| 10:44 am on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Its known as a USP, a unique selling point.
Compare Inktomi's pitch of PFI, PPC, and cloaked PPC feeds and then look at their turnover and profits, compare them to Googles rumoured $300 mil gross and $100 mil nett.
Maybe, just maybe, Google has a good business model.
| 11:19 am on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe, just maybe, Google has a good business model |
Let me make a loose analogy with traditional publishing.
Anyone can get a book published. Go to a vanity (aka subsidy) publisher and they will publish your work. That's also called paid-for-printing these days. Simple, easy. But how many people buy books from vanity presses?
Or you can get a book published at no cost to you (I didn't say "free") by a commercial publisher. They will take your manuscript and (if they like it) add value to it: copy editing, proofreading etc. That selection and added value are key reasons people buy from commercial publishers.
Some other search engines are like vanity presses. Yes, they'll take you listing but how much market share do they have?
Others are like Google. Google in particular won't take your listing if you are obviously spam (and they are improving their spam detection all the time). And they add value by estimating your PageRank. Result: the majority of searches are either carried out on Google or one of its derivatives.
Result of that: Google gets the traffic and can make money in other ways.
I think a model that has the public thinking "high quality results" is a far better long term bet than one that has webmasters saying "only $$$ for a listing".
| 11:46 am on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Google in particular won't take your listing if you are obviously spam..
Is that why hidden text works so well on Google - or isn't that spam? ;)
On PFI, anyone else been asked to do an interesting survey on this very subject?
| 12:07 pm on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
PFI is the death of a relevant search engine. Google rules because it hasn't gone down that foolish road.
| 12:09 pm on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ok nice try but that doesn't cut it for me.
You are talking about market share and spam filtering but correct me if i'm wrong but how does a PFI program would modify those here?
You see, PFI is not like PPC meaning that PPC has to be listed at the top of the free serps (spam or not) but PFI on the other hand well... if you spam it your page "WILL" end up 203th in the serps but instead of being listed 203th in 2 months it will just take 2-3 days and if you see that your spamming leads you nowhere then "No problemo" because the next PFI db update is in 2-3 days so you can correct it, hope you're following me!
In terms of quality serps standards well "i dare you" to pinpoint me in the Top 10 of Ink or Fast the ones that are PFI and the ones that have been freely submitted.
On the other end, imagine what it would look like at the end of the year in Google's bank account "before going PFI" and "after going PFI" ;-)
PFI programs 1) Does NOT make you win or lose surfers 2) It Does NOT changes the look of your site, and if you maintain your spam filter active then 3) it's just more URLs inside the db that adds up to the regular free db.
The main difference here for us is TIME and whether i send my spam page (for example) today by PFI or using the Free Add URL page it SHOULD NOT change the ending position of that page once GoogleBot crawls it.
[edited by: Mtlinfo at 12:33 pm (utc) on Feb. 2, 2003]
| 12:26 pm on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What are you hinting at MMT? ;-)
| 12:33 pm on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>imagine what it would look like at the end of the year in Google's bank account "before going PFI" and "after going PFI"
|Web search services revenues were $13.1 million and $35.6 million in the quarter and nine month periods ended June 30, 2002. This represents an increase of $1.8 million or 16% in the quarter ended June 30, 2002, and a decrease of $3.7 million or 9% in the nine month period ended June 30, 2002, over the comparable periods in fiscal 2001. The quarterly period to period increase was the result of [b]growth in our database inclusion fee business of $5.2 million, or 598%[b] |
PFI is chump change to Google, they have much bigger plans. If they do it then I don't think it will be for the benifit to the bottom line, imho.
| 12:46 pm on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ok NFFC, you lost me here,
How can 5.2 million $ "quaterly" (that's over 20M $ per year) be just chump change here especially when we know that Google is not public.
How much of that 20M$ can a PFI program would take from that to setup and maintain anyway! After all, adding a few separate Unix servers with good dbs should be enough to do the job of adding a few hundreds of PFI pages each day right?
