change last year.Some of us took the change to indicate a ranking determined by activity.Some of us knew that older groups with hundreds of members ranked near the bottom of the groups list,was due to owners that either left Yahoo or had expired email accounts.
I use the historic text to draw a parallel that is instructive to Yahoo to consider.Many of us stood quiet as changes occurred at Yahoo clubs.Our ‘club’ was our concern and as long as it was held in tact,changes at Yahoo be damned,we were on our course.When some groups began to slip into the abyss of the Yahoo basement ranking of groups,some group networks did what they could to keep a semblance of order.
Respectability is now the guiding clarion call for all of us to consider.I know there are larger ranked groups that are below a few of the groups plus my own.This shows no respectability to larger groups.It shows a favoritism on Yahoos part.There is no better opportunity than now to bring back a respectability to Yahoo groups.Honor the hard work that group owners put into creating and maintaining their group.I ask for other group owners to join me in demanding a return to ethical ranking of Yahoo groups.
CJ Anderson said,
July 12, 2008 @ 5:31 am
Yes I have to admit that this system makes no sense.
Further the fact that archives are public appears to count for little at all. When people can see the content it ads value because they know what they are getting that it is what they want. I cannot tell you the number of groups I have had to join to find out - and then left because the content was nothing like the description - or all the list was was social chit chat.
Further the ranking means nothing any more.
My List Dog Whisperer Fans, which worked its way up to #4 in the Dogs Training and Obedience Category (which is yahoos own category) with 2760 members and not quite 600 posts this month so we tend to run between 200-3500 posts -, slower during summers is 10th.
Number one is the Good dog list which has less then HALF the members and not even 1/10th the posts. This problem tends to track actoss the search terms -
so if members put in their own(vs yahoo designated_ search terms like “problem dog” my list moves up to number 3 (in the moment) .
Number 1 has 1000 more members but this month half the posts and historically 1/7 to 1/4 the posts.
Number 2 again is less then half the members, 8% of the posts
and both lists are closed to the public.
-so clearly the algorythms mean nothing.
Why is being close to the top important?
LOL because Ihave worked my ass off for three years to build a quility list and everyone of those up to 3500 posts per month is moderated to ensure respect, helpfulness and quality content - NO me toos, NO happy birthdays - it is ALL about my topic, ALL about problem solving for problem dogs for owners who are ready to abandon their dogs to shelters to become someone elses problem or to be eithanized or simply to euthanize their dogs because they dont know what to do. There are times that I give 8 hours a day of work to my list that I get no salery, just statisfaction for helping people help themselves.
I was rewarded for my work in working my way up the rankings for people looking or help would go to MY list compared to the competition because they could SEE that my list gives solutions over lists that were hgher number but closed archives.
So again, Yahoo is saying with their new system that THEY have decided that a list with under half membership and a tenth the posts with archives closed to the public is TEN times BETTER then MY list.
Again why is the number important? Because a high membership list with HIGH post activity means that people enjoy the list and get value in it - especially when the numbers STAY high month after month.
Yet to the machine that is the yahoo priority engine, FEWER members and FEW posts have get better marks…
I wonder how Yahoo advetisers feel about that. Insice members tend to only look through the first few pages of lists when there is alot to chose from:(thousands) in some of the topics search terms then again, the ranking is importand and a value added to the moderators who own the list that Yahoo targets their advertising too. So I have always seen that as a little return to me by Yahoo.
I was originally excited by the expansion of the criteria because I felt that I would be rewarded or all the work I do that has paid off for my list, but the oppposite is true I am now being “punished” for having too many members, too many posts, a public archive…
I would much rather have this go back to being rated by the meners numbers - so people would say - wow - I wonder why so many people are on that list compared to the others.
(By the way I do own 10 other lists - a few under a hundred members that I am perfectly happy how they are. My BIG one is a feeded for the others and is wy I invest so much of my life in providing quality support, and responses - just like you Jaime and Gordon do!
OldOnliner said,
July 12, 2008 @ 7:22 am
A group SHOULD rank LOWER than other groups when:
1 - All Members require approval.
2 - Members are NOT allowed to HIDE email addresses.
3 - Group content in Links and Message Archives are MEMBER only (not public).
**** Reasons for the above ****
1 - The easier it is to join a group, the more attractive the group is to people looking for a group to join.
2 - The more a group protects its member’s privacy, the more attractive and safe the group is to new members.
3 - The more open a group is with its content - links and messages - the more easy it is for potential and new members to judge the quality of the group’s content.
If your group isn’t getting a high listing AND FAILS to do the things listed above, you shouldn’t be crying about your group’s ranking in search results.
Think about it.
Cathy said,
July 12, 2008 @ 9:31 am
OldOnliner,
I don’t agree with your point about the ranking should be lower just because a membership is on an Approval basis. It says something when a group requires approval to join yet still has many members. I make my group that way because I don’t want spammers in my group. I also don’t want everyone in the world to read our messages, because some are very personal.
