| 10:01 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Well, the way I read it, it's index by the page, with step-rate discounts for volume. $1,010/yr for 100 pages.
Edited by: rcjordan
| 10:03 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
From the pricing model, it looks like it won't spider anything except those pages you pay for. So to get the rest of your site in, you *have* to pay?
OR are the paid for pages the only pages guaranteed to stay in the index and be spidered frequently?
AND the other question I have with this, can inktomi keep its promise of 48 hour refreshes when everyone decides to do this? I assume everyone will decide to do this because so far, there is not a sure way to get and stay in that index.
Good find Mikkel, thanks.
| 10:04 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I already have pages in ink, but they have buried them. Ya think if I paid they would "unbury" them?
| 10:06 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Great find, Mikkel!
No mention if they will be given better placement than the way they're doing now. I'm sure this will be cleared up soon now that the cat is out of the bag so to speak.
| 10:16 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Here is what I wonder. If you have decent placement with inktomi sites now, are they going to bury your sites if you don't pay?
| 10:17 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
This was in the FAQ section:
"Q: How do you differentiate this service from the free Add URL service?
A: The free Add URL service is under constant attack from bots. Over 95% of the submissions are spam and for adult oriented material. The service has a negative impact on overall search relevance and user satisfaction. Due to the heavy abuse of the free Add URL service, Inktomi cannot guarantee sustained inclusion or premium ranking of submitted URLs. On the other hand, we believe the non-refundable fee for the Inktomi Search/Submit program will discourage spamming of the index, and will encourage Web site owners to submit only their most relevant Web pages. Inktomi retains editorial right to remove content that is deemed to hurt relevance."
Hopefully this can be seen as a response to the newly submitted sites being buried issue.
| 10:18 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
As far as I understand the rankings have nothing to do with it. You only pay to be indexed. The pages still have to live up to normal standards.
| 10:20 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
|Inktomi cannot guarantee sustained inclusion or premium ranking of submitted URLs |
Free urls are subject to being purged and paid submits may rise to the top
| 10:25 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I said it once I'll say it again.
| 10:38 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Before this gets to be a 'the sky is falling' thread, INK just bought themselves some editing room on the existing database. Note that they are vague in their statement, and I used subject to and may in the translation. With the little we know so far, about all that can be said is they haven't painted themselves into a corner with any rash guarantees of service for the free submits.
| 10:47 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Sorry Mikkel, we couldn't be further apart on this one. I reject the entire concept of paying for spidering/indexing - especially with a now third level entity like Inktomi.
- It is 95% over priced.
- It is being handled by a second or third tier company that no one has ever heard of - certainly no one I want to drop a credit card number on to their site. They can put up all the testimonials in the world - not going to change the fact, that positiontech is a nobody at this point. I sure can't see why they were picked for this by Inktomi. Highly unusual. Almost as suspect as Ink's back door cloaking deal with Media DNA.
Basically, I see PositionTech being a prime competitor.
There are no assurances of rankings!? What is the deal?
There are no assurances of ANY REFERRALS what so ever. Given their last six month track record of complete instability and inability to retain new and old listings alike, why on earth would I submit a $20 page for indexing? Absurd to the point of bordering on a scam.
This is like a last chance gasp for air from Ink since it is clear their SE is in it's twighlight. Fast, Google and Alta are kicking their ass all over the net for free.
There is no way in hell, they are getting so much as a dollar off me or my clients for merely spidering. It is just nonsense.
If you have SEO money burning up your pocket, it would be far better spent on Goto or hiring someone for optimization - especially on a ppc basis.
Put it this way: take what you may be mulling spending on Ink and instead, go buy a new domain, buy a hosting spot for the site, take your current content and repackage it at the new site, and submit to Google. You'll end up saving money and getting more referrals in a month, than you will all year from Ink. You'll also build branding for the site and your name.
>"Q: How do you differentiate this service from the free Add URL service?
>A: The free Add URL service is under constant attack from bots.
>Over 95% of the submissions are spam and for adult oriented material.
