Yahoo! dismisses Podiobooks.com?
A dozen or so years ago, Yahoo! was a directory. It has since transformed into a digital media property, but at its core still resides the Yahoo! Directory, that which started it all.
So why is it that said directory contains the following structure:
Directory > Arts > Humanities > Literature > Electronic Literature > Podiobooks
… yet this site, and all associated titles, are conspicuously absent? Really? They seemed to be happy to incorporate a term I coined, yet didn’t feel obliged to actually list any of the items that match the definition? Seems rather… odd.
I’ve filled out the “suggest a site” feature, but who knows how long that will take. It’s almost comical, in a tragic sort of way.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:27 am
of course… use the term, but dismiss the source… Pretty sure, they’ll be touting how they came up with it!
May 18th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“I’ve filled out the “suggest a site” feature, but who knows how long that will take.”
Yeah, it can be a real waiting game trying to promote your site in these directories. Take for example my two-week old request to get my book, THE VEINGEL, into podiobooks.com.
LOL.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Jeremy,
You do realize that we’re not a directory, right? And that, unlike Yahoo! with a few billion dollars in revenue to pay their thousands of employees, we’re making due with a handful of dedicated folks who find spare moments to carry this forward?
I wish we could move a whole lot faster, believe me I do, but we’re maxed out.
E.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Evo – “podiobooks” isn’t a generic term, it ‘s a brand name. I’d send them some pseudo-legal email. Remember way back when when I told you to trademark that bad boy?
This isn’t a general term. If I create a site with a search feature, and call it my “Google” function, you can bet that Google will be on me like a bum on a baloney sandwich.
If Podiobooks.com is to grow into a profitable business, you might consider taking steps to protect the brand. You’ve definitely got “first use” and “prior use” wrapped up, and when someone else uses the term, it clearly causes confusion in the marketplace, which as I understand it is the key definition for trademark infringement,
May 20th, 2007 at 4:58 am
I’m with you, Scott. Just do it, Evo!
May 20th, 2007 at 10:10 am
righton scott, evo! evo, i am so grateful for podiobooks; it’s literally (no pun intended!!) a part of my life– every day. podiobooks is your brainchild – protect it!! i encourage you to do as scott has asked you, “…to consider steps to protect the brand.” perhaps this article might assist you – it’s about trademark issues and i found it really informative. i wish you and podiobooks all the best in your endeavors. http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=103
May 20th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Actually, “podiobooks” was designed to be a generic term. Podiobooks.com is a trademarked term. I’m happy to grow the brand of Podiobooks.com, but I have no interest on restricting folks usage of the word “podiobook” to describe the products.
With that, I dig that Yahoo! has a podiobooks section. But it would be nice they, you know, listed some of the podiobooks we have here on the site. And sure, the site itself probably deserves to be at the top of the list.
May 20th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I just found you on a yahoo search.
May 20th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Sueper,
The issue isn’t our status in Yahoo!’s search engine (we’re there), but why we (and all the books) are missing from their Directory. That’s different from their search platform. Click the link in the post above and you’ll see what we’re talking about.
E.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 am
I did look to see if i could use the ‘suggest a site’ link (on the grounds that if everyone did that they might take notice) but it looks like it’s only intended for site owners, so I left well alone.
Anyone know a good way of suggesting a site to the Yahoo directory for end users?