Ease of joining is not always the most advantageous. It really depends upon the topic of the group as to whether you have a more “open” group or not.
THINK about it.
OldOnliner said,
July 12, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Cathy,
I listed them 1, 2, 3 for good reason.
As regarding membership approval and privacy, I suggest you turn your head around and look at this from the prospective member’s point of view.
Jumping through the approval process to join group with restrictive hoops is decidedly NOT easy. A group list ranking SHOULD factor in the ease of joining the group. Simply because EASE is always a factor. (Think: “That was easy!” ™.)
Your own argument makes other considerations seem like a personal problem. Why (even how?) should a ranking algorithm factor in your groups personal special interactivity needs and issues? Hmmmm?
Think about *that*.
Ron said,
July 12, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
Re: OldOnliner’s criteria:
Some groups should be easy to join, some not. Groups that discuss personal and sensitive material for a specific population should take appropriate steps to insure that only appropriate people are able to join. I have a recipe group that anyone can join. We moderate new members to keep out spam.
I have another group that discusses parenting children with a specific problem. Very personal matters are discussed. We restrict membership and require answering a brief but very specific questionnaire (not possible to fake) before granting membership. For the same privacy reasons the archives, files and links are restricted to members. When personal and sensitive matters are discussed, members defintiely don’t want the archives open to the public.
Same goes for hiding email addresses. In some groups the moderators need to be able to contact members privately. Some groups, like my parenting group, require an openness. Members can’t be allowed to cloak themselves in anonymity and still have the group function as intended.
I don’t see where it is any big deal to join a group and then quickly leave if it doesn’t suit you.
What I am saying is that these should not be criteria for ranking since whether or not they are appropriate is very different from group to group.
As far as I’m concerned the only ranking criteria should be size, activity, staying on topic, and keeping out spammers. I know the last 2 don’t lend themselves to algorhythms, but then again whatever ones they’re using now make little sense.
Y Padia said,
July 12, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
What is the effect of a moderator on the ranking?
Chrissy said,
July 12, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
OldOnliner,I respectively disagree with your points
1# my groups are open (save two ,one has graphic nature that kids shouldn’t see (its a graphic paranormal group) ,and the other is for my paranormal group and its only to find out what subjects they are interested in) and I approval all messages and it has worked fine since 05.It has kept out spam and I ban all spammers or trouble makers.
IMO I don’t like groups that make you wait to be approved and I would pass them up.
#2 I have gone to great lengths to protect my members I keep out spam out my group.But if you do the hide email its hard to figure out whos talking to whom.In the 3 yrs since I opened my Y&R group I have only had one problem and it was dealt with fast.
3 # (my Y&R group)I hide mine from the “public” I really don’t think that makes a difference.the others are “open” and honestly I have seen no difference in one group getting more members then the others.
I’m most proud of my Y&R and Paranormal group I have had both since ‘05 my groups are built on quality and I have gotten nothing but positive feed back about on how well my groups are run.
VoIP4callcenters said,
July 13, 2008 @ 3:45 am
How do I find the highest ranking groups for VOIP and Call centers? I’m in the hopes of finding leads
We are looking for customer base from existing and new call centers. We are based in Orem, UTAH.
We provide a total package solution for setting up a call center.
We can provide:
- Call Center Software
- Phone Lines
- Advanced Call Center Featrures
- Off Site Hardware
Can anyone give us leads to the right people to talk to?
Thanks.
http://www.jncvoip.com
Mike said,
July 17, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
I have a windsurf group (kansaswindsurf) that has more than 100 memebers, very active in messages, pictures, links, etc.
But a search will display it pretty low and other groups that are clearly abandoned or with very few members in front. It really does not make any sense. We should be at least in the top 20 groups but are # 53 or worst.
Administrator said,
July 17, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
Hello everyone,
I wanted to post to thank you all for your comments. We’re reading each and every one and we’re taking notes.
I also want you to know that we agree that there’s always room for improvement and as mentioned in my most recent post, we’ve got a lot of great things planned in the coming year.
Best,
Jami
Jimmie Spears said,
July 18, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Jimmie Spears: Thanks for the guidance inorder to be able to have more projection and input in different upgrading of my group or groups. Have a blessed day!
yasar said,
July 19, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
What is this #1 have noting to shove next to #70 is yahoo want to be like aol
#1 gencsiviller
2121 Members
postings
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July
2008 101 117 381 291 333 424 152
#70 TURKISHARMENIANFRIENDSHIP
3133 Members
postings
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July
2008 793 755 889 705 789 833 382
yasar said,
July 19, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
At least I’m not satisfied as I was #1 when searched but now like #70. Hows this happen ? is yahoo wants from us to fine new home?
Nancy said,
July 20, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
The groupings are really MESSED UP in Plastic Canvas you have many groups listed TWICE unfair ranking restult from this.
But then that’s yahoo if it works they break it!
