| 9:33 pm on Aug 31, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Nice find symmetry,
"Sites that don't pay will have to wait for the next Webwide crawl to be included, and these occur every 90 days. They'll be refreshed every 30 days at best"
"So in shifting costs to the sites that are benefiting [from the search], it's not necessarily bad."
Article here [thestandard.com].
| 12:15 am on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
The search engines should be paying US to use our data. What other industry or business can you freely use peoples work for your own benefit without paying?
| 6:53 am on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
makes you wonder when inktomi will finally show us all it's hand and tell us just how much we are going to have to part with.
Has anyone discussed this with their clients ? and if so what type of feed back did you get, mine have been "ink what" and "should i pay how long will my site stay at number one".I have a very bad feeling about all this, thank god for google
I wonder if ink will give discounts if you pay for more than one site at time :)
| 7:29 am on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I think you've hit the nail on the head. If the average site owner pays for a listing they will want to appear! The semantics of ranking algos etc are a complete mystery to them - its 'I've paid my money - and my site (which may be at #19547) isn't listed - I want my money back'!
Also they will be passing the buck to the portals (I assume) through whom you submit the site who will then get the flack from irate subscribers. They are going to have to pull some mighty good PR out of the bag to convince the average site owner how they will benefit.
On the up side, I think it will be good for us if the price is right. It should eradicate most blatant spam and (provided we build the charge in to our SEO costs) will make us look good by getting our clients listed quickly and regularly.
So, I view this as a bad thing for the surfer looking for relevent content from the entire web and for the average site owner who will get little for their money - but a possible bonus for professionals in the SEO industry. People pay us for getting decent placements in SEs so this is just another cost to add in to the bill!
Now, will existing customers pay the extra? In the short term I doubt it. Mine are pretty dissillusioned with all the Inktomi portals and being asked to pay when there is no guarantee that their previous rankings will be restored and they have seen mega-traffic/revenue drops because Inktomi has been playing with their DB is adding insult to injury!
| 7:51 am on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
at the end of the day it's all about traffic and we all know (more so if your uk based) if you rank well with inktomi the traffic will follow.
I agree with you, existing clients I don't think will be to happy to part with anything, it's the age old problem once you know how much you have to pay, you don't want to pay anymore !
But for new clients it should be quite easy to include an upfront fee for inktomi, I personally feel we should'nt be paying anything, but having seen my clients traffic drop so much over the last few weeks it's just something I will have to do :(
The bottom end is " how much "
| 9:10 pm on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Addendum to the bottom end:
Not just how much, but how much will they crawl? :)
If Inktomi charges $179 and they just crawl the root URL, then is the targeted keyword going to justify the expense? But if they deep crawl (And how many levels?), and they index all the URL's from all the links, then I'm a player....
If..................... Are the portals such as MSN/AOL/iWon going to update every 48 hours? :)
Those are the million dollar questions....
| 10:39 pm on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Bingo! Those are the questions I have written down waiting to get more info on what Ink is going to do and charge for this deal. If they do crawl deep and index more than just the first page it would be worth the money (depending on what the money is)to get a secured position in the listings. I know this is probably a stupid questions but what will their criteria be for #1 listing? I assume they will have a section for paid listings apart from the peasantry. ;)
My main problem with this whole thing is that there are many, many great sites out there that will surely become extinct if this kind of thing takes hold and all the engines do it. Google says they won't do it, but if everyone else does it, why not?
There are going to be a lot of webmasters that can't pay for listings, that's a given. I can't wait to see what happens in the adult arena. I can only imagine what it will be like if they actually take money from the porn sites. Can they leave the adult business out of this? I doubt they would, there's too much money involved. They could just follow Yahoo's example and charge the webmasters of adult sites big bucks, because many of them will pay and pay a lot.
I guess I have a problem with paid listings because they are biased. I know something has to be done because of the spam and abuse of the engines, but I'm not sure this is it. Somehow I doubt that's their reason for charging. ;) I'm going to try it when it comes out if monitarily feasible. I will also save some sites out and see what happens to them and how they place, if at all. Just my .50 worth.
| 12:07 am on Sep 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Just found this out.
Ink is limiting the Url's in their small base to 500 million. The small base is what we all submit to.
Sites that have been in awhile are in the main database.
When a new Url is submitted, another Url has to fall out. This is based a little on click tracking, etc and whatever other algos they have at the time.
New Url's submitted that bear all the tests and pass are transferred to the main database where they "stick". This explains why I have had pages stick forever. I also have had pages that fall out within 2 weeks.
The main thing is, when Ink starts charging, the home page is guaranteed to stick. The spider will continue to spider the rest of your site, but only the home page will stick while the other spidered pages go into the small database for "testing".
All paid websites get spidered every 48 hours with the home page only going into the main database and all other pages competing in the small base with 500 million Url MAX.
Whether you are in the main or the small base, the way Ink ranks each base will be the same with NO favorites. Just that your home page is Guaranteed to stick. All other Url's duke it out--either paid sites or not.
The big advantage for paying will be that you can test and tweak your site and see the differences immediately on your home page.
Hence, sites get in and drop out very quickly. Only the "strong" will survive.
Hope this helps.
| 1:59 am on Sep 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
your's is the first really good explination I have seen about both the two databases and the paid results -
| 5:09 am on Sep 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Yes, but the answers bring up many more questions that they say have to be ironed out.
