| 9:39 am on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ink is still in bad shape. How it hopes to compete with Google I really don't know.
As for the sites that have stolen your content you want want to e-mail Inktomi about it.
As for Yahoo! they may use Ink, AV or FAST in their new results. They could also fill the index with Overture results - now there is a scary thought!
| 9:43 am on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It's a minor issue about the sites stealing my content. It's pretty major that they list the stolen content but then are so incomptent that they can't even list my page, which is pfi!
| 9:48 am on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I would call your PFI reseller because sometimes there can be problems listing URLs for no apparent reason.
| 4:45 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Believe me, you're not the only one.
Just remember, PT isn't the only reseller :)
| 4:49 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I would call your PFI reseller because sometimes there can be problems listing URLs for no apparent reason. |
That's not true at all. It's usually because of an editorial action.
| 6:55 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You should really read that other thread. You are not the only one. I have had huge problems with PT.
When I say huge, I mean HUGE.
I had decent results for my index page in Ink, but I wanted the security of knowing that it would always be indexed. So I signed up with PT. Immediately, my site was dropped just as you are explaining.
Then they had the audacity to tell me that it was included and nothing was wrong becasue if your type in originurl:http://yoursitehere.com then it would show up.
You've got to be kidding me. Do they think I'm in second grade?
After 5 months of being dropped, my url was finally reincluded about 2 months ago. Then PT has huge problems again and my site was once again dropped. Am I going to have to wait another 5 months to get my url to show up again?
Now, to top that off, they lost all historical clickthrough data.
If you are contemplating it, DO NOT sign up. There is a good chance your urls will actually be excluded and not included. I am not joking.
DO NOT SIGN UP FOR PFI!
| 7:02 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"call your reseller"
That sounds good in theory, but what if your reseller tells you that your site is not dropped at all and that there is no problem at all.
What if they ignore the fact that they got your url dropped and tell you that it's obvious that your url is in the database... and that you can obviously see it by typing in "originurl:http://yoursitehere.com"
What if your reseller is responsible for getting your site dropped and won't admit to it? What if they don't offer any resolutions?
| 7:18 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
DO NOT SIGN UP FOR PFI! (with resellers that have shady tactics and get you slapped with editorial actions)
| 7:27 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|They [Yahoo] could also fill the index with Overture results - now there is a scary thought |
Well, what's good enough for Ink'...
(can of worms openned)
| 7:27 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If that is the case kanetrain then don't use PFI or change supplier.
I don't know what to suggest other than that.
| 8:21 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
That sounds good in theory, but if you stop using PFE (Pay for Exclusion), then your site will not get reindexed by Inktomi. You and I and everyone here knows that once you sign up for PFI, your site gets put on a list and will never get reindexed by INK unless you sign up again for PFI.
So you sign up for PFI with a different company...right. But how do you know who to trust? Can one company undo the penalty that the first company got put on your site?
If they can't undo the penalty of the first site, then are you just out the money? So you pay twice to get excluded?
Do these resellers actually have contact with Inktomi reps? If they do, then they should be able to get these issues resolved within 5 hours, not 5 months. And if they don't, it is entirely unethical for them to sell a service that they have no control over. Period.
| 9:08 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Where is InkGuy when we need him! :)
Personally I use Positiontech and have never had a problem.
| 9:27 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Can one company undo the penalty that the first company got put on your site? |
Definitely. I've run accross this on many occasions, and the situation with Inktomi was cleaned up almost immediately.
|Do these resellers actually have contact with Inktomi reps? |
From what I understand, most don't, which is why they give you the run-around. However, that doesn't mean that ALL don't ;)
|Personally I use Positiontech and have never had a problem. |
I just think that trusted feed is the way to go. You know immediately when your site has been penalized, and once you contact the right people, you can get it resolved in a very short amount of time. I just think it's wiser for ROI purposes as well, which tells you when you need to either optimize or de-optimize a specific URL, etc.
[edited by: panic at 9:36 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2003]
| 9:29 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Forgive my confusion, but just to clarify:
These issues are with paid for inclusion, not trusted feed?
