| 12:18 am on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
And now for a brief comment:
"They've got to be kidding"
TGOG - that's thank god for google!
| 12:30 am on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Well, for that wildlife reserve site we were discussing yesterday (3900 unique content pages) the annual indexing fee would be $23,810. I'd say you'll have to be well-heeled to move a big site into INK.
| 5:42 am on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Hey, check out the disclaimers:
Number one disclaimer reads...
PTI shall not be responsible for URLs dropped or excluded by Inktomi for any reason
Isn't this like saying pay us to list your site, but after we have your money we're not responsible if we don't list you site or drop it?
Later on in the disclaimers, they say...
PTI cannot guarantee that Your Account Service data information will be free from corruption or piracy
All these SE's are trying to take advantage of a certain level of desperation among the webmaster community. They're saying give us you money, then hope for the best. Fly-by-nighters used to do this on the 'net, and still do, but most people wised up. Now the big guys are doing it.
If you pay and they can't deliver the goods, they should refund your money.
I think the FTC ought to be looking into this.
| 7:48 am on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
What a scam.
I see it as an admission of the fact that they can no longer cope with keeping a once decent database.
While their foothold in the market is still respectable due to the partnerships they've carved through the years, they come up with this... Eighth Wonder.
They know they're on their way out and they want to make a run for it while they can. Or think they can.
IMO, this violates the very foundations of the concept of the Internet.
I'd like to see their partners drop like flies and all webmasters boycott this outrageous attempt to scam the entire webmaster community.
| 8:11 am on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Geeeez, how sustainable is this going to be??
Never been a fan of Ink but this takes the cake!
| 2:08 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
There will be more press on the subject as time goes on. I can't imagine INK's partners being very happy with a database that contains only Fortune 500 companies. After all the little guy (local sites: real estate, car dealers, gift shops, etc) aren't going to pay for inclusion. Actually, they can't pay - the web hasn't become that valuable a source of revenue to them.
Most car dealers are losing money on their internet departments every month - only the select few who have got good search engine placement are keeping their head above water. The added expense of just getting found will crush them.
The average webmaster doesn't read here, or anywhere else for that matter and may never know why their web sites aren't getting found. I talk with companies who's home page is FLASH almost everyday - that don't have a clue why they aren't getting traffic. Your average web user and developer isn't going to get it - and even if they did, they couldn't afford to do anything about it...
The ripple affect could be horrible! As users search and don't find, they use the internet less - the less they use the internet... and so on.
INKTOMI was the biggest and the best - to that I have to say, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING...
| 2:18 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
>I can't imagine INK's partners being very happy with a database that contains only Fortune 500 companies.
This is the only thing I really consider to be the salvation of the 'free submit.' How many engines have we seen install some sort of pay-for-play (Brett's catch-all term) scheme? Plenty. There's no arguing that this is the way it's going to go for awhile. But note that we're only discussing the costs of INK here, to be a player in multiple search engines and ppc directories, it now costs a fortune. You are right, Steve, not many -except the Fortune 500- can afford to cover all their bets as it now stands. The end result will be a distillation of the SE databases to a very few resources. The web will split into the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' and the have-nots may be forced to return to the old mosaic days of reciprocal links and usenet-like postings.
| 2:32 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Many of us touted over at SEF, back as far as two years ago, that the web would one day become a "pay for placement" world... :)
We knew we were in the middle stages of the modern day "gold rush". Goto was just launched, and everybody and their brother was beating them down verbally, about how the pay-per-bid CPC model would never go over, bla, bla, bla...
Well Goto got a huge round of financing in May, 1998, and have never looked back. Now, they have bid listings on the majority of the heavy hitters portals.. :)
I'm not saying that Inktomi's implementation is a good one. Far from it, they've chosen a terrible partner to be the source for their pay for submission service.
But, the "brick and mortar" world is one of the "have's and have not's".. How long did everyone expect "cyberworld" to be a friendly haven for free information... We're just lucky that the corporate steamrollers didn't take the web seriously, for as long as they did.....
