homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.180.175
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

This 67 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 67 ( 1 [2] 3 > >   posting off  
Paid but can't be found in Ink.
Should I pay again?
sachac




msg:17174
 6:24 pm on Feb 12, 2004 (gmt 0)

My site was indexed in Ink for a long time until it disappeared several months ago. I then decided to pay for it to be indexed.

My problem is this. My site name is www.brandwidgets.com. When I search for "brandwidgets", sites that list our products or have links to us show up but not our site. There is also no listing for us under "brand" or "widgets". Surely our site should be the first listing at least for "brandwidgets".

When I search for "www.brandwidgets.com" the site show up, which indicates that the site is there somewhere but not showing up.

Can anyone help me solve this mystery?

 

MikeNoLastName




msg:17204
 11:00 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

flobaby,
I agree Panic IS splitting hairs, and it sounds like Ink is too, in a BIG way. In our case it appears the WHOLE domain has NOW been banned, not just the home page. Originally SOME of our pages were indexed, but not the home page, after we PFI'd they ALL vanished. If there is already a penalty on your site when you pay for inclusion, they should notify you and either refund your money or be willing to work with you to correct it. Taking money for what amounts to nothing is highly unprofessional at best and in fact bordering on downright fraudulent, justifying a class action suit (anyone listening out there?)! And then to have supposedly reputablt reseller partners (I'm referring here to NetSol not anyone on this forum) lie or babble uninformed about it!
If there is something like a duplicate penalty, how difficult is it to report "you have a second copy of your page at: **** and once we determine it has been removed, notify us and we'll immediately re-spider." Or, page x has content which some readers may find objectionable". NOT a form letter response AFTER you complain which says "[Ha-ha] We never guaranteed WHERE your page would be ranked, based upon various terms...visit our optimization criteria section... yada, yada [guess about it, hit or miss, get lost, scram, we just wanted your dough]".
Does anyone know how these penalties are even initiated? Could a competitor submit a spam claim and Inktomi, just glances at it and says, "OK". Or is it a spider/SE report that they review, or is it purely search engine automated, in which case it should go away when things are corrected (heh, like Inktomi EVER re-indexes old FREE pages - and don't bother trying to submit a 301 redirected page to get the old one OUT of the index)? If it's a duplicate penalty, what's to say the OTHER copy of a page on a different domain is not the duplicate? The way others talk it is manually initiated and only manually removed anyway. What if you bought a new domain which had been previously abused by someone else and had no clue it was already penalized or that such was even possible? Or allowed your site to be penalized after you set it up, by some incompetent SEO and now want to do it right? The average innocent public should not have to deal with this sort of thing, and I think it will not be long before someone big enough (or a bored attorney with a website that it happens to) feels wronged.

panic




msg:17205
 11:06 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

My other pages (free and the PFI one I swapped for the index page) are coming up in the first and second page of results.

Same domain or different domains?

I didn't say it was "IMPOSSIBLE for everyone", I said "nearly impossble" [for the average paid customer]<-implied.

I don't think there's such thing as an "average paid customer" with PFI.

"Inktomi is committed to providing customers with technical support expertise to help ensure the uptime of our mission critical applications."

and contradictorily in the very next paragraph:

"Restricted areas of the support web site contain material intended only for Inktomi resellers or portal partners. If you are a reseller or portal partner, but have not yet received a login or your login is not working, please contact your Inktomi account manager for access update"

How is that self-contradictory? It's just telling you that some parts of the site are for resellers/partners only.

After a half-dozen inappropriate form e-mail responses, they finally "GUARANTEED" there was no penalty. I get the feeling, they "HAVE NO CLUE" what a penalty is.

You should probably ask them who they spoke to.

So... why don't YOU give out the contact number Panic?

MikeNoLastName, you're a funny guy, you know that? :)

flobaby




msg:17206
 11:11 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Same domain or different domains?

Same domain. Thought that was clear from the get-go.

panic




msg:17207
 11:34 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

they should notify you and either refund your money or be willing to work with you to correct it.

I don't think Inktomi or anyone should be forced to refund money to people who use unethical SEO tactics. That's the equivalent of someone saying that they should get their money refunded after being kicked out of a movie theater for causing a disturbance.

Taking money for what amounts to nothing is highly unprofessional at best and in fact bordering on downright fraudulent

So is keyword stuffing, joining link farms, multiple content, and other shady SEO tactics/strategies.

justifying a class action suit (anyone listening out there?)!

That's going a bit overboard, but I don't think you'd stand a chance in court, especially if their Terms Of Service were violated.

