| 5:48 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Very respectable post kane, I agree that Position Tech is not the problem and is probably slowly being swamped with calls as more people see these effects.
I spoke with PT again and received some confirmation that it appears to be an Inktomi issue that started in late November and has mostly affected PFI pages. So while I too hold nothing against PositionTech as their customer service continues to be top shelf, I am still holding off on any new paid submissions or any renewals with Inktomi until the situation is resolved. And I am recommending to everyone I interact with to seriously reconsider their PFI strategy with Ink in the short term. Perhaps a sudden drop in PFI revenue will help motivate Inktomi to fix this.
I can't help but wonder if this will affect, or if this is the result of an impending Yahoo rollout?
| 10:07 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Position Tech is just as responsible as Inktomi. They responded to me today with a trulky obtuse and offensive reply. The pointed out you could find my URL in Ink with an originurl: command. Duh. What you can't find is my page for any words on the page!
Helloooooo, putting the URL in the database but not allowing the page to show up for any search terms is not "pay for inclusion". I didn't pay these people to make it so my URL will show up only when someone searches for my URL!
As long as Position Tech responds in such an intentionally obtuse way, they are being deliberately dishonest, and are just as much to blame as Inktomi.
| 10:44 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Helloooooo, putting the URL in the database but not allowing the page to show up for any search terms is not "pay for inclusion". I didn't pay these people to make it so my URL will show up only when someone searches for my URL! |
That's exactly my point.
| 10:53 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
And it now gets worse. Position Tech replies that because someone has stolen my content and put it on some lame page somewhere that Inktomi will not include it in their database.
This is a disgraceful reply, and of course plain weird. I had PFI before they crooks copied my site, but now Position Tech is saying Ink won't display my PFI page because some non-pfi page has stolen my content.
Want to get your competition removed from Inktomi? Copy their site on a geocities page and Poof they are gone.
| 10:58 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
And now what is position tech's response to an Email where I CC'ed Inktomi?
To reply by sending me that same email address of Inktomi. Amazing.
| 11:01 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>crooks copied my site
Getting to the core of the problem your main point should surely be to hinder those people to copy your content? Just because you PFI'd it doesn't prove that the content is yours.
| 11:06 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Just because you PFI'd it doesn't prove that the content is yours. |
Though this is a good point, I think there should be a simple, easy, uncomplicated way to go about proving that the content is truly yours.
| 11:07 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Of course it doesn't prove its mine. Why do you think stating the obvious is useful?
My content was PFI before it was stolen, but now that someone free comes along and steals it they remove mine?
This is incompetence of the highest order. It takes less than one minute to cut and paste text into a geocities page, and that is all it takes to get your competition removed from Inktomi.
| 11:13 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
So what are you doing to get the duplicate content removed from their sites?
Would pretty much solve your problem with Ink, I think.
| 11:39 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Would pretty much solve your problem with Ink, I think."
I don't get the joke if its a joke, if not, its pretty weird thing to say.
Making duplicate content of competitors sites is easy and any search engine that removes pfi sites from their index but leaves ALL THE OTHER duplicate sites is incompetent at best.
| 11:52 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I thought you were interested in a solution to a problem, maybe I'm wrong though.
In my book it's a webmasters responsibility to protect his content, not a search engines. In fact I'd prefer SEs to keep out of that.
If someone copies content then you have a situation where copyright applies as covered by the DMCA.
In short why not tackle the source of the problem?
| 12:35 am on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You don't appear to understand the problem, so perhaps you should let it go at that.
| 12:43 am on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sure, no problem. Just trying to help a fellow member seeing things a bit more clearly :)
| 12:47 am on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Trolling doesn't help anyone. Hijack another thread please.
| 12:50 am on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Back on topic. Inktomi has a policy to remove duplicate content that is pfi regadless of whether it is the original source or not, but does not remove duplicate content that is found free. You can get competitors removed from the Inktomi database if they use pfi simply by copying their website and getting crawled.
This is bad.
| 3:15 am on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
steveb- I think heini understands the problem quite well.
Most web masters protect their own content by informing the offending site that the content has been stolen and warn them to remove it immediately. If that gets nowhere, try contacting legal help about having copyrighted material removed, or contact the ISP of the site and inform them of this infringement on your material.
No search engine will take sides in a content ownership argument. It is up to the owner to take care of that.
All of that aside, I think the problems at Ink are deeper than duplicate content alone. I have identified a number of my sites that have lost PFI pages and there is no indication of duplicate material anywhere. While that may explain why some sites have dropped, it doesn't seem to tell the whole story...