How about more lines in the database that would greatly help our groups.
ravi said,
July 22, 2008 @ 5:14 am
darshan
CJ Anderson said,
July 22, 2008 @ 7:44 am
Sigh, Jaimie, please put this back the way it was. This is like going to college with a planned program to get a degree, then just as you are within reaching distance of the degree - the college says - nawww nawwww you cant get your degree because we are going to take the requirements away for you to reach your goal so you have to keep stumble bumbling aorund taking more and more classes until you hit our secret forumula because we will not even TELL you what you have to do to become the best ranked group.
Or how about this -
you bought the refrigerator and then Yahoo says - oh you want the door?
Oh you want the shelves?
Oh you want the motor?
Oh you want the cord?
Oh you want the fan?
…
and then ONE DAY you might get enough of what is missing to make it work, except that EVERY DAY the priorities change so it really doesnt matter what you do to be the best. So why even bother?
Why cant you even just set a standard for those of us STILL willing to jump though your hoops to get back where we have devoted our last number of years to?
Who was upset by the old standings that everyone could work with? The solution was simple.
Want more numbers for higher standings, spend more time bringing people to your yahoo lists where they would be exposed to your advertisers. WAS THIS NOT WHAT YOU WANTED? So WHY do you PUNISH those of us who did your work for you?
CJ Anderson said,
July 22, 2008 @ 8:09 am
I hit the send button too soon. perhaps this is karma, but you may want to add the words “do not endorse” to your algorhythms which cost ratings, since at least one list you consistently put well in front of mine, and others actively puts down the advertsing yahoo chooses to place on their site(s). (Peaceablepawsn as an example)
So you are rewarding those who diss your advertising.
Tony said,
July 22, 2008 @ 11:21 am
I wanted to leave a comment earlier, but decided to wait and give the new system a chance and observe its workings.
I applaud Yahoo’s attempts at improving the rankings within the groups; it certainly needed an overhaul. Although there has been a limited improvement in some aspects, there is a grave deficiency with the system being used.
I am the owner of a joke group and when I type in “jokes” for the search, I was taken aback as to why my group is not ranked where I thought it should. I see other groups ranked higher, but for the life of me, couldn’t figure out why ‘those’ groups.
Although I have developed my group into what the members wanted by both trial and error and conducting polls over the years, I was having a hard time figuring out what I could do to make it better in Yahoo’s eyes. I reached a point of total discouragement in continuing to run the group due to a stagnated enrollment from loss of position in the ranks and directory. I’ve already scratched my way up through the rankings once; I don’t know how to do it again, nor do I even want to try. I simply can’t do more than comply with the members’ wishes.
Then it became apparent as to why certain joke groups are ranked so high. It’s simply because they have the word “jokes” in the group name. I checked other categories, and it holds true. Come on, Yahoo! Is the best that you can come up with is having the search word in the group’s name the major variable in the algorithm? It’s already specified in the category that they are placed in, so the name of the group should have no bearing.
I’m sorry to say that I’ve already compromised myself by changing the operation of my group believing that I must be doing something wrong or could be doing something better. I had a tried and true method with a faithful following, and now it’s been jeopardized it over something this ridiculous.
Another aspect of it erroneously equates quantity with quality. I send out a compilation consisting of 11 jokes/items in one email. Since there are only three mailings per week, I am certainly viewed as having a group with low activity. About a year ago, I conducted a poll with my membership asking them if they like this system or would prefer individual emails for each and every item. The response was in favor of the compilation.
There have been other polls conducted by myself and I complied every time with the members’ wishes. Polling the membership as to what they prefer and delivering it is more indicative of a conscientious owner and a successful group than forwarding every byte that comes across my computer.
Is it being held against me that only I may post to my group? My group deals with clean jokes. I have several members of the clergy in my group and have to very critical of what I distribute. People have also come to trust my mailings as being safe for all members of their family. From the experience gained from previous groups that I’ve owned, I have found that everyone has a different concept of what ‘clean’ is. Sure, I can change it to ‘Anyone can post’. Based on what the members email to me, I would then be forced to reject just about all of the submissions. Would that make me a better owner? How long would the members stay if I began rejecting their submissions? When a member submits material for posting, they mail it to me and if it’s suitable or I’m able to edit it, it is included in my mailer. There is group participation, but not that it would be obvious.
In previous comments made concerning this matter, it is suggested that groups should be given a lower rating if the members cannot hide their email addresses. If I had elected this option, I would not be able to utilize the polling feature. In any case, my membership list is private so therefore it is completely a moot point.
I’ve also read that it may be considered a plus if I utilized the Application for Membership feature. My Goodness! I run a joke group and it would be pretty dopey asking potential members and then forcing them to explain why they want to join a joke group when the answer is so blatantly obvious.
In conclusion, my methods work(ed) for my group, I just hope that I haven’t ruined it attempting to conform to what you think constitutes a good group when all I had to do was change the name of the group.
Yahoo, there is an alternative way to rank the groups, but I’m apprehensive in stating it here in a public forum for the reasons Jami gave in the original Blog entry: “To prevent gaming of the system.” It is nothing that has even been hinted at, but could have the potential to be a major factor in determining the ranking if it is feasible. If you’re interested, feel free to contact me by email.
Just as critical as the ranking, if not more, is the listing in the Directory. How is that decided? Is there an answer as to why the joke group that is ranked #34 at this present time is almost always at the top or near the top position of both the joke and humor directories since your new system has been in place? Why this group? There are others who are ranked fairly low who are ALWAYS in the top few listings in both the joke and humor directories. Is anyone else going to be given a chance at what appears to be a very lucrative spot? I would really like a month or so at the top spot in the Directory.
Ray said,
July 23, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Maybe a bit off topic, but I have a question about changing my groups directory listing setting.
When I first set it up I chose not have it listed. I’ve changed my mind, and I don’t see any option in the admin area to change it to have my group listed in Yahoo! Groups directory.
Is it just not an option ?
Thanks
Ray said,
July 23, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
never mind, found it
Nubia said,
July 25, 2008 @ 6:18 am
i try to post an answer here and it never appear why ?
Nubia said,
July 25, 2008 @ 6:21 am
hi
i am Nubia owner of Nubia_group
my group is the 1st in category poetry in term of number of members (more than 20.000 members)
before it was the 1st on the list, and now released at the 7th place
after other groups with much less number of members
Entertainment ->Arts/Humanities->Books_and_Writing->Genres->Poetry
i don’t find this classification fair and clear
and if i make a search in yahoo group search
my group come only at the 11st place after small groups for the same topic
so i discover you give an advantage on the quantity of mails and not on the quality of the groups ?
it’s not because a group publish lak of mails everyday that the content is better
if we have more members this mean our group give a “plus” not seen in the others
and the number of members should count in your classification
thanks and best regards
Nubia
owner of Nubia_group
Stephanie Gills said,
July 26, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Most members in my group of 3637 members believe groups should be like they use to be: RANKED BY MEMBERSHIP—–>THE MORE MEMBERS…THE HIGHER THE RANKING! Thanks, Steph Gills
Stefan said,
July 28, 2008 @ 5:04 am
I will delete my group if my group with 411 members isn’t ranked higher than groups with only 1 (!) member!
Since the beginning of the new incompetent ranking system no one has joined my group.
Harry, the Road Scholar said,
July 29, 2008 @ 5:59 am
I agree that the new system is simply a broken system which ranks a group with 2 members and no messages in its archives higher than a group with more than 2500 members and more than 300 messages in the last 7 days. I did some searches of other groups and I’ve seen so many really stupid examples of this. I used to be a computer programmer and I know better than to swallow Jami’s erroneous explanation. The new system isn’t an “algorithm;” it’s simply broken. Please return us to the old system ASAP.
Nubia said,
July 31, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
hi this Nubia again
if i make a search in category “performing+arts” my group who have 20800 members arrive only on 5th place
the 1st one is a group of 169 members who published only 1 mail in june and zero mail in juilly !
i really don’t understand your classification
lovez and regards
Nubia
owner Nubia_group
Nubia said,
July 31, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Nubia again
now i made a search in “romantic poetry” i even don’t see my group in the list
but i find one of the tops listed adult groups who publush pornography and let their archives open to any one even minor with no warning
see the number 26 on the list
you should revise this “romantic poetry” category because most the of groups there are pornographic groups without any warning for minors
what a shame
nubia
owner Nubia_gorup
thomas said,
August 1, 2008 @ 7:41 am
what is the ranking of my group?
Stefan said,
August 3, 2008 @ 9:47 am
@Yahoo
Why don’t you answer users like Nubia immediately?
She is doing a better job for YOUR company than most of your paid employees.
I can’t understand why Yahoo is doing so many things wrong and why you ignore us users!
Nubia said,
August 4, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Thanks Stefan
it’ right i didn’t het any answer from anyone
like if we talk to a wall …
Nubia
Wendy said,
August 4, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
High rankings are EARNED and worked hard for in any community. This now is not the case at Yahoo! Groups. It seems that someone tried to re-invent the wheel and came up with this mess!
Nearly every day for the past four years PLUS, myself and my group team members have worked hard to improve not only the quality but the rank status of our group’s Yahoo! Groups Listing.
After finally reaching the #2 position I was shocked to see that we had been reduced to #8 over night. I checked today for my status only to find that groups with less members, less activity, less time established, SPAM INFESTED - less EVERYTHING is now above my group and I’m back to where I started.
This is truly a slap in the face to loyal Yahoo! Groups group owners and their members who also contribute to make our groups greater.
If my group was undeserving of it’s ONCE held #2 position then I would not be here complaining. However, we not only meet, but exceed the considerations that warrant a top listing. NOT the rank of which we have been so unfairly handed DOWN to us.
As for our group stats, our Admin team checks daily for bouncing members, members post activly, our member count has only one group with a higher member count, and we continue to grow. Yet we are now ranking below even spam infested and abandoned groups???? Who’s bright idea was this?
Considering the rise in popularity of message boards vs. e-mail groups, I am shocked at this. More and more people are turning to boards every day - over Yahoo!, MSN or Google Groups. Especially since many board services and domain hosts are FREE!
I think you here at Yahoo! are making a HUGE mistake in this area. Any good business person knows that you don’t get rid of your highest paying ‘clients’! In this case, these ‘clients’ being the good, loyal people who invest so much time and sometimes money in making their groups the best they can be. Including those who pay for Yahoo! Mail Plus! - is someone not thinking here???? If asked, will I pay any longer for Yahoo! Mail Plus that I count on for my Yahoo! Groups? Easy answer.. “Not a chance”! NOT good business Yahoo!.
My concern, will this be corrected? If not, I have no problem taking my ‘6′ groups AND my business elsewhere.
Wendy said,
August 4, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
I don’t know why but my group has been returned to it’s last rank position based on member count. Everyone who’s groups lost their higher rank position might want to check to see if your groups have returned as well. *crosses fingers for us all*
Wendy Lady said,
August 4, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
re: OldOnliner rank criteria
With all due respect, I disagree with your points as well. In many groups, including all of my own, each one of the ‘points’ you addressed is exactly how we help to best protect ourselves and our member from spammers and other threats.
My opinion is not meant to be rude by any means, but it seems to me that only a spammer would ‘campaign’ to have these features ‘used’ so openly.
If your ranking ’system’ were put into effect as you listed, we would definitely be forced to choose what we want more - a higher position or to better protect our members. It’s hard enough already to avoid unsolicited mail and potential threats etc. without opening our doors as you suggested. We may as well just hang up a Welcome sign to it all.
Being made to choose against what we work so hard ‘for’ vs. something we work so hard ‘against’ would be the end of using Yahoo! Groups for me. Even after being a 10 year veteran and if my group rank ended up at the bottom of the barrel, my members come first always. But that’s just me.
Respectfully,
WL
shibu said,
August 4, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
Hai
Sensex to zoom back 20000 within six months.
happy investing
visit http://www.indianshareguide.com for some guidance
Rajat Mukherjee said,
August 7, 2008 @ 4:17 am
I think system reduce our service
Rajat Mukherjee said,
August 7, 2008 @ 4:20 am
I think system upgradation devloped our mind but the also destroyed our own productivity thatis more valuable thatany upgraded system .
Rajat Mukherjee said,
August 7, 2008 @ 4:23 am
romantic poetry for what purpose .I think romance can get you from sensex
Movie4Ever said,
August 8, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Please take a look at our group “Movie4Ever” group … We have the best Activity but still didn’t see in the first 5 pages ….
And there’s another problem where I saw 1 group in 2 different category … what’s wrong
Nubia said,
August 11, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
hi i still didn’t get any answer about this new group ranking
Nubia
owner Nubia_group
Theeladytech said,
August 13, 2008 @ 11:22 am
My group has now moved down to 79 from 70 after checking out the other Blackberry Groups my group should be in the Top Twenty! I now have 65 members and activity is great on average around 100 posts a day but my group is steady going down in the ratings. This is sickening! It breaks my heart because I chose Yahoo over Google and Yahoo has kicked me in the behind for it.
Janet said,
August 13, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Hi,
I’d like to log a complaint about the search “electric cars” and “neighborhood electric cars” in the Groups home page. My “NEVs” group used to be at the top of the list and now it is very far down in the Electric Cars category. We are a Public group with more than 1,100 members with postings every couple of hours or less. New Files, Photos, and Links added frequently also. I only moderate new members and there is no spam.
–Janet
Janet said,
August 14, 2008 @ 10:12 am
Wow. Now my “NEVs” group is #81, below a group that is
< 5 Members and states, “DO NOT TRY TO JOIN THIS GROUP. SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THIS GROUP ARE NOT ALLOWED.” Also below one that states, “Download free ringtones now. mp3. Download free ringtones now. mp3….”
Nice.