Has anyone checked their search results at the pure web search at PT?
I have seen 100's of pages disappear from MSN and HotBot results, but they are still right where I left them in the pure Ink search.
The issues at PT seem to be of a reporting nature only, Ink is continuing to index as usual.
| 9:42 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I have seen 100's of pages disappear from MSN and HotBot results, but they are still right where I left them in the pure Ink search. |
Just because the page is there, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have an editorial action. When you have an editorial action, your listings hit rock bottom, but you're still in the results.
That's exactly what kanetrain's problem was. The point could be made that his URL was still there, but it does him no good if he's ranked dead last for his own brand name.
|The issues at PT seem to be of a reporting nature only, Ink is continuing to index as usual. |
Doesn't do you much good when you can't even look at your own reports.
| 10:00 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I fully agree with the point that it does no good if Ink has an editorial review and your listing is buried.
My point to clarify: in all the cases of lost results I have seen, searching at MSN and HB turns up vastly different results from one at ptech pure search (which should be the true Ink results).
How can you be sure that this is a problem with ptech PFI and not a change in how MSN and HotBot are using the Ink index (algo change)?
I too am troubled by many pages dissappearing from MSN, and apparently only those that I have paid for are suffering. All my free listings seem rock solid. If ptech is the problem, switching providers would suit me fine, but if not, I need to get on with the testing.
Trusted feed is absolutely the way to go, if you have enough items..... otherwise PFI has been very reliable for me for smaller needs.
| 10:11 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It is not my experience that if you have paid once and do not pay again your site is dropped.
| 10:30 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|How can you be sure that this is a problem with ptech PFI and not a change in how MSN and HotBot are using the Ink index (algo change)? |
As to how you aren't ranked for your own brand name (which also happens to be your domain name) leads me to believe that it's an editorial matter.
|If ptech is the problem, switching providers would suit me fine, but if not, I need to get on with the testing. |
It might very well be Position Tech (judging by all the little mishaps that people have complained about as of late).
| 10:32 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"The issues at PT seem to be of a reporting nature only, Ink is continuing to index as usual"
The issue is that text on the pfi page does not show up for Ink searches, whether you search on pure search or anywhere else, but that text does call up three sites who have stolen the content, and presumably didn't pay pfi. The point also is not stolen content. The point is simply I pfi'ed and am not showing in the results for specific queries.
| 10:44 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
One of my urls is dropped completely for Hotbot and for Pure Search at Positiontech, but shows up fine in MSN.
I would love to go with trusted feed, but I disagree fundamentally with the idea of mixing PPC results with regular search results and my ROI just won't support the click-throgh rates... not even close actually. If I had a separate listing that was marked as "sponsored" and still had "free" listings, I would probably do trusted feed.
Anyway... as an update, it appears that they have been able to restore historical data but the loads of dropped sites are still dropped.
I finally got ahold of a rep at Inktomi and spoke extensively about the problem. Let me say... it pays to have a contact within Yahoo. He told me that he didn't know what was causing the problem and that he didn't know if it was a PT problem or not, but that it could be.
I explained my deep frustrations with PT and how they seem to get sites excluded and not included and do not respond when the problems surface. I told him it took 5 months to get my last issue resolved. He was concerned about this. I am calling back later today or tomorrow morning with my attorney to file a formal complaint with a supervisor over there and talk about the next step.
Teh thing that is so @#@$@# assinine about Ink and PT and that whole mess is that they only do this to PFI pages. In other words, these problems only occur if you pay to be in the index. It will never happen to pages that are indexed for fee. How bassackwards is that.
With PT, you really are paying for exclusion. Maybe not initially, but eventually yes.
I really think it is a ploy to slowly turn people away from free listing and get them to sign up for trusted feed and pay per click. They will try to up-sell you and tell you that with Trusted Feed you will get better reporting and support etc. etc.
They'll just squeez you out and demand more.
| 11:23 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"The issues at PT seem to be of a reporting nature only, Ink is continuing to index as usual"
Make no mistake... this is absolutely incorrect. Sorry, PaidtoPlay, but you are 100% wrong on this one.