I agree, this is bad, and isn't getting any better yet.
| 3:35 am on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Please no more elementary school level lectures about what to do about copyright. That wasn't and isn't the point, and simplistic posts about that topic don't help anyone. Obviously Inktomi has "taken sides" as they remove pfi duplicate content but leave the free stuff.
| 3:52 am on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"and simplistic posts about that topic don't help anyone"
Nor does using demeaning posts to insult others who are trying to be helpful.
Seems to me you continue to assert that the whole problem revolves on duplicate content getting PFI pages banned (or filtered). I have no idea what sample size your conclusions are based on, but I can tell you from looking at over 1,000 PFI pages (yes, I spend >$30K on PFI a year), this issue goes way beyond duplicate content, reeks of a terrible algo change. Nearly all of my PFI sites are still in the results, but buried, not removed. Continually focusing on only one issue may be clouding the real problem.
| 7:42 am on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Nor does using demeaning posts to insult others who are trying to be helpful."
Your post was both demeaning and insulting. It would be nice if you didn't do that in the future.
Same goes for claiming I'm saying something I'm obviously not. If you have some other problem with Ink, go find yourself another thread.
| 10:07 am on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Alright... let's focus back at the issue at hand. What is truly baffling about the Inktomi "black hole" is that it seems to only affect pfi pages where there is duplicate content... so heini, you are correct, perhaps going out and contacting the offender will work... if they are in the US and either they or their host agrees to remove it etc. But keep in mind, once they remove the content, you still have to wait for Ink to get rid of that content from the database! And that can take months to clear out of there...many months in some cases. So in the meantime you are SOL.
But what about in my case? Where the offending site (that was organically crawled) doesn't actually host duplicate content, they just run a simple cgi link to us and that link is crawled by INK as if it were a copy of our front page. It's indexed as an exact copy of my front page. Apparently SLURP has a problem indexing dynamic links, particularly cgi links. I convinced the webmaster of the offending site to let me look at his cgi code to break it down. A simple CGI script can get the content you are linking to indexed by SLURP as if it were an exact copy of the page you are linking to. This is, in fact, confirmed, tested and 100% fact. I got an email back from Inktomi last night recognizing that something was wrong.
Now that we are talking about the far reaching effects of the Ink "black hole" let's take it a step further... let's say that you notice one of your competitors has some duplicate content floating around on INK. All you have to do is submit them to PFI and they will drop out of the index.
Or, if there isn't any duplicate content, copy a few of their pages, wait to get them crawled...then submit their sites to PFI.
Now, of course I'm not suggesting that anyone actually do this... but I am saying that if our theories are correct (and we all have reason to believe that they are) then PFI could be used as a weapon against competitors sites.
Now that opens up a whole new can of worms... PFI resellers are going to have to start verifying that you really are the site owner before you sign up a url for PFI. Could you imagine the work that they would have to do?!
In my case for example, I believe, we are being penalized because a webmaster has a cgi link to us and INK has indexed that link as an exact copy of our front page. So our front page is listed in INK as if it were on the other sites domain. And we are nowhere to be found in the SERPS while the offending site's copy of our home page is showing up in the SERPS for searches where we used to show up at the top.
I should probably note that I do not have "irrefutable" evidence that this is exactly what is happening, but I do have a ton of mounting evidence and I am doing some tests with PFI right now to prove this.
What's so interesting about this is that I tried out PFI as a test. If it went well, I was going to submit between 75-125 separate pages. My experience has been unbelievably poor with PFI. I really believe that you are putting your site in danger by PFI-ing. That is just my own opinion,of course, but until Ink gets it figured out, I won't be even thinking of adding any more PFI pages. That's several thousand that Ink just lost from me. I wonder how many other webmasters are feeling the same way right now.
The little Devil inside me wants to start PFI-ing my competitors because several have duplicate content. I stongly believe the minute they get indexed with the PFI, they'll get dropped like a stone. I really should try it. PFI resellers claim that there is no difference in the way PFI pages are indexed and ranked. I stongle disagree, and I have mounting evidence to prove otherwise.
Back to the lab again.
| 10:14 am on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
By the way Paid To Play... I was just addressing the duplicate content filter not the other filters that may have been added or the other algo changes. I agree that there are probably other issues at play. I'm just trying to nail down this one (because it affects me directly) and I'll try and mount some evidence so if anyone else runs into the same problem, they will know how to fix it.
| 12:19 pm on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Kanetrain, interesting observation about the spider having problems with links going through a cgi. Sounds somewhat similar to the problems Google repeatedly had, indexing a page with the redirect url instead the original url.