A cut story to cover the fact that their spider is incapable of indexing the web in an intelligent manner the way Googles, Alta's, and Fast's does. If Slurp worked as it is designed, they wouldn't have to worry about AddUrl spam issues just as Alta and Google don't in the first place - they'd find most of them, and those that they didn't they would pull in from the AddURL.
| 11:02 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
>with step-rate discounts for volume. $1,010/yr for 100 pages.
To get WebmasterWorld fully indexed, would be $24,600! That is almost as much as RC's salary! lol
Lets see, $24,600 via Inktomi or $0 via Google and Fast? Boy, that's a real tough call.
| 11:17 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Brett, with AOL now using Inktomi listings and Iwon.com no fly by night portal, don't you think there is some value in it? I hate the idea myself (by the way, I'll tell you in 48 hours how it goes ;)) Inktomi still has a lot of business and partnership pull even if their technology is lacking a bit and low priority in their company right now. The pay out is low risk if it can deliver. I think testing is in order before decisions are made either way....could be bust, could be OK. I do agree though that you still need to know what you are doing with a site and know the Inktomi algo before it would be worth it. Most unsuspecting citizens will not do well with this (same goes for Yahoo and LookSmart though)
| 11:23 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
As webmasters and SEO folk we can certainly vote with our dollars, they won't get any of mine. I am as guilty as anyone of not showing enough support for the engines that deserve support.
I am not saying I want a free ride, but it has to be something a little more tangible for your $20 than just costing the equivalent of a month's hosting fee for an entire site just to submit one page.
| 11:24 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Here is Position Pro's main site [positionpro.com] there is link to them from About.com so that checks out. Apparently they got a referral from DS at the last conference. A read through the site is worth the time if you are hesitant about this deal.
| 11:51 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
James, they are one of your employers prime competitors. The conflict of interest doesn't bother you?
| 11:55 pm on Nov 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Something I have learned in my limited experience is that sometimes competitors can be of great help to you to achieve common goals. They have something to offer that is valuable or of a perceived value. After all, aren't most of us competitors here? And we manage to put that aside and help each other for mutual benefit. The SEO pie is large and for businesses that are established and have happy customers, there will not be an end to business as long as they can continue to deliver. I understand where you are coming from though and do not discount it at all.
| 6:27 am on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
AOL Ink. results require a "drill down" on a tabbed link..
Iwon uses a tuned Ink Algo. (You'd better have "bullet proof" link popularity)..
I'm already getting good MSN clicks..
If Yahoo was still using Ink. I might be a big time player in this, but at this point I'm testing the waters with a couple of tests..
My biggest problem with the vendor administering the system, is they have the opportunity to push their other services on companies paying for submission...
If that isn't a biased angle, what is? Read about their other two services, and if they were monitored by the FCC, we'd have the makings of an anti-trust suit starting up. Can you say Microsoft, backwards, three times, real fast...? :)
But like I said, I threw some competitive vertical phrases at them, using my standard Ink. pages, just to see if the algo. is static, and also to see, if we get a little rise, from becoming a paying member of the new order of SE submissions: Paying for the privilege of being listed.. What a joke.....
I agree with a lot of what Brett noted. The only problem is that adult content will get indexed with this system, and now the spammers with deep pockets have an open door, to re-spam Ink from a different angle.... :)
| 8:40 am on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Happy with Google, Alta, Fast - fantastic traffic and have struggled with Ink for so long now that I have all but forgotten it.
Brett, remember the "need inktomi lessons bad" era where it seemed that Ink was going to be responsible for 50% of web traffic. Those of us who struggled with the Ink driven portals panicked.
Slowly Inks prominence has all but been wittled away. Now this!!!
JamesR, take your point that in this environment competitors help each other out BUT
I reckon that their is definitely a conflict here which makes me feel uncomfortable!
RZ - "the vendor administering the system, is they have the opportunity to push their other services on companies paying for submission..." Exactly - What are the chances of them not using this as a great lead generator for their core business?