The dropped sites happened the exact day that the other PT problems happened. Chance? I think not. PT screwed something up and is either not submitting pages correctly or is not submitting at all.
They got the historical data back, now let's see if they can get the dropped sites back in.... and for everyone's sake, let's hope that it doesn't take 5-6 months this time.
| 11:40 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|They got the historical data back, now let's see if they can get the dropped sites back in.... and for everyone's sake, let's hope that it doesn't take 5-6 months this time. |
Yeah... maybe it'll be 7-8 months this time :P
| 2:12 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Make no mistake... this is absolutely incorrect. Sorry, PaidtoPlay, but you are 100% wrong on this one."
No need to be sorry, I am quite happy if I am wrong on this as I am in the same boat.:) It was just not clear to me from previous posts the complete extent of the problem that others saw and I was fishing for clarification that the same was happening to someone else. I have been on the phone with ptech and never got past the corporate line about everything being indexed fine and they are not responsible for lost rankings. I have tracked this issue creeping across many of my client's sites since Nov 25th and tried to verify if other's were seeing this if or it was something I alone was experiencing. [webmasterworld.com ]
I have lost literally 100's of PFI pages. Only PFI is affected, not freebies (and no, I don't think it's chance either). And I can pin it down to Nov 25th (at least for my sites), which is exactly when the reporting issues popped up. But I am still not convinced it is an indexing issue, Ink still visits me according to the schedule I pay for. Inclusion does not equal high rankings, and they may have changed their algo.
| 2:41 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Paid to Play. Something is definately amis at Inktomi and Positiontech.
I'm not sure where the breakdown is, but there is certainly something going on with Position Tech listings in Inktomi.
After hours and hours of research, I think that you may be right that it could possibly be an algorithmic penalty (not editorial) assigned to some sites (for duplicate content or other reasons...not sure yet).
BUT, the thing is that these penalties are ONLY assigned to paying customers and I've only found evidence of Positiontech customers getting hammered. So, for some reason, Positiontech listings are being scritinized by the engine and penalized.
I agree that it is on purpose. I think they are dropping paying customers on purpose to get us to sign up for more listing with Overture or to sign up with trusted feed. Clever...but unethical.
I'm not sure if the problem is that Positiontech doesn't care about these widespread problems... or they don't have the power to fix them. Either one is cause for alarm. If they don't have the power to fix them, then something is definately wrong with the whole sytem. You can't sell a product that you don't understand and can't fix it and if you don't go to bat for your customers... then you shouldn't be in business.
Quite honestly, if this were a major concern for them it would be resolved by now. It's as if PT is working for Inktomi and not us. They are more concerned about protecting Inktomi and not organizing complaints and getting to the bottom of these problems than they are about taking care of us... (the ones who pay them).
That's what is wrong with a middle-man approach. ;) They have two bosses.
Again, if you are having issues with this same problem, please contact via PM. I have some info that could be of value to you.
| 9:50 pm on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Looks like the other thread got deleted. They were talking about the same thing anyway.
We have found the bug or problem or whatever you want to call it. It's a problem with the INK algorithm and how they deal with duplicate content.
Basically, if a free site and a paying site have duplicate content, the paying site gets dropped to the bottom (penalized) and the freely crawled page gets boosted. So really, your PFI pages are still in the index and but just not visible on any searches becasue an orgaically crawled duplicate page has taken your place. I guess PT or Ineedhits (or any reseller) is compying with their part of the deal by getting you into the index... and Inktomi is really to blame for punishing the paying customers.
If another site has your content duplicated, then your site will get automatically dropped from the serps for any relevant search terms... except, of course, a search for your exact url (which a duplicate site obviously can't recreate).
So really a competitor can copy a page from you, post it on thier server... get it crawled and your site will automatically drop. To me it seems horribly backwards. Shouldn't the paying site get preferential treatment and the organically crawled duplicate site banned? It just opens it up for way too much abuse. People could set up fake sites with copies of their competitors pages... then their competitors sites would get dropped (assuming the competotirs are paying for inclusion, of course).