My suggestion is the same as it always has been. Play where you can, and stay out of the areas where it takes "deep pockets" to run with the big dogs.... :)
The big dogs may not be throwing money at the web, like they did last year, but they still got more money than sense, at times.....
| 2:44 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
>We're just lucky that the corporate steamrollers didn't take the web seriously, for as long as they did
| 2:56 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
The frenzy days where web businesses had more money than brains are behind us. The 'traffic at any cost' mentality is nearing the end of its death spiral.
I doubt if the fees Ink wants will fit into many viable financial business models, and the bean counters now raising in the ranks of surviving web companies will probably gag on them. Especially when the question arises "what will I get for the money" and the answer is "well, I don't know ... hopefully we'll get more traffic, but I don't know for sure and I don't know how much or for how long ... and of coarse it will still depend on how well our high-paid SEO people do their job"
Personally, I think a fee of $1 per page per year is more like it, especially in light of all the other pay-to-play programs now on everyone's palate, and in light of the dismal traffic levels that Ink has been generating in the past couple of months.
| 3:05 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Looks to me like Ink is declaring it wants out of the search game. Their emphasis has moved away from search over the last few months, it barely gets a mention in the Press Releases at all.
If they do want to get out of search they are certainly going the right way about it. ;)
Fundamental Flaw No 72:
If the "big dogs" can buy a search listing who are Ink's portal partners going to sell banners to?
| 3:13 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
> portal partners going to sell banners to?
To which I'd reply:
Who's buying banners? (I believe the collapse of banner advertising revenues has more to do with the current state of affairs than most realize ...but that's another topic line.)
| 3:36 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Ink wants money from websites to stay in the SE business. Yahoo wants money. Looksmart wants money. Google now wants money for top listings. GoTo wants money. Alta Vista is re-organizing to become profitable (ie get money from everyone too). Excite, Web Crawler, HotBot, Lycos, Infoseek (Go) are not grabbing for money ... and they've already degenerated to somewhere between dysfunctional and dead.
On the website side, profits are more fleeting than ever for many of the web businesses, and the pool of high-risk investors has dried up.
What we are about to witness is a massive shaking out of the SE business. The survivors must, and will, fit into a viable financial business model, not only for themselves but for the websites they want to tap for funding.
We are also seeing the creation of a void for search technology that is inexpensive or free to many non-profit websites. Some great minds are probably working this out now ... a superb new technology that harnesses the web without all the expensive overhead of big staffs of people and massive data bases, mega-servers or server farms, and mega-bandwidth. Napster did this for sharing of mp3 files. Who will do it for sharing of web information?
| 3:36 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
so is anyone going to try and pay to have a listing?
| 3:50 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I'd pay $20 to see flies ****
Testing it out now on just an index page to see what will happen.
I got in early at goto and findwhat so our average cost has been lower.
Also got burned many times on PPC stuff - [read CS :( ]
This whole thing is sick but we are in the business of developing a traffic strategy.
This may or may not be part of that strategy - time will tell.
| 4:34 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I'm with you, Mike, the whole idea is absurd but complaining is not going to lower the price one cent. Ink's strategy is set and the best we can do is limited testing to see what the effect will be. If the investment does not produce a return, turn your back on Inktomi and walk away, that simple. I would not be suprised if the whole new submissions being buried was a set up for this....I thought Ink would be too smart for that, who knows. However, all is conjecture right now which may or may not hold water in a month or two down the road.
| 4:36 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
This is disappointing to say the least. It is not so much that Ink has revealed it's "pay to play", but rather is the way they have done it.
To partner with a company who has those types of disclaimers is wanting to die a slow death.
I wonder if Ink knew what the disclaimers would be with this partner?
I touted their starting to charge to be indexed in a big way with my opinions on how they would do it.
Not even in my wildest imagination did I see something like this. Not even close.
First, they said they had partnered with Network Solutions for this, and now that deal has been silent. How can we safely give them any money? I thought the whole idea was to remain in the Ink database. This site is saying that eventhough they are paid, there are NO garuantees of how long you stay in, if even for one day. No refunds to boot. This is an outrage.
