homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.19.169.37
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics Forum

  posting off  
New Inktomi Site
Brett_Tabke




msg:22352
 5:01 pm on Feb 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

I see Inktomi has updated their site design and some content on their site. Worth a look and a read. Certainly somethings folks will find...well - I'll leave it up to to decide.

[inktomi.com...]

Especially take time to read the Content Guidelines:

[inktomi.com...]

and the Content Policy FAQ:

[inktomi.com...]

 

tigger




msg:22353
 5:13 pm on Feb 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

great find Mr T.

Nearly fell of my chair when I was reading the content guidelines :), so I wonder how this equates to PFI pages

lawman




msg:22354
 5:20 pm on Feb 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>Especially take time to read the Content Guidelines

Cool!

Lawman

Brett_Tabke




msg:22355
 5:20 pm on Feb 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

It's not as agressive as I really thought it would be. The one thing that caught my eye was the two statements about cloaking. Especially the one:

If the purpose is to serve alternate pages to different human users, based on locality, browser, machine type etc., we do not consider that cloaking.

That's really splitting hairs. Reads to me that the se's reserve the right to split those hairs based on intent of the page. To put it another way, they can't come up with a working definition of cloaking either. There are just too many types of cloaking these days to know which-is-ok and not ok - so they have to base it on the intent of the page.

It seems like this is all coming full circle here because that is exactly the way we fell about spam in the forums. We can't come up with a definition of because 10seconds later someone figures out a legit way around the definition.

JamesR




msg:22356
 5:40 pm on Feb 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Yeah, tough to define but they have to land somewhere. At least geographic / language delivery is not being considered as cloaking. That is helpful.

Note the no-no on excessive pop-ups, that is cool.

dvb_99




msg:22357
 6:02 pm on Feb 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Read this:

"Doorway" is a term for pages which send the user to a different page. Inktomi does not want doorway pages in the index.

I was always in the impression that doorway pages do well in inktomi..i guess they have a different idea for doorpages now...

Brett_Tabke




msg:22358
 6:25 pm on Feb 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

I know many of us are worried about the multiple language and multiple domain name situation.

This one is very welcome:

Q: Noting that you do not want multiple sites which have the same content, I registered many domain names, for instance our name in .com, .net, .org and .co.uk. I pointed them all to our main Web server, so each domain serves exactly the same content. Is this OK?
A: Yes, this practice is common and considered reasonable.

rmjvol




msg:22359
 7:06 pm on Feb 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hey! They just gave away the holy grail of SEO!
Commas or no commas in meta tag?


Q: What's best to do with the Keywords meta-tag?
A: Put phrases that relate to this page in the Keywords line, separated by commas.

No wonder I rank on the 112th page for my company name.;)

Michael Weir




msg:22360
 7:42 pm on Feb 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Okay, this is lame, but what's a PFI page? I'm still learning a LOT - especially in the acronym department. (perhaps "PFI" should be added to the glossary?) :)

Brett_Tabke




msg:22361
 7:45 pm on Feb 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

PFI: Pay For Inclusion.

(added to the glossary - thanks)

john316




msg:22362
 7:59 pm on Feb 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

The entire FAQ is illegible in mac browser--whoever heard of font size 7.5!?

Oh well, I guess that means mac users are immune from cloaking rules. ;)

WebGuerrilla




msg:22363
 10:31 pm on Feb 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

I don't see the cloaking statement as "splitting hairs." It seems pretty clear cut to me, and it is huge departure from their previous stance on cloaking.
(Courtesy of Google's cache) :)

What is considered "spam"?

Inktomi defines spam an inappropriate use of Inktomi's search engine involving any effort to deceive the search engine into returning a result that is unrelated to the query or whose position has been artificially inflated in the result set.

From the "Examples of Spam" section

Cloaking/doorway pages that feed Inktomi crawlers content that is not reflective of the actual page

To go from that statement to one that basically says Ink doesn't want any pages that differ from what a human sees, seems like a pretty major shift in direction to me.

So the question in my mind is what does this mean for their partners? Their original statement on cloaking always read to me like it was intentionally written to give a few of their partners some wiggle room, but the new statement has clearly removed it.