1. Change the content on your pages that are getting penalized.
2. Tell the other website (that is crawled for free) to change their content and hope they do.
3. Contact INK or your reseller and tell them that the INK algorithm is a mess and that they need to fix it
4. Get rid of all of your PFI listings and wait for an organic crawl.
We have a lot proof to back this up. Thanks to those of you who helped me find the issue.
| 11:58 pm on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
And by the way... I just got word from another webmaster who is having the same problem with ineedhits, so it's definately not a problem with any of the resellers (Including Positiontech), but for sure a problem with INK's ranking algorithm and the fact that they are giving preferential treatment to organically crawled sites (when there is duplicate content involved).
This is a testable fact for multiple urls.
I almost feel bad for being so dang hard on PT when it really wasn't their fault. I do still maintain that they should have tried harder to get to the bottom of this, but the fact that they lost historical data and that multiple websites all got "penalized" all at once was in fact coincidence. It all hit on the same day. Weird.
Now the real question is if anyone from INK is going to do anything about it and if the algorithm is going to be changed to stop penalizing paying customers.
Where is INKGUY?
| 2:42 am on Dec 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
So if dupe content is truly the problem, the fix at Ink seems fairly simple:
I still maintain that I can pin the change to the very close vicinity of Nov 25th through my rankings and log file traffic analysis. Unless someone started copying the content from dozens of my sites at that exact same moment (possible, but not probable), then a new filter/algo was kicked in just before everyone at Ink went home for Thanksgiving (ironic?).
How difficult can it be to rollback the filter/algo change? Especially when a very large amount of $$$$$'s is on the line. Looks like I will be putting PFI on hold until this is verified, refuted, or fixed.
I see no reason to spend another $10K in Q1, 2004 with results like this....
| 7:35 am on Dec 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Paid to Play -
You are exactly correct. I don't think Ink realizes the far reaching effects of this quite yet... once word spreads that Inktomi gives preferential treatment to organically crawled websites (when there is duplicate content), you'll see competitors putting up random websites with dup content all over and watch the legitimate paying customers fall like rocks.
Why would anyone pay for inclusion if we are teh first ones to get dropped... it seems like PFI just invites abuse from our competitors? I am 99.9% sure that this is at least one of the problems with slurp.
I can confirm that this is the case with multiple sites already. In some cases, the duplicate content is actually just a mis-indexed url from Inktomi. In other words, there is a page on another site that was indexed in inktomi and it has a link on it to my site. The link isn't directly to my site, they run it though a script first (I'm not going to tell what kind of script for obvious reasons).
Well, that page (on the other domain) is listed in Inktomi as my site! Inktomi thinks that this other site's page (that links to me) is a copy of my homepage and they are listing this page instead of my page. So when you search for my site, his "copy" of my site shows up and my site does not show up. No joke. Something is very wrong with slurp. He's very confused by dynamic links and he's listing dynamic links to outside sites as duplicate content... I do indeed have proof of this too.
| 5:03 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
UPDATE: I want to report that I have been working with PT to get to the bottom of this problem and they have truly gone above and beyond the call of duty. They've done much more than the $39 justified and I've been more than satisfied by their help. IMHO, they have done the very best that any company could possibly do in this type of situation.
Unfortunately, my PFI page is still in the dredges...
BUT, what I originally thought was a PT problem, (as posted in this thread above ) is actually an issue with the Inktomi algorithm. I have mounting evidence that it has to do with the way that Ink reads certain scripted links and how it penalizes duplicate content. First indications are that it also factors in whether or not you have Paid Inclusion, but I need more evidence to prove this. It will take a little while to gather more concrete evidence, but I am working on it, and when I am done, I'm hoping that this knowledge will be able to help those who stumble into this same problem in the future.
I was pretty harsh on PT at the beginning of this thread because all the evidence I had, I thought pointed in their direction. I want to reiterate that this is not a PT problem and that they have complied with everything they possibly could do... and then some.
| This 58 message thread spans 2 pages: 58 (  2 ) > > |