About real duplicate content: there's no engine not having problems with that. Claiming that INK systematically throws out PFI pages in favour of free pages looks like a far stretch to me at this point - a sample size of 1 or 2 pages is obviously a wee bit small.
Apart from that: what if it were the other way round: Ink systematically throwing out free pages in favour of pfi'd pages...I don't even want to imagine the ranting going on here ;)
Real duplicate content, not produced by spidering errors, is still a problem the webmaster has to solve.
As to PT: PFI vendors are paid to ensure your pages get indexed and refreshed. What and how pages are ranked is up to the engine.
| 7:13 pm on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"a sample size of 1 or 2 pages is obviously a wee bit small. "
Agreed. I have 6 pages from different domains with evidence of this. Still too small for "proof" but certianly enough to raise some red flags.
"As to PT: PFI vendors are paid to ensure your pages get indexed and refreshed. What and how pages are ranked is up to the engine. "
I totally agree. that's why my last post was directed at the INK black hole and NOT at PT or Ineedhits or any of the other resellers. Those guys are doing their job. Nothing wrong with what they are doing...except that the product they are selling seems to have some bugs. It's not their fault, nor do they have any control over it, so I do not blame them, but rather, I blame INK.
I still want to emphasize... that what I have found are "findings" and do not consitute "concrete proof" that PFI pages are penalized. I firmly believe that they are and that in cases of dup content PFI pages are given the shaft. I have quite a bit of evidence that proves in my cases that I am indeed correct. And of course I am testing to gather more evidence as I write...
| 10:31 pm on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Claiming that INK systematically throws out PFI pages in favour of free pages looks like a far stretch to me at this point - a sample size of 1 or 2 pages is obviously a wee bit small."
What are you talking about now? This is what Position Tech says is responsible.
| 10:37 pm on Dec 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
kanetrain, Ink is definitely having a problem with redirect links of all sorts - including php. I am seeing the redirect links used by Phpnuke and directory sites that link to me, attributed as being the URL of my sites. It has to be effecting more people and degrading the quality of the SERP's.
| 11:06 pm on Dec 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Since reporting (directly to Inktomi at PT's suggestion) a situation which seemed to encompass both duplicate content and redirects my original site is not showing up anywhere near where I would expect EXCEPT on msn France and msn Canada searches where the original pages rank great. The duplicate/redirect URL is not showing up at all.
There is also a very wide disparity between puresearch where again my pages rank well and msn, hotbot, overture, etc.
From some of the movement I'm seeing I'd say Ink is well aware and moving toward a fix. It is not a painless process. msn search has pretty well fallen away as a referrer.
| 8:25 am on Dec 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> It's usually because of an editorial action.
What panic said!
I've had whole sites loaded with PFI pages pushed to the bottom of serp's hell following what appears in my logfile to be editorial review of a single page. Kiss that money goodbye! So I kicked the Ink PFI habit and found other ways to put my ad money to work ... where I can count on a return.
Ink knows how to shoot themselves in the head.
| 9:06 am on Dec 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Edouard_H - Thanks so much for posting! There must be hundreds, even thousands of us out here who are ripping our hair out. I'm feeling so vindicated right now. When this thread first started there were only a few of us seeing problems... now some others are coming out of the woodwork!
Ink's got some serious problems right now. SLURP Can't spider dynamic links worth a hoot right now and then INK will penalize your site (thinking you have duplicate content) for their own mistake.
Ah.... the justification of knowing that I am not losing my mind. Looks like we ARE in fact correct: The evidence continues to mount. It appears to be an Ink filter on dupe content for PFI pages (and probably some other filters).
I know that PT and some of the other PFI providers (and probably even INK) watch this thread. I would like to suggest something: Often times, your customers do know things that you don't and we can really help you if you actually listen to what we tell you. We are on the front lines and we watch the SERPS very closely. Simply telling us that "your page is obviously indexed, because if you type in originurl:http://www.mysitehere.com you can see it..." is rather insulting to those webmaster who do business with you and know better.
PT has indicated that they really do want to get to the bottom of it. Time will tell if they prevail. I'm hoping that they can get INK to pay attention and fix whatever it is that they've broken. Here's to hoping. IMHO, they'd be insane to roll out this product to Yahoo in it's current condition.
| This 58 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 58 ( 1  ) |