Think about how greatful we SEOs would be to Google... isn't that an important point here, making your clients happy and have them come back with more URLs month after month ;-)
| 1:02 pm on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Think about how greatful we SEOs would be to Google... isn't that an important point here, making your clients happy and have them come back with more URLs month after month
Google doesn't give a hoot about SEOs
They concentrate on the surfing users experience.
| 1:05 pm on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>isn't that an important point here, making your clients happy
Exactly! That's the point. Google's clients are surfers though, not webmasters or SEOs.
| 1:16 pm on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yeah but who's bringing them URLs in their lovely db hmmm ;-)
They will never tell us but they depend on us so what better way to make us come back since we know that if we don't renew our PFI pages then we'll have to wait 2-3 months to see them back using the free Add URL page.
Besides, we have no controls over what make Google a relevant SE so if they keep on paying their programmers then with better spam filters and new $ coming from us using their PFI program well, everybody would be happy...right?
| 9:15 pm on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|new $ coming from us using their PFI program |
If is it "new" money. But right now if you want to get pages into Google right away, you have to use AdWords to do it. Presumably that program is profitable for them. Adding an Inktomi- or AltaVista-style paid spidering program would mean to some extent that they start competing with a successful part of their own business.
|spam filtering but correct me if i'm wrong but how does a PFI program would modify those here? |
You say "spam filtering" but you're forgetting that much of that invoves PageRank. Google's ranking (not to mention their marketing focus) is built on the idea that backward links are "votes" on a page's importance. Sites without indexed links pointing to them aren't even in the index. You're suggesting that they abandon this approach and let you pay to get around that barrier.
Maybe if they were struggling financially Google would be looking for major changes that might turn that around. But with, as NFFC pointed out, a "rumored" $100 million net income... why should they?
| 10:56 am on Feb 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I was just thinking this the other day... what I would pay to get instant listings in google, I was thinking a one time fee of $50 would be good. Oh well I still got 1 or 2 fresh pages, the rest need to wait 1-2 months.
| 11:09 am on Feb 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I was beginning to wonder if i was the only one here wanting Google to have a PFI program. :-D
| 11:47 am on Feb 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
much of the good obvious answers have been given. But imagine the PR problems when people submit and the page never turns up in searches!
Pure and simple. Google remains the best and most relevant just BECAUSE they do not accept money for listings. For those who want to pay there is Adwords and Premiums. Its a magic mix where the product (their major database) is their investment cost and the product that makes people keep on coming back. their return is revenue from adwords, premiums, licensing fees and rental fees for the database, boxes, site search fees, and pretty soon Im sure.. revenue from froogle, news.google, and a mass of other places.
Its all a good example for creating a killer product that has substance and is either uniqiue or substantially better than anything else, and you will beclme rich off the sideshow revenue. Kill that golden goose, and you kill Google.
However your argument is certainly not uncommon. The ideas behind it are conventional thinking that sunk AV, Ink (to some extent), Looksmart and maybe even Y! as authoritative search engines which people trust. Google were just able to see the future better based on bold assumptions of how the Web really works.
| 7:44 pm on Feb 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
my 2 cents ... no doubt they "should" have a PFI program, they could create a page tomorrow filled with googlism disclaimers about it isn't guaranteeing you a good position, only that they will spider your page ...
that they are the leaders in search because of their patented ranking system that depends on many factors blah blah blah ...
and say if you want the googlebot to visit your site within 2 days the cost will be $_______
I'm not sure what they get from Yahoo for the results, or if they will continue providing yahoo with results in the future but this would be taking another shot over the bow at them ... but this program sure would be a lot more valuable displaying their results at yahoo than it would be without yahoo displaying results ...
as far as the public relations problems about pages not showing up, that is valid ... it is a lot easier to ignore every piece of mail you receive, when you offer a free service ;-)
| 2:46 am on Feb 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I agree that they're not giving the public what the public is clearly willing to do, and clearly begging for. It was the same thing with Yahoo, and then they created the Express listings. But now those have gone to pot, and we're left with the top search engine.
I wish Google would do something for us too. A simple, (reasonable) one time fee would be great...let us optimize our listings, but at least let us get it in there a little more quickly.
As a business owner, I'm tired of playing this search engine game. I just want to do the right thing and get a fair shake for following all of the rules and what not. I'd rather spend my time on my business, instead of jumping through all these hoops. It seems like at the end of the day, the algo's are all different and the time I spent has been for moot anyway. And waiting a few months *just to see" is just no way to run a business.
I hope someone's listening.
| 2:50 am on Feb 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yup you're right on that public supprt but at 20 million $ it might be worth it to hire a chinese student at 1$/month ;-).
As for all the ones that says that their relevancy will be changed by PFI well i would just answer that my sites will get there sooner or later. In fact Google's fresh spider (IP 64....) crawled me last week and this week it's the main crawl spider (IP 216...) so both my site will be listed in their serps at the end of the month so do you see what's going on here?
It means that:
1) Google missed an opportunity to make 200$ (2 sites at 50$ renewed every 6 months) in PFI revenues for my 2 sites.
2) Google was going to have 2 sites listed "anyway" in their serps.
3) That i have wasted 2 month for this to happen
Will that change their serps revelancy... NO WAY! Will that make me waste my time? YOU BET! Could they have made some money with me? OH YEAH and with 1000s of other sites.
Of course there is the reduction of revenues of Adwords but unless you are a good SEO and know what to do to beat the other players your site will still be listed on page 277th so the impact on AdWords should not be that important because most people dropping from Adwords won't make it good in PFI and come back to AdWords the week after.
Besides, we all know that unless you have good PR you won't make it i the Top 10 for adult kws that are mostly all competitive kws.
Are you following me here?
Anyway i guess every one here has their ideas why they don't go PFI but i still don't get it. Sorry guys :-D
| 4:32 am on Feb 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It's simple enough. Google's "product" is relevant search results. If they wanted to be in some *other* business they would. PFI by definition doesn't give a hoot about relevance.
| 4:55 am on Feb 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google focus on good content and up-to-date content not on cash and I totally agree with that philosophy.
I was talking with a b&b client (hotel) this morning and telling him : I you want any chance to get good ranking, give a lot of information on your site about your business but also, and focus on that, give to your future customers the more information on ; the city, the festivals, the shows around your business, restaurants, etc. That gonna make happy your visitors and Google.
I always "calm down" my client and tell them : At the place to panic to see the fastest SERP results : Take that time to improve the quality of your information and always add pertinant information to your site!
Google always focus on the *satisfaction* of the users of their site and NOT on the cash they can make on the submitter of URL.
"C'est la vie" and enjoy it!
| 6:27 am on Feb 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Like alot of people, I think Google should skip PFI entirely, and go straight to a subscription model.
|In a world where everything seems to be for sale, why can't advertisers buy better position in our search results? |
The answer is simple. We believe you should be able to trust what you find using Google.
| 9:16 am on Feb 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ok, i've seen that a lot here in your answers but still don't quite get it...
Take my 2 sites for example, they were similar in content 2 months ago but instead of been listed inside Google's database in december using PFI they will be listed at the end of this month, so how would that change the relevancy of their serps here... please explain me that?
You see, if i would "bypass" the regular listings criteria using a different relevancy filter with PFI then i would agree with you... now i would get it!
It would mean that the ones who pays gets listed at the top, falsing all the good search relevancy but THAT...IS...NOT...THE...CASE here (unless Google said that a PFI program would do just that).
At the end of the month, my sites could be listed 200th or worst if i didn't optimise them well and if i would have paid for them then...they would have "still" been listed 200th...you follow me?
But the beauty of PFI is that you can take that page and modify it so that when the PFI db refreshes in 2 days you stand a chance to rank better and not have to wait for another month or 2 to find out that you moved to the...100th spot! But here again my sites would have to follow the relevancy rules to gain rank!
In other words, what does 8 weeks in TIME (WITHOUT modifying the site's content) can scrap Google's relevancy here? and why wait 8 months (8 attemps at 1/month) to reach #1 spot rather then 8 days?
Wouldn't Google be happy to have relevant sites listed in 8 days rather than 8 months? Unless (and that to me is THE real reason) Google doesn't want us SEOs to optimize our sites so fast... Things that make you go hmmm isn't it hehe ;-)
So, back to my main question here. How can my site changes Google relevancy so much by being listed in december (using PFI) rather at the end of February if they would both follow the same relevancy filter?
Ok waiting for a good explanation on that (just can't wait for a good answer on this here) ;-)
| 10:02 am on Feb 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>How can my site changes Google relevancy so much by being listed in december
You're on quite a bit about your site as if your site is the only site that Google would have to include. Forget about how your site would affect the relevancy of Google's SERPS and think for a minute about tens of thousands of sites making the same demands on servers and processors and on top of that you want a complex mathematical algorithm applied to every site taking advantage of the PFI model as well as applied to the entire database.
The mathematical considerations would have to be applied on a continuous basis given your model of PFI and the cost of processing and bandwidth alone would be a huge consideration.
Now factor in that Pagerank for each page is computed from various factors including the Pagerank of those sites that haven't opted for PFI and what is Google supposed to do? Spider all the sites yet again, compute new Pagerank but only apply the new Pagerank to those sites that opted for PFI? Wouldn't that give the PFI sites an edge?
| 10:38 am on Feb 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
2) Google was going to have 2 sites listed "anyway" in their serps.
3) That i have wasted 2 month for this to happen
I really wonder about either your understanding of Googles ranking algorithm, your business sense, or both.
The links pointing to a site/page have a very strong influence over its ranking. Getting into the database and getting a good ranking are two entirely different matters, as you have stated yourself.
You can get new pages into the database within a day as it is now, if a few other indexed pages point to it. Are you asking them to stop this free service, so that you can pay them to get back to the status quo ante?
To get a decent ranking for competitive keywords, you need at least a few hundred (or better thousand) other pages linking to you *and* Google needs to know that those pages link to you. This means that for new pages, you either have to wait until those linking pages are reindexed, or you'd have to pay PFI quick-inclusion fees for a significant number of them, not just for the one or two target pages.
If Google doesn't have any pages indexed with links to yours, then you'll not get into the index, let alone with a useful rank. You already say that this should not be changed through a PFI service.
In other words, given the way that Google works, allowing PFI would not give you, the webmaster, any useful value beyond what you're already getting for free right now. And since Google is a honest business, they're not going to sell you a worthless service.
| 10:49 am on Feb 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What! Servers demands problems at Google! Sorry but i don't buy that option either.
Google have billions of sites in their db and crawling the planet for millions more as we speak and you're saying that creating a PFI program (that Yahoo, Altavista, Lycos, MSN and Theoma managed to do) would have an impact on their system! You've got to be kidding!
Come on let's be serious here these guys have monster systems here (11,000 Unix servers i heard) so a PFI with a few 1000s site is nothing to them.
>what is Google supposed to do? Spider all the sites yet >again, compute new Pagerank but only apply the new Pagerank >to those sites that opted for PFI? Wouldn't that give the PFI >sites an edge?
Hmmm you got a point here!
I bet ya 100$ that it has to do with something like this...some sort of advantage that they don't want to give to us EVEN if we are paying them.
Boosting the PR of sites faster could be a good reason here... What do you think guys? Any other ideas here? Come on, tell me all the weird theories you might have. I'll call Mulder after to confirm.
The truth is out there...i heard one time! ;-)
| 10:57 am on Feb 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>Come on let's be serious here these guys have monster systems here (11,000 Unix servers i heard) so a PFI with a few 1000s site is nothing to them.
That's just it, I'm not talking about a "few 1000s". The database is relational and would require constant computation of Pagerank and the myriad other factors they incorporate to determine rank.
Stopping thinking in terms of tossing a few stones into a pond without considering the ripples. :)
| 11:07 am on Feb 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hey, i'm not saying that you are right or wrong here. I'm just looking for A GOOD and LOGICAL answer here.
Maybe you are right but since GoogleGuy is mute on this then we won't know for sure that Google just can't setup a server and a new spider maybe for a PFI program so that they share information with the free url db (just like Inktomi and the other PFI programs are doing) in order to not only list our new pages faster but also modifies the PR level.
This being said, i wouldn't bet too much on the fact that Google "can't do it" and that it would be too complicated for them but hey...you might be right.
| 11:13 am on Feb 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You seem to know a lot about the server power it takes to create and run a PFI program like most of the others SEs are doing here...
Where do you get that info? Do you have information i don't have here or what? Did you hear GoogleGuy say that PFI programs are too complicated or something?
I'm just looking for a good answer and so far well... let's just say that i'm not convinced too much yet.
| 11:17 am on Feb 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
G is not going to comment on future plans or "what if's" in this vein - just doesn't happen for some good reasons. GG is a human starting gun - anything he says is a rumor by morning, a fact by afternoon, and a netlegend by tomorrow.
They already have a pfi engine - called AdWords ;-)
| This 54 message thread spans 2 pages: 54 (  2 ) > > |