Nubia said,
August 14, 2008 @ 10:20 am
yes this new group ralking is really a non sense
why no one of the yahoo team answer us here about it
Nubia
owner Nubia_gorup
The Old Sled Shed said,
August 14, 2008 @ 11:10 am
Yeah, and they won’t even publish my detailed analysis, despite trying almost daily since Thus Aug 7
The Old Sled Shed said,
August 14, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Part 3 of 4
===========
So, I examined the Group Settings for each of the 6 aforementioned groups. All 6 are identical with respect to two settings: “All members can post messages” and “Listed in directory”. There were mixed results for the other 4 Group Settings:
A. “Membership requires approval”
B. “Message approval”
C. “Email attachments”
D. “Members can hide email address”
I also looked at:
E. message counts for Jan - Aug, 2008 (ie., recent activity)
F. number of archived messages (ie., long-term activity)
G. number of members (ie., popularity)
Here are the comparative results [best viewed in Courier or monospaced font]:
/——————————————-\
| A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. |
—————————+—–+—–+—–+—–+—–+——-+—–|
1. “snowmobilingnystate” | yes | no | no | yes | 7 | 1831 | 557 |
2. “Vintage-Scorpion” | yes | no | yes | no | 208 | 3675 | 585 |
6. “Ski-Doo” | yes | no | no | no | 24 | 3034 | 498 |
7. “sledheadsoffederic” | yes | no | no | yes | 42 | 2930 | 957 |
46. “Vintage_Snowmobiles” | no | new | yes | no | 328 | 5559 | 795 |
54. “XC800VES” | no | no | no | no | 213 | 20938 | 637 |
———————————————————————-/
The Old Sled Shed said,
August 14, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Part 4 of 4
===========
With respect to Group Settings, categories B, C & D appear to be non-differentiating. In contrast, category A seems to be of prime importance. Yahoo Groups seems to prefer that new members require approval, presumably to weed out spammers and trolls. However, I have found this requirement to be detrimental to growth by scaring away potential legitimate members and somewhat ineffectual anyways. Spammers & trolls simply lie on the “Comment to Owner” sign-up box and then spam/troll the group as soon as they are approved. [Furthermore, subscribing via email seems to circumvent the sign-up box.] I have found that simply moderating new members to be much more effective, even though that requires me to monitor the group more frequently [for new messages to approve, that is].
As one can observe from categories E, F, & G, group activity rates and popularity are no longer valued by Yahoo Groups. In fact, popularity seems to be somewhat correlated with lower rankings. As someone else has already indicated, one wonders how impressed advertisers would be to discover that advertisement exposure is, by association, similarly devalued.
Finally, as Jami, the Groups Community Manager, suggested, I ran the phrase “vintage snowmobiles” through the “Find a Yahoo Group” search box at [http://groups.yahoo.com/]. The results were quite discouraging [http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=vintage+snowmobiles]. Despite the fact that my group “Vintage_Snowmobiles” has the search phrase “vintage snowmobile” as its FIRST TWO words in the description, in contrast to ALL of the other 16 groups listed, my group appeared in 8th position!!!! What kind of nonsense is this?
It is abundantly evident that the powers-that-be at Yahoo Groups attempted to fix what wasn’t broken. It would have been far more effective to have the groups [within each official group category] listed in a DATABASE that can be sorted by various parameters such as number of members [default], archive size, posting frequency [ie, past 6 months], alphabetical order, open or closed archive, membership approval, email address hiding, message moderation, email attachments, and, of course, the current default, RANDOM order.
Sadly, I highly doubt that our comments and suggestions [ie., "go back to the previous system of group ranking"] will be taken seriously nor will it be fixed [aka "restored"]. After all, for them to even admit they made a grievous miscalculation, let alone return to the previous system, would put their jobs at risk. I wish there was a way of bring all of the comments on this thread to the attention of the Board of Directors for Yahoo.
[Note: I have taken screenshots of all of the above URLs for documentary purposes.]
The Old Sled Shed said,
August 14, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Part 1 of 4
===========
In the 95+ comments preceding mine [as of 10:30 am EDT Thurs Aug 7/08], there has been considerable criticism of the new ranking system for Yahoo Groups. And deservedly so. The new system, for all intents and purposes, appears to be random and is a great disservice to those group owners & moderators who have worked very hard to make their groups successful.
Since I created it in Oct 6, 2001, I [and my members] have successfully guided the “Vintage_Snowmobiles” group [groups.yahoo.com/group/Vintage_Snowmobiles/] to one of the most popular and active snowmobile lists at Yahoo! Groups. We currently have 795 members, 5559 messages in the archives, have never had a flame war between members nor any incidences of spam.
Under the old ranking system for Yahoo Groups, here are the top 6 groups in the snowmobiling category:
1. “sledheadsoffederic” (957 members) [created Nov 20/00]
[groups.yahoo.com/group/sledheadsoffrederic/]
2. “Vintage_Snowmobiles” (795 members) [created Oct 6/01]
[groups.yahoo.com/group/Vintage_Snowmobiles/]
3. “XC800VES” (637 members) [created Nov 6/01}
[groups.yahoo.com/group/XC800VES/]
4. “Vintage-Scorpion” (585 members) [created Oct 31/02]
[groups.yahoo.com/group/Vintage-Scorpion/]
5. “snowmobilingnystate” (557 members) [created Sept 4/99]
[groups.yahoo.com/group/snowmobilingnystate/]
6. “Ski-Doo” (498 members) [created Sept 27/00]
[groups.yahoo.com/group/Ski-Doo/]
The Old Sled Shed said,
August 14, 2008 @ 11:23 am
Part 2 of 4
===========
Under the NEW ranking system, these same 6 groups are ranked quite differently [dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/Recreation___Sports/Outdoors/Snowmobiling]:
1. “snowmobilingnystate”
2. “Vintage-Scorpion”
6. “Ski-Doo”
7. “sledheadsoffederic”
46. “Vintage_Snowmobiles”
54. “XC800VES”
The relevant pages are [dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/1600125406?st=0] [for 1-10], [dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/1600125406?st=40] [for 41-50], and [dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/1600125406?st=50] [for 51-60].
My group “Vintage_Snowmobiles” went all the way from 2nd to 46th spot!!!!!!!!!!! Furthermore, “XC800VES” [I'm not a member of this group] went from 3rd to 54th spot. Absolutely incredible and, certainly, inexplicable.
The Old Sled Shed said,
August 17, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Part 4 of 4
===========
With respect to Group Settings, categories B, C & D appear to be non-differentiating. In contrast, category A seems to be of prime importance. Yahoo Groups seems to prefer that new members require approval, presumably to weed out spammers and trolls. However, I have found this requirement to be detrimental to growth by scaring away potential legitimate members and somewhat ineffectual anyways. Spammers & trolls simply lie on the “Comment to Owner” sign-up box and then spam/troll the group as soon as they are approved. [Furthermore, subscribing via email seems to circumvent the sign-up box.] I have found that simply moderating new members to be much more effective, even though that requires me to monitor the group more frequently [for new messages to approve, that is].
As one can observe from categories E, F, & G, group activity rates and popularity are no longer valued by Yahoo Groups. In fact, popularity seems to be somewhat correlated with lower rankings. As someone else has already indicated, one wonders how impressed advertisers would be to discover that advertisement exposure is, by association, similarly devalued.
Finally, as Jami, the Groups Community Manager, suggested, I ran the phrase “vintage snowmobiles” through the “Find a Yahoo Group” search box at [http://groups.yahoo.com/]. The results were quite discouraging [http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=vintage+snowmobiles]. Despite the fact that my group “Vintage_Snowmobiles” has the search phrase “vintage snowmobile” as its FIRST TWO words in the description, in contrast to ALL of the other 16 groups listed, my group appeared in 8th position!!!! What kind of nonsense is this?
It is abundantly evident that the powers-that-be at Yahoo Groups attempted to fix what wasn’t broken. It would have been far more effective to have the groups [within each official group category] listed in a DATABASE that can be sorted by various parameters such as number of members [default], archive size, posting frequency [ie, past 6 months], alphabetical order, open or closed archive, membership approval, email address hiding, message moderation, email attachments, and, of course, the current default, RANDOM order.
Sadly, I highly doubt that our comments and suggestions [ie., "go back to the previous system of group ranking"] will be taken seriously nor will it be fixed [aka "restored"].
The Old Sled Shed said,
August 18, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Hmmm…I see that my “Vintage_Snowmobiles” group has dropped from 46th to 47th position at . Probably punishment for my detailed analysis of this group “ranking” scam. [BTW, the mis-ordering of parts 1 to 4 of my detailed analysis was not my fault -- just happens to be the order the podPress (v.8.8) Podcast system accepted them.]
The Old Sled Shed said,
August 20, 2008 @ 9:39 am
Since “Part 4 of 4″ of my detailed response keeps disappearing, and the other parts are out-of-order, I’ve posted all 4 parts at .
The Old Sled Shed said,
August 20, 2008 @ 9:42 am
Since “Part 4 of 4″ of my detailed response keeps disappearing, and the other parts are out-of-order, I’ve posted all 4 parts at “http://TheOldSledShed.110mb.com/yahoo groups snowmobiling rankings.html”
The Old Sled Shed said,
August 21, 2008 @ 10:42 am
As of 1:30 pm EDT Aug 21/08, my Vintage_Snowmobiles group has risen in the rankings from 47th to 42nd spot. Woohoo! [Yeah, I'm being sarcastic.]
And, XC800VES [not my group] has risen tremendously from 54th [3rd in the old system] to 52nd spot.
However, in an example of the travesty of the new ranking system, Vintage-Scorpions [not my group] has fallen from 2nd spot to 41st [it was 4th under the old system].
Furthermore, “sledheadsoffrederic” [also not my group] has been demoted from 7th spot [1st spot under the old system] to 44th spot.
Meanwhile, there are 9 groups with less than 5 members each in the top 50 snowmobiling groups: “http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/1600125406?st=0″.
So, how does Yahoo Groups explain this?
The Old Sled Shed said,
August 22, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Latest news:
“snowmobilingnystate” [not my group], which was ranked 5th in the old system, has just been demoted from 1st to 60th [yes, sixtieth] spot. What a slap in the face for them.
The only one of the original top 6 that is still hanging in there is “Ski-Doo”: it has risen to 3rd spot…but for how long?
There is a new number one: “northeastsnowmobileclub”. But since it has around 500 members, I doubt it will remain in the top 40 for very long.
It seems that Yahoo Groups will very shortly have cleaned out all of the snowmobiling groups with more that 500 members out of the top 10 [or top 40, for that matter]. Way to go! [said with bitter sarcasm].
Nubia said,
September 10, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Hi
Nubia again after some weeks
why no one of the yahoo team answer about this group ranking
what is happening in this new ranking is a non sense
i checked before mine i have even group who don’t exist maybe were deleted and are still on the list of ranking
others are dead groups only published 3 mails since all september
you should put the old ranking back to stop this non sense
regards
Nubia
owner Nubia_group
ppsantos said,
September 14, 2008 @ 8:31 am
The search ranking is not accurate and fair. I searched for my group “TheBaroness” by typing “Baroness” as the key word. The search had 120 result but my group was not in one of them, despite the heavy relevance of my group. Some results were ranked higher because they had more members/actvities even if the group’s description mentioned the word “Baroness” once, in passing, regardless of context.
Secondly, partially basing the search ranking on number of members and activity could be bias against new and lesser known groups which could very well be more relevant and on topic. With the present algorithm, the group with more member/activity will get a more prominent ranking even if the relevance is lower, a lot of the activity are just irrelevant chitchat (even if moderated). A more relevant group with fewer members end up at the bottom of the list and possibly may not be found by potentially new members, thus, exacerbating the problem of few memberships, and consequently, fewer activity.
In short, the present algorithm favors groups which are already big, and puts newer, smaller but more relevant groups at the bottom where they’ll be hardly found by people who might actually be looking for them.
Thumper said,
September 14, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
Please for the love of Jesus, fix the Group Rankings…I and obviously a lot of others think the present formula is flawed severely…the Groups should be ranked by size and activity…the present formula has knocked active and huge groups into oblivion and placed dormant groups in the top ten…that’s not fair and many know it and have been complaining to a brick-wall attitude for months…if I were paying for advertising, which hundreds are…I would be dissatisfied with how my adds were being exposed…I would expect Yahoo to maximize my result…if advertising is cut, so are Yahoo Group’s positions…lol.
Tony said,
September 15, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Yahoo, it is obvious that your ranking system still needs quite a bit of adjustment, but you are overlooking another listing deficiency. I am referring to the Directory Listings, specifically for the Jokes and Humor. If you follow this path: “Top > Entertainment & Arts > Humor > Jokes” or “Top > Entertainment & Arts > Humor”, you will find a very unfair advantage is given to certain groups by having them listed in the top spot. Why is the group currently ranked #23 in the Joke Ranking listed in the #1 position here for over a month now in the Joke Directory? Why is the group currently ranked #69 in the Humor Ranking listed in the Humor Directory in the #1 position for over a month?
What does it take to get my group listed in the first spot? I’d like to see it there for a month or so. Please.
TheOldSledShed said,
October 12, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
It is almost two months since I complained about the new “un”-ranking system. [A formatted version may be found at "http://TheOldSledShed.110mb.com/yahoo groups snowmobiling rankings.html".] No responses from the deities running Yahoo Groups and no changes to the system. Not surprising.
On Oct 2, I conducted an experiment: I changed my group settings to “Membership requires approval” [where the applicant has to provide a written reason on the join page]. My group almost immediately [literally, within minutes] jumped to 4th spot. I suppose that if I eliminated all e-mail attachments and set all members on moderated status, I would achieve first place, albeit at the expense of moderator & member enjoyment.
The new ranking system appears to be biased toward spam security. Based on my “experiment”, it would appear that “Membership requires approval” is the most highly weighted factor in the ranking algorithm and confirms my conclusion in August. Having the list archives viewable only to members, denial of e-mail attachments, and moderation of all messages would also promote a group’s rank. In contrast, group size and activity do not seem to be factors in the ranking algorithm. In other words, the new system is designed for Yahoo’s convenience [ie., with respect to message management, server load, & dispute resolution] and not upon merit [ie., to reward popular, active groups].
Kern said,
November 29, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Can you tell me what is the average size (# of people) in a yahoo group?
Karen Stanley said,
January 2, 2009 @ 10:27 am
Some data which show problems with the measures used for ranking groups:
Recently, using the “Search for Other Groups” function again, I
discovered that, entering [ ESL ], the first group listed, esl_about,
while it had 3344 members, had not had a single post in 8 *years* (that is, since November 2000).
The third group on the list, engidioms, appears to be getting almost
nothing but SPAM as messages.
The sixth group on the list, italy-tefl_esl, announces it has moved to a new server, and has had no posts since 2001.
The eleventh group, esl.jobs, has not had a post since 2004.
I run a number of groups. One of them, TESLJob, is #12. That’s
reasonable; it has 512 members (by the way, it still shows 501 members,
which hasn’t been the membership for several months - How often is that
type of information updated?) and posts average around 30/month.
However, another of my groups, MedicalESL, is listed as #379. I could
understand it being listed between 75-100; it has 120 members and posts
only run around 10 per month. However, ranking ahead of it in the
search are many groups with under 10 people and very few posts. This seems very strange. (And, I notice, listed in or near MedicalESL are other groups that appear to warrant higher ranking on the list.)
Examples of groups that rank about MedicalESL:
clarkston_night_ESL –9 members, no posts since 2005 (rank: 78)
duke_esl_certificate_program –6 members, a total of 4 posts to the
list, and the last of those was in February 2007 (rank: 79)
esl-khabbaz –5 members, only one post ever sent to the list, in June
2007 (rank: 81)
I could go on (and on and on and on).