I do not know if I could even try with one page for $20, especially when they also say that our information is Not protected and they are not responsible.
Very disappointed in this. It does look like Ink wants to rid their hands of the search engine stuff.
I have another thought,.... maybe Ink does not know what this site is doing and maybe the site revealed this toooo quickly without all the details worked out?
This could be a possibility, and that we might see other press releases come directly from Inktomi real soon. This would explain things if the case.
Has Ink said anything about this yet?
| 4:47 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
>I'd pay $20 to see flies ****
I wish this profanity filter would leave the leading letter, this is obviously not an Anglo-Saxon saying. I guess I'll just have to use my imagination !!.
Down to the serious business. I appreciate and take note of every single word that people such as Brett, rcjordan, NFFC etc have to say, and I totally agree that Inktomi's choice of an SEO company to administer the scheme is a travesty. However, is there not the slightest gleam of sunlight there?. Consider the scenario of submitting a single page ($20). With spidering every 48 hours, there is ample opportunity to tune that page until it sings. Then if we build 20 further pages aimed at our best keywords, and based exactly on our original $20 page, isn't it possible that we might end up with some very nice rankings for not too much money. I know that they're doorway pages, and that they're frowned upon by many (some?) of our members, but surely nobody in their right mind is going to pay thousands of dollars to have their entire site spidered.
I appreciate that nobody yet knows what Ink is doing with paid for submissions vs spidered free ones, but I'm just trying to say that things may not be quite as black as they're being pained.
| 5:05 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I don't know about anyone else, but I KNOW I would feel less insecure if these people had a working knowledge of English.
From [positiontech.com ]
>The industry leader in web site promotion, Position Technologies through it's Position Pro...
Hullo? The difference between a contraction and possessive? Duh!
| 5:22 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Hey Mike I am doing a test on 15 domains. Index pages only just to see what happens.. I will report my findings on WmW here in the INK forum :)
| 5:50 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Just an update: nearly after submission Protech spider came and grabbed the pages. Several hours later the site was visited by two different slurp spiders from two IPs, both out of Exodus communications. I will let you know the first sign of referrals.
| 5:57 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
>Protech spider came and grabbed the pages. Several hours later the site was visited by two different slurp spiders from two IPs
The "c" word springs to mind.
| 6:01 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I don't know, they were identified agents slurp/cat and slurp/si (no generic browser here) slurp/si requesting robots.txt and the other grabbing pages....makes sense though.
| 6:05 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
> and the other grabbing pages
Just the pages you paid for OR MORE ?
| 6:09 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Off their disclaimer page:
"PTI does not represent or warrant that Customers URL's will achieve a favorable position, or any position, within Inktomi"
any position? Are you kidding me? Sites can drop out of an index for no reason at all. You are not even guaranteed a listing anywhere in the database. I can understand no guarantee of a "favorable position" but not a listing?
| 6:14 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Mike - only the ones paid for... gotta respect them for keeping their word ;)
ihelpyou - you have to understand that Ink must reserve the right to drop illegal or harmful spam pages (porn redirects and so forth). Positiontech has to put that kind of stuff in their disclaimer to avoid trouble now that money is involved and they are a prime target. Ink still has to reserve the right to protect their database and its viewers (I hate being redirected to porn!!)
disclaimer - I do not work for Inktomi or Positiontech and have no affiliation with either of them whatsoever -
Edited by: JamesR
| 6:16 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
One thing the disclaimer tells me is that if Ink throws in the SE towel, don't come around whining for a refund.
| 6:18 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I too am very leary about this PP company. They offer some kind of a program to optimize and analyze your pages and then submit them.
I have never heard of them either.
This is an SEO company thru and thru. I wonder why INK did not partner with someone who is completely objective?
Actually, Danny Sullivan would have been a better choice. I think anyway.
| 6:22 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
jamesr.... I understand that and completely agree with you but the disclaimer says that your page can be dropped for no reasons at all with no refund. It takes in all circumstances the way it is stated.
| This 47 message thread spans 2 pages: 47 (  2 ) > > |