Price for this?
They say paid gets website spidered and home page sticks. How many pages get spidered? ALL? Some? Most?
How often will the Ink partners update their database? Your home page is spidered every 48hr. soooooo what about the partnered search engines?
| 12:35 pm on Sep 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Where did you get this information?
| 9:07 am on Sep 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I must say I have to agree with Brett re. "they should be paying US for using our data". The problem I believe with paid submissions is that they dismiss a lot of sites with good content who cannot necessarily afford to pay for ranking status. This brings the relevance of the search results into question does it not?? I would much rather these type of sites indicate those sites which have paid and those which have not. Surely if you have a good search engine then you can make your revenue through advertising (after all most newspapers generate enough revenue through advertising to pay for the publication of a newspaper). If a search engine gives good quality results then also their partners should also be able to increase their advertising revenue. Where will the fees stop?? How long will it be as the web grows that we will see ever increasing charges???
OK OK Im off my soapbox (almost)now but I hope we do not see too much more of this.
| 5:17 pm on Sep 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
There are definitely industries where people use other people's creative work and they not only don't pay the creator of the work, they charge them.
The incredible expense and craftsmanship that go into much advertising is a major case in point. All the graphics, photography, copy writing and editing that goes into making some ads -- they're often works of art in their own right -- and then they pay the magazine, paper, or broadcast media to take it to the public. All those clothing ads definitely benefit GQ. Still Calvin Klein pays GQ, not vice versa.
| 5:43 pm on Sep 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
However there is a big difference - Those people who don't pay GQ are not likely to end up in it as content. Some real smart lawyer is going to figure out that there just might be big bucks in stopping the SE's from taking what doesn't belong to them.
If I ran a spider into Disney.com then sold avertising based on their content, how long would I stay in business???
If the SE's remained the old give and take of years gone by, this wouldn't be a problem. BUT NOW THAT ARE GOING TO USE THOSE WHO CAN'T OR WON'T PAY AS FILLER FOR THOSE WHO DO. Kind of like the INK results on GOTO.com - fluff and filler!
I really think this is just the tip of the iceberg.
| 7:32 pm on Sep 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
>>Those people who don't pay GQ are not likely to end up in it as content. <<
However, wouldn't it be a PLUS to end up in GQ as content, especially if you didn't pay them?
>>Some real smart lawyer is going to figure out that there just might be big bucks in stopping the SE's from taking what doesn't belong to them.<<
If you mean something like Google's cache, I couldn't agree more.
However, long term, something about our cultural understanding of "ownership" will be changed by the web. IS being changed by the web. When you say that this is just the tip of the iceberg, I'd say you're 100% right.
| 6:12 am on Sep 8, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I read Yahoo has money problems big time due to
not enough advertsers so they are prostituting themselves.
| 9:01 pm on Sep 8, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I agree with Brett-
<rant>The corporate advertising geniuses are starting to figure out that banners give them a very low ROI, hence, major cutbacks in banner purchases. Even VC money to purchase banners is drying up. The easy source of capital is from the people from whom they made their revenue in the first place - the content- the webmasters. What a racket. Basically, SE's made their living on providing surfers access to our sites. Now that less are buying into the former TV/Radio/print advertising paradigm, via banners, they will continue to make their living from us - by charging us for "exposure". As business people, we just need to check our ROI as closely as the banner advertisers once did. $199 into Yahoo, $199 to looksmrt, $xx to inktomi, all amortized over the "lifetime" of your venture. $xx monthly to GoTo, any other PPC engines...vs. how many PURCHASERS, not hits, not visitors...SEO efforts in man/woman hours vs. purchases. Dotcoms falling all around, the world is starting to realize that the panacea called the web ain't necessarily so. The free lunch is starting to dry up.</rant>
We still need to stay up on our game, its just going to cost our clients more more to play. SEO formerly could yield almost free traffic. Now,It will just return a better ROI. Think of the poor bastards that pay their dough,and still can't get ranked. They NEED us... but most still don't know it. $95 million for WSR..geez,in retrospect, this may raise the level of the public's opinion of SEO in general. If they are paying to get into the engines, they might as well pay to get ranked.
| 9:27 pm on Sep 8, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your insightful post. Sadly, there are two sides that are going to be hurt by the new money game.
Side number one: The general public!!! They just want to find information on a given topic and don't know that info is skewed by money changing hands -
Side number two: Anyone with an informational web site designed to be helpful and informative - not with profit as a motive.
| 2:59 am on Sep 10, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I have to agree with you on both points stcrim. And the free sharing of info was indeed the beginnings of the net. And whether we like it or not, it has been commercialized to a large extent, necessitating constant changes. People go to the net for information, absolutely. As we go to the television for information, or amusement, recreation, etc. But we still have to put up with commercials, to maintain the medium. There is still room for information, public access, etc. in TV, Radio, and here. The financial interest is merely taking over another media. And it has created yet another inudstry. Ours. Without the commercial interest on many levels, the internet would never have advanced at its current rate. My personal solution is similar to public television. If we have information we want to share, and have no commercial interest, let a company WITH a commercial interest distribute it. I would hope that the engines would keep this in mind, and perhaps offer non-profit/non-commercial fee reductions or eliminations.
Darn, I'm switching to decaf...