| 1:40 pm on Sep 29, 2000 (gmt 0)|
As far as ink is concerned right now - there is nothing you can do, in my opinion. I think we'll see things changes in time but for now, new submissions are off the radar. May have something to do with their future pay to play plan.
Put your time and effort into Google but keep and eye on ink...
| 7:16 am on Oct 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Giving up the fight Steve? I know it is hard to get into ink and stay there right now. It just seems so elitest. We are still getting a trickle from the ink engines (mostly hotbot/msn due to good click throughs on our direct hit listings).
As for tips & tricks - I'm all ears ;)
| 9:08 am on Oct 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Submitted multiple pages on 9/24-26. Getting fairly good results (upper 20's) but nothing like they should (or used to) be. On the positive side it looks like they are including the meta description again instead of the google jumble.
| 11:32 am on Oct 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
It's odd how some people are actually getting sites indexed by Ink, buried deep - most of them, but in the database. We haven't gotten a submission in since August and we never over submitted. I can't remember the last time I saw the index spider in our logs.
It's very frustrating and I'm with Steve on this one. We've basically stopped submitting to Ink, except new sites, and we're waiting it out to see what they're actually up to. Might not be the best tactic, but I'm all ears for better suggestions!!
| 11:52 am on Oct 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Since mid August, my client"s site has basically been un-Inked. All that was ranked was a single page and the domain page (www.mydomain.com). All of the other pages were indexed but buried deeper than the Titanic. About two weeks ago, I made a major change to a Sitemap page. I submitted that page with a hope (and a prayer) that Inkydinkydo spider would spider all of the internal links. Inkydinkydidn't. Surprise,surprise when all Ink did was replace the one page that was ranked with the Sitemap page. BTW, it wasn't a great exchange. The Sitemap page ranked lower for fewer terms than the page it replaced. Oh, well thank God for Google (try explaining that to the customer). Google/Yahoo now make up 50-60% of referrers with AV making up 25-35%.
| 1:37 pm on Oct 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
The only difference I'm seeing is a lower percentage ratio of crawls to submissions. Ink is a sloppy crawler at times.
Have been seeing a Slurp/Cat UA hitting new submissions though. This we have not seen before...
| 1:43 pm on Oct 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
>>Giving up the fight Steve?
Nope!!! Down here we have a saying "Don't shot 'til you can see the whites of their eyes".
>>As for tips & tricks - I'm all ears ;)
The only valuable traffic we currently get from INK is on three word (or more) phrase searches. In other words, the buried results will rise to the surface when there's nothing in their way. So think "phrases"
| 6:10 pm on Oct 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Don't ask me how because we haven't been able to analyze our spider logs, but we've gotten several new sites into inktomi and into top 10 positions...
However, these sites are all new so it is VERY possible that they will soon be either dropped from the database or in the rankings...
Steve is right, "think phrases"...we're using keyword phrases...it might help that the category is not very competitive...
So if the elements are right, Ink WILL add new sites and rank them highly...what these elements are, who knows???
| 6:22 pm on Oct 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I too am getting some good rank for phrases using the same type of page structure that I have been using. But there is only so much traffic to squeeze out of three word phrases. My Inktomi proper traffic is about 5% what it was. I am not giving up the fight, however.
| 7:08 pm on Oct 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
>>Google/Yahoo now make up 50-60% of referrers with AV making up 25-35%.<<
Similar breakdown for many of my sites right now. Inktomi traffic has faded away into the background and I've pretty much decided not to give Ink energy for the moment -- I can get a better return on my efforts by focusing elsewhere.
First place goes to Goo and Hoo, around half of referals. The entire LookSmart effect [taken as a unit] is probably in the number two spot, and then AOL. The total result is more overall traffic than when we had a lot of Ink refers. But I'm a bit greedy, and would love to add Ink to the pile again.
It's a little difficult for me to accept the changes in Ink -- however I must admit that even though my clients aren't highly ranked there, Ink's top ranks are quite relevant to the kw. They're just very different from the top ranks on other engines. Newer sites are buried or absent, but at least the oldtimers at the top of the list are freshly spidered.
| 2:48 am on Oct 9, 2000 (gmt 0)|
My sentiments are same as tedster..
When inktomi started faltering, I emailed a couple of times to inktomi and got some friendly replies and grandiose plans for future. Even asked me if I would participate in a poll of some sort.
Google has been kicking butt. Just can't beat it. Paying for submissions to LookSmart have seem to made up for the losses from Inktomi biting the dust.
I thought they would rebound quickly and with "force." Guess not though...maybe they have cash problems.
Reading the recent "infrequent" posts seems to refect the same sentiment. Anybody have a clue as to why Inktomi doesn't "appear" to care they are going under?
| 3:07 am on Oct 9, 2000 (gmt 0)|
WElcome to the WmW boards and the INKTOMI forum. I'm with you on Google - it has been doing well for us. But gotta say I miss the INK traffic, there just ain't nothing like it.
Don't think INK is on the way out. The nature of their business may be changing but think the company will be around for a bit. INK has gone through long streches of not spidering or indexing in the past. Seems the one thing we can count on with the SE's is change...
again, welcome to the boards
| 3:44 am on Oct 9, 2000 (gmt 0)|
This is probably wrong place to post this, but I had a heck of a time trying to find where I could drop you a short note.
I was a registered user, but for some reason had to sign up all over again. Anyways... it IS good to be back....
And for the record, to make this post "kinda pertinent"... I think inout-tomi sucks..... but then, who am I?
The longer they take to regroup, the longer it is going to take to regain the confidence of users... unless of course they become "google-like".... one submission of the top page does it all......
Thanks again for your greeting!
| 11:11 am on Oct 9, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I've gotten top rankings-#1 and 2- in Hotbot in the past week.
But no hits from it yet. Maybe not many people use Hotbot?
| 1:18 pm on Oct 9, 2000 (gmt 0)|
sicotte - there have been a lot of refinements on the boards lately - may have caused you to need to sign up again. We have our problems with INK and really like google - but as you know that could all change next week.
Lizzie - hotbot usually delivers fairly good traffic - may have something to do with how competitive the keywords or phrases are - at least you're in the right position.
| 2:14 pm on Oct 11, 2000 (gmt 0)|
> sicotte was a registered user, but for
> some reason had to sign up all over again
You sure shouldn't have had too. Drop me your old user name and let me have a look. There shouldn't have been any problems with user accounts at all.
>Wondering if anyone knew any they DON'T
Lizzie, there really isn't at this time. Most all the 'trick' stuff has been outted from Inktomi. They have basically taken to listing the mega sites. There are very few people here with decent Inktomi rankings right now because of it. They've went and sliced off all the smaller sites.
>I've gotten top rankings-#1 and 2-
>in Hotbot in the past week.
Must be under obscure keywords? Where Hotbot doesn't have that much traffic?
| 2:43 pm on Oct 11, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Sure those listings aren't DH or DMOZ?
| 6:26 pm on Oct 11, 2000 (gmt 0)|
That IS my user name.... "sicotte:
No problem tho.....
| 7:23 pm on Oct 11, 2000 (gmt 0)|
It is definitely Hotbot, I guess they don't have much traffic
there, I get a few hits, 2 or 3 a day. Just the same I was pleasantly surprised.