If there is something like a duplicate penalty, how difficult is it to report "you have a second copy of your page at: **** and once we determine it has been removed, notify us and we'll immediately re-spider." Or, page x has content which some readers may find objectionable".

If YOU were at Inktomi, would YOU want to be the guy in charge of hunting down the people with editorial actions and getting a hold of them via phone or email?

you complain which says "[Ha-ha] We never guaranteed WHERE your page would be ranked, based upon various terms...visit our optimization criteria section... yada, yada [guess about it, hit or miss, get lost, scram, we just wanted your dough]".

Yeah... I'm sure the people high up at Inktomi will just do anything to exert their power rather than make money.

Does anyone know how these penalties are even initiated?

For the most part, human editors take care of that. But in the case of multiple content, it's usually just caught by the spider.

Could a competitor submit a spam claim and Inktomi, just glances at it and says, "OK".

Nope.

in which case it should go away when things are corrected (heh, like Inktomi EVER re-indexes old FREE pages - and don't bother trying to submit a 301 redirected page to get the old one OUT of the index)?

Usually, webmasters of websites with editorial actions against them don't stop their shady tactics. In other words : once a spammer, always a spammer.

If it's a duplicate penalty, what's to say the OTHER copy of a page on a different domain is not the duplicate?

At which point, popularity of the page and domain comes into play. If the content is really that good, it'll have lots of incoming links to either the page itself or the domain that the content resides on.

The way others talk it is manually initiated and only manually removed anyway.

Exactly.

What if you bought a new domain which had been previously abused by someone else and had no clue it was already penalized or that such was even possible?

Normally, the penalty still stands. Why would you want to buy a domain name with an already tarnished image, anyhow?

Or allowed your site to be penalized after you set it up, by some incompetent SEO and now want to do it right?

That's why you shouldn't have incompetent SEO companies do SEO for you in the first place. But, in that case, you'll have to contact Inktomi yourself.

The average innocent public should not have to deal with this sort of thing, and I think it will not be long before someone big enough (or a bored attorney with a website that it happens to) feels wronged.

In other words, it'll never happen, not because they don't want to sue Inktomi, but because they don't have any ground to stand on.

Philosopher




msg:17208
 11:56 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Panic,

If it's a duplicate penalty, what's to say the OTHER copy of a page on a different domain is not the duplicate?

At which point, popularity of the page and domain comes into play. If the content is really that good, it'll have lots of incoming links to either the page itself or the domain that the content resides on.

This is not always true. What about a brand new site? Regardless of how good the content is, it's going to start out with no or very few links. Correct? What's to stop a more established site from ripping the content and using it's link pop to push out the new guy (just because a site is established does NOT mean they are ethical)?

What if you bought a new domain which had been previously abused by someone else and had no clue it was already penalized or that such was even possible?

Normally, the penalty still stands. Why would you want to buy a domain name with an already tarnished image, anyhow?

That's the problem, a webmaster doesn't know the domain has a tarnished image when registering until it's too late.

steveb




msg:17209
 12:14 am on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

"At which point, popularity of the page and domain comes into play."

"This is not always true"

In fact, it is anti-true.

In Decemeber Inktomi as a matter of policy removed PFI pages that were duplicated by free pages, regardless of links or anything else. PFI pages were removed without thought of any kind. This is at best utterly incompetent policy.

It appears Ink is trying to correct this problem, but thus far it has not rectified many of the problems its Decemeber meltdown caused.

panic




msg:17210
 12:19 am on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

What's to stop a more established site from ripping the content and using it's link pop to push out the new guy (just because a site is established does NOT mean they are ethical)?

More often than not, editorial catches these shady sites that are established (since there are so few out there that don't already have editorial actions).

That's the problem, a webmaster doesn't know the domain has a tarnished image when registering until it's too late.

That's why a webmaster searches for the domain name he wants to purchase in any/all engines he can think of before buying.

And besides, why buy a domain that has previously been owned? Most would agree that starting up a new, fresh name/site is much better than running with a name/site that already existed. Remember : they sold (or let the domain expire) for a reason.

flobaby




msg:17211
 12:32 am on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Panic,
I see your point in several areas of what you've posted but the fact remains that Ink has punished a fair amount of websites without any apparent reason. You can try and justify it till you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that many of us are not spammers, many of us don't have duplicate content going on or anything else suspect.

Do you think we're all lying or perhaps too stupid or naive to understand Ink's complexities?