Do they give their cloaking partners a secret pass, or are they really going to force them to clean up their acts?

seofan




msg:22364
 10:58 pm on Feb 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

"What Inktomi Considers Unwanted...Pages that give the search engine a different page than the public sees (cloaking)"

Yes, that statement seems straightforward to me as well. I can definitely see the difference between designing pages for optimal layout which people actually see that are created to enhance their user experience as opposed to creating pages that "the web public" never sees that are served up only to the spidering bots specifically to affect search engine placement.

stcrim




msg:22365
 1:46 am on Feb 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>>or whose position has been artificially inflated in the result set.

That's a hell of a brush to be painting with...

So, in other words, if I do all the right things for a client and get them to rank in some reasonable position below the directory and Go-verture listings, Ink may consider that spam, because it was "artificially done???

And I get to pay for that opportunity???

-s-

NeoN




msg:22366
 8:14 am on Feb 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

Br... I liked their previous design much more.. Probably they had to fire the expensive designer and hire a cheaper one :)

nell




msg:22367
 8:33 am on Feb 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

Virtually every database driven e-commerce site using a mySQL or Access database is now worthless in terms of getting ranked. Typically, one would have html doorway pages redirecting to the (detail.asp or detail.php) pages of those products a customer wanted to rank and sell.
Likewise, a pure html version of a large e-commerce site for the purpose of ranking is impractical. Product changes (prices and descriptions) are impossible to manage and customer details cannot be gathered and executed.
Since PPI requires page optimisation, PPC is the only option left. Yes, the large e-commerce sites have no other option than to revert to Overture. When a number of competing, deep-pocket, e-commerce sites start bidding for the same top 3 competitive business keyword positions in 8 months time (next Xmas season) watch those PPC bids go through the roof. If that holds true, goodbye Overture PPC and hello MSN PPC when the Overture contact expires at the end of this year. (I wonder what project is MSN currently working on?)
The only option left for the SEO is to have their own e-commerce site using the profits made from whatever products they can get ranked to pay for the clicks everyone will need to stay in business. That will give the SEO e-commerce enterprise the leverage to compete against the big boys who have to pay for every visitor to their site.

tigger




msg:22368
 8:39 am on Feb 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

with that in mind it makes you wonder if these new guidelines have been set up to drive more people towards index connect?

Brett_Tabke




msg:22369
 9:04 am on Feb 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

That is exactly what I am wondering Tigger. Sure sounds like they are coming down on paid inclusion urls. I've talked to many people in the last few weeks that have found their pfi pages buried (not banned).

>Yes, that statement seems straightforward to me as well.

Every page on this site is dynamically generated. With simply logging, we can detect:
ip address, domain name, browser make & model, referring string, and cookies

That gives a site the ability to generate pages based upon:

Country of origin, some speed info in domain names (dsl/asdl/dialup/ethernet/cable), text, no text, css support level, plugins support, encoding support, language support, screen size, graphic level (png/gif/accept), activity level, referring string, time on site, path through site, time between pages, and cookie status.

That also gives us a chance to deliver pages based upon native spoken language.

We can feed IE, NN, Opera, Lynx, and Wap in HTML 3.2, HTML 4.0, and XML flavors. As well as several different spoken languages using server based translation (which is installed).

Umm which one of those pages should I give the search engines? Or should I just do the right thing and add a generic "search engine spider" to the agent list and feed them the lynx page?

Seem muddier than ever to me. There is no working definition of cloaking that can be used. It's all about intent. Hence, the opening statement If the purpose is to serve alternate pages.

NeoN




msg:22370
 9:50 am on Feb 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

nell, not so bad for e-commerce. There are different solution to this problem.
Amazon.com has one - their URLs are very SE friendly.
For example, we are also finishing the e-commerce solution that is SE friendly just from the start. You do not have to create static pages- they all are static for SEs :) Easy and nice and so on..

But.. I will tell you more when we start with that! :)

makemetop




msg:22371
 5:36 pm on Feb 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

Some other slightly satirical comments on these new guidelines were posted here [webmasterworld.com]!

stcrim




msg:22372
 9:16 pm on Feb 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>>drive more people towards index connect.

So, is it possible that INK sees the PFI pages as an SEO thing and so a little shift in the algo and those SEO pages (that were ranking) are now in the toilet.

And do they see IC as the heavy hitters and so have now those pages have been moved to the top.

Inktomi's current treatment of pages paid for in good faith has got to be the best thing that has ever happened to Overture.

None of this leaves me with that "reach for my visa card feeling".

-s-

IanTurner




msg:22373
 10:28 pm on Mar 5, 2002 (gmt 0)

Looks like they just hired an SEO - and told him/her to rewrite their policies :)

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved