homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.252.142
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  
Inktomi Backlash
Is Inktomi stepping up to be the next LookSmart?
martinibuster




msg:20830
 4:22 am on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

Inktomi has tweaked something- whatever they did is outside the scope of this thread. But let me make this clear: I have many older pages that are performing very well.

What I'm interested in is,

  • has anyone reconsidered adding PFI to Ink?

  • Is anyone still recommending PFI?

  • Have you recently counseled a client to not pay for inclusion?

I was submitting to them but I stopped. I'm also advising clients to wait and see.

True or not, the general sentiment is that LookSmart never cared for webmasters (unless they were bent over), and that sentiment may have played a role in their present situation, at least to the extent that many people declined to play ball with LookSmart.

Every search engine is free to exclude whomever they want from their public relations. Yet, as the sun sets on LookSmart and it's history of poor webmaster relations, is Inktomi stepping up to become the latest company webmasters love to hate? The coming months will tell.

 

worker




msg:20831
 6:00 am on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you assume that Ink wants to challenge G, then wouldn't it have to crawl as much of the net as possible?

My guess is that they will have to drop the paid inclusion thing, because it reduces the number of sites in their database.

The smaller the number of sites in their database, the less likely they can return the best results.

Of course, I could be wrong.

jeremy goodrich




msg:20832
 6:06 am on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>>>Inktomi stepping up to become the latest company webmasters love to hate?

Dude, try doing some research on a database that 'supposedly' contained the worst "search engine optimizers" (from the INK perspective) that was leaked (again, supposedly) and blasted out in some search engine newsletter by this guy [searchengineworld.com].

You might also consider that rumors nonwithstanding, for a while, INK was 1st in line with 'webmaster ire' as they pioneered the whole "pay for spidering" concept.

And then - never proved it to be a fully viable business model / and sold their stuff off in parts & the engine business went to Yahoo (as INK was a bit more than that...ultraseek, some media software stuff, a caching system, etc).

Stepping up? I think the right idea here is "regaining" ;) and considering the noise now about the FTC potentially taking a closer look at the whole "wink wink nudge nudge" PFI doesn't affect rankings (cough) program, INK is definitely stepping in something. (Imho) Or about to be dropped in it.

Imaster




msg:20833
 7:42 am on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you assume that Ink wants to challenge G, then wouldn't it have to crawl as much of the net as possible? ... The smaller the number of sites in their database, the less likely they can return the best results.

You are absolutely correct!

I have seen examples where Ink has crawled only 1/3 of several high profile sites, as compared to Google. And I have seen only several examples and they all are less crawled in Ink than in Google.

If high profile sites are missing so many pages in Ink, we all can understand the amount of sites and pages it must be missing overall. And that simply shows where it stands in comparision with the mighty Google.

If Ink ever wants to match Google, my say would be to first crawl the entire web and then improve the algorithm. I am certain Yahoo would do something positive.

martinibuster




msg:20834
 8:03 am on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

Jeremy, you're younger than I am and can recall all the facts, in glorious technicolor no less.

PCInk




msg:20835
 8:26 am on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you assume that Ink wants to challenge G, then wouldn't it have to crawl as much of the net as possible? ... The smaller the number of sites in their database, the less likely they can return the best results.

May not be correct. Lets imagaine, for example, that AltaVista crawled twice as many pages as Google, would this make make their results more relevant? I don't think it would - the algorithm of AV is not up to the quality of G.

I would recommend that they improve the algorithm before crawling all other pages. If there is not enough relevance, no-one will use them if they have 50 pages or 50 billion pages to search through.

The problem with stating that you simply need more pages to be a better engine is false because if every search started with 200 results of spam, afiliates and viagra adverts, you would stop using the search engine and go to a competitor.

Google is where they are now for one reason and one reason alone:
*** RELEVANCE ***
(It was not the largest engine when it was becoming popular - so what made it popular? Obviously not the number of pages)

P.S. When the algorithms are perfected - the time to crawl more pages starts...so when you search for rare items/words the obscure pages can be found. This is what Google has done, firstly improve alogrithm, secondly crawl everything it can.

Also see:
[webmasterworld.com...]
About Inktomi and algorithms

makemetop




msg:20836
 8:33 am on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well, I don't know about you - but my .com sites that had been PFI'd and buried are now appearing in the US HotBot site and MSN.com in the same aproximate positions as on pure INK this morning. This was not the case last night. My .co.uk sites are still buried in the US.

I think the glitch is being sorted!

MikeNoLastName




msg:20837
 10:42 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

(from the prior thread:
[webmasterworld.com...]
which linked to this one)
------------------------------------------------------
My attorney felt otherwise and thought it could be proved that the listing was actually not included into the search engine and that it had been dropped. We sent our first letter talking of legal action. Mysteriously, a few days later, our site was reincluded (and from preliminary reports so have some others).
-----------------------------------------------------

Well, just checked, and MINE's still not fixed yet. Where's that attorney's address?... What's he charge to send a copy of that letter KaneTrain?

ScottM




msg:20838
 10:51 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

Many sites that are in the top ten are not PFI. Patience and some decent links are key.

jeremy goodrich




msg:20839
 11:01 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>>Many sites that are in the top ten are not PFI.

Inktomi have got some bright people there. They wouldn't include PFI in the top 10 if they could help it.

That, my friends, is where the PPC revenue listings go...;)

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