Philosopher




msg:17212
 12:33 am on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Well, I just don't quite agree on the new vs. old domain names thing. New people start up on the net every day and don't have the experience to do the look ups that would be required to make sure it is not penalized. Often, a person may not even know the name has been previously registered.

It would be a sad thing for someone to bring their business to the net, put time and effort into building a quality site only to find out after MONTHS of work and most assuredly a good deal of $ that the domain name is penalized due to a previous owner that the current owner was not even aware of. Eeek...you know that has to happen.

As for why someone may have let a domain go...MANY sites go under every day simply due to bad management, bad business plans, bad luck, or a myriad of other reasons. Slapping a domain with a never-ending penalty is simply over-kill.

MikeNoLastName




msg:17213
 1:24 am on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Panic,
>I don't think there's such thing as an "average paid >customer" with PFI.

Um [aghast] Oh come on! I'm talking about ANY poor schmuck who clicks on the Lycos, "Submit Site" link, honestly believes their drivel enough to give them their credit card info (because there is no longer a way to FREE submit without paying for at least one PFI). Remember all THOSE people, who if it wasn't for them, submit partners (apparently like yourself?) wouldn't be in business?

>How is that self-contradictory? It's just telling you >that some parts of the site are for >resellers/partners only.

Uh-duh, it claims they are so "committed" to supporting PAYING customers, then turns around and says, but WE'RE not actually going to support PAYING customers, only those who keep the PAYING customers off our backs.

>>After a half-dozen inappropriate form e-mail >>responses, they finally "GUARANTEED" there was no >>penalty. I get the feeling, they "HAVE NO CLUE" what >>a penalty is.
>You should probably ask them who they spoke to.

Ah-ha, now YOU'RE the funny one. I just finished saying it took me 6 e-mails just to get beyond the form-mail responses, and finally to a supposedly live and supposedly Ink-authorized person at NetSol, (i.e. the top level with whom, I as a mere lowly, paying submitter, and not worthy of actually communicating DIRECTLY with the ilk of Ink, was to be once-in-a-lifetime-blessed with an utterance from) and then I'm to expect a second response after challanging their all-knowing intelligence. :)

>I don't think Inktomi or anyone should be forced to >refund money to people who use unethical SEO tactics. >That's the equivalent of someone saying that they >should get their money refunded after being kicked >out of a movie theater for causing a disturbance.

What if the disturber isn't even aware he's making a disturbance? Now you're sounding like one of them no-tolerance... ahem's. It's like that school kid who got kicked out of school this week for wearing the City of Climax T-shirt which the city itself printed! (Google it if you haven't heard about it)

>So is keyword stuffing, joining link farms, multiple >content, and other shady SEO tactics/strategies.

But you're not being forced to pay someone for doing it! If I PFI, I expect to get what was promised. If they can't or won't deliver they need simply say why and/or refund.

>That's going a bit overboard, but I don't think you'd >stand a chance in court, especially if their Terms Of >Service were violated.

I just re-read their terms of service. Nowhere are the words penalty, ban, multiple content, spam or any other reason for arbitrarily penalizing a site mentioned. It DOES however claim that all sites are ranked equally by their algorithm, which IS against their terms if there is a MANUAL PENALTY involved!

>If YOU were at Inktomi, would YOU want to be the guy >in charge of hunting down the people with editorial >actions and getting a hold of them via phone or >email?

Now you're talking nonsense. I was referring to those who submitted an address for PAID INCLUSION. When you do this you GIVE THEM all your contact info where they can send a simple response. They also return a status code to your submission manager page. They could just as easily send a code or message there. Sorry, no sympathy there.

>Yeah... I'm sure the people high up at Inktomi will >just do anything to exert their power rather than >make money.
Huh? I was paraphrasing an ACTUAL form-letter response e-mailed from NetSol, the people who I submitted to Inktomi through... Unbelievable indeed isn't it?

>Usually, webmasters of websites with editorial >actions against them don't stop their shady tactics. >In other words : once a spammer, always a spammer.

I HIGHLY disagree! Since we don't know the details of how these "editorial actions" are decided upon, I can only generlize. But here's some innocent reasons for instance:

Spamming: Bad SEO advice, corrected by a future SEO. Bad rumor mill tip. Remember at one time in the late 90's spamming was the ONLY way to get seen under certain competitive terms. EVERYONE was doing it. I didn't see an official notice when Inktomi finally fixed their filter. Were all the non-spamming sites just supposed to sit back and dry up as their competitors broke the rules. Now it's no longer necessary, so most people have stopped.

Duplication: Accidental copying of an updated index page into the wrong subdirectory. Transferring domains. I've read Soo many messages from people on this very website who still do not know how to use 301 redirect! Or for that matter if Inktomi and FAST handle it correctly. For instance if you submit a 301 redirect page into the spider submit field on Lycos it rejects it! Besides it could be as long as a year for Ink to revisit the old site to realize it's not there and remove it. In the mean time there is now an entire site duplicated. Shoot this could have been what happened in our case. We used to be hosted at a large ISP that got taken over. Some of our pages (remember the good ole days, 1996) were still multiply indexed as IP address paths, alternate addresses (www.isp-address.com/~our-domain/index.htm), as well as the actual domain all pointing to the same page. When we moved, the domain moved too, but all those other pages were still in the index since they never re-crawl free pages, and I even noticed a couple still in there to this day! What about someone who moves to an entirely new domain name? Or say from a free hosting site to a custom domain? Do they need to change every single page? This sounds like a serious Inktomi flaw.

>>If it's a duplicate penalty, what's to say the OTHER >>copy of a page on a different domain is not the >>duplicate?
>At which point, popularity of the page and domain >comes into play. If the content is really that good, >it'll have lots of incoming links to either the page >itself or the domain that the content resides on.

If this is true then my PR7 competitor can copy my original PR5 page from my PR6 site to a page on his site, point a bunch of his PR7/PR6 pages to it or simply replace an already highly externally linked PR6 page on his site with it, and voila he is now the "official duplicate". Then I get banned, he makes lots of money off of it to defend against me while I can't any longer afford to pay an attorney to file a copyright infringement case. Doesn't sound very fair to me. Another Ink flaw.

>Normally, the penalty still stands. Why would you >want to buy a domain name with an already tarnished >image, anyhow?

Noone would, intentionally. But again, imagine your average schmo who thinks up and registers what he thinks is a lucky find. Developes a whole site, then submits (free or WORSE YET PFI ahhh!), spends hours, days, weeks, exchanging perfectly honest links with others (whom I guess also get hurt because of linking to his penalty), and then waits, and waits. Only to eventually discover it was banned before he even started. I don't see any posted list out there with names of banned domains. Come on not everyone who develops websites on the internet visits this website, or knows what a penalty is. In fact most of the visitors to this website probably didn't even know until this post was started (shoot even customer support at NetSol doesn't appear to know to this day!)

>That's why you shouldn't have incompetent SEO >companies do SEO for you in the first place. But, in >that case, you'll have to contact Inktomi yourself.

Ah-ha! I'm glad you admit that... He-he, which brings us back to the start. HOW does one contact Inktomi for oneself?! :)

###

outland88




msg:17214
 5:16 am on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

> So... why don't YOU give out the contact number Panic?

Yeah, Panic you act like you have the inside track on everything, answer the fellow's question.

panic




msg:17215
 8:40 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Um [aghast] Oh come on! I'm talking about ANY poor schmuck who clicks on the Lycos, "Submit Site" link, honestly believes their drivel enough to give them their credit card info (because there is no longer a way to FREE submit without paying for at least one PFI). Remember all THOSE people, who if it wasn't for them, submit partners (apparently like yourself?) wouldn't be in business?

You should be able to go straight to your portal/reseller that you paid (Lycos, in this case), and ask THEM your problem, not Inktomi. Just because an Inktomi portal/reseller/etc portal is incompetent, that doesn't mean that Inktomi is.

Spare the Yiddish, too.

Uh-duh, it claims they are so "committed" to supporting PAYING customers, then turns around and says, but WE'RE not actually going to support PAYING customers, only those who keep the PAYING customers off our backs.

Again, that implies that they help your portal/reseller contacts them.

Ah-ha, now YOU'RE the funny one. I just finished saying it took me 6 e-mails just to get beyond the form-mail responses, and finally to a supposedly live and supposedly Ink-authorized person at NetSol, (i.e. the top level with whom, I as a mere lowly, paying submitter, and not worthy of actually communicating DIRECTLY with the ilk of Ink, was to be once-in-a-lifetime-blessed with an utterance from) and then I'm to expect a second response after challanging their all-knowing intelligence. :)

All you had to ask was who they spoke to.

What if the disturber isn't even aware he's making a disturbance? Now you're sounding like one of them no-tolerance... ahem's. It's like that school kid who got kicked out of school this week for wearing the City of Climax T-shirt which the city itself printed! (Google it if you haven't heard about it)

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. "What if the disturber isn't even aware he's making a disturbance?" How could you possibly not be aware that you're creating a disturbance? If they lack the