Possible scenario going forward:
Webmasters are reluctant to spend the current fee on getting Slurp to visit regularly and guarentee annual inclusion. A select few do pay - to justify their investment, Ink may well have to favour their pages in the rankings to alleviate aggravation as well as encourage others to pay. Thus, the gap between paying for spidering and paying for placement erodes.
| 12:57 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I have a few problems. First of all the damn site is crashing my netscape. The second problem I have is they can't seem to do math.
It says that for 100+ pages it is $6.00 per page. You are only allowed to calculate up to 1000 pages (not enough for my site). If you use their tool to calculate the 1000 pages you will get a figure of $6,410.00. Granted I am unable to see half this site because it keeps crashing my browser, but this doesn't add up.
I might be missing the part that says "we are going to charge you an outragous fee, just to let us make more money than we all ready are, so you can be listed in inktomi. we are not saying that you will be in the top 100, just that the index will be refreshed every 48 hours with your sites in it."
If I want that kind of vagueness I will go talk to Yahoo! If I am paying that much money to be listed I want to know that I will at least be seen in the top 20 for my targeted keywords.
To me this is a bunch of BS and completely below Inktomi. If they wanted to get some money from us, then they should have given something respectable in return.
| 1:42 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
1st page: $20
Next 99 pages (up to the hundreth): $10 * 99 = 990
Next 900 pages (up to the thousandth): $6 * 900 = 5400
No problem with their maths, just their pricing ;)
| 1:47 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Until you explained it, it looked like it was $6.00 for 100+ pages. It is stupid and rather underhanded in my opinion. Basically they are saying you get no savings for more pages. Now there is a pricing structure for everyone. *shaking head*
| 3:14 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Here's something I don't understand.
If you pay to have only your first page in this. Does that mean that will be the *only* page the spider will look at? As in, it will ignore the rest of your site even if you have links on that page to other pages of your site?
OR will it mean you need to have a link of all of the rest of your pages on the front page you decided to put into the program.
In other words, can you get around this problem for minimal cost ($20) if you cloak and have all the links to the rest of your site on cloaked front page?
| 3:18 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
What happened to Network Solutions in this deal? The original news story said the Inktomi deal was with Netsol and their customers?
| 7:11 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I don't see anything about this whole deal on Inkotomi's site.
I think that this would be fairly big news in the search engine world?
I just don't think it seems right. Is there anymore information available on this other than that on Positionpro's site?
| 8:44 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
<In other words, can you get around this problem for minimal cost ($20) if you cloak and have all the links to the rest of your site on cloaked front page? >
That was going to be my first test run. I surely hope so, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
| 9:01 pm on Nov 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
>- It is 95% over priced.
Yes. So what happens to the current permanent listings?
Sits tapping foot for a few weeks to see what really will be going on...
| 12:14 pm on Nov 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
>>If you pay to have only your first page in this. Does that mean that will be the *only* page the spider will look at? As in, it will ignore the rest of your site even if you have links on that page to other pages of your site? <<
Interesting that a spider is set to only "spider" one page even if there are links on it leading to the rest of your site. Why bother calling it a "spider" any longer? If they are going to use the program outline they have on this little gimick it's not spidering at all - just rechecking the pages they have stored in their database every 48 hours (which I GOTTA see them keep up with!)
IMO, a spider actually crawls, thus why they named it a spider to begin with. It's early and I've not had enough tea yet, so maybe it's just me, but it sounds oddly like Yahoo! or ODP without the "Human's Do it Better" claims. <G>
If PTI (and who ARE these guys anyway!!) disclaim anything more in their TOS they could just simplify matters by putting it in one sentence:
PTI shall not be responsible for ANYTHING including, but not limited to, having a secure database for your CC info and email address. Basically - give us your money and we'll see what we can do. <eg> I've signed medical releases before major surgery that guaranteed me more than this!
I am not feeling very secure about this and I'd like to know what is going to happen to the sites that are actually in the current database that aren't paid for. If I'm going to pay for a listing I'd expect it to rise above those that didn't, just a little quirk of mine.
Time for that tea...
| 12:43 pm on Nov 3, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Link from Greg Notes at Search Engine Showdown:
| This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 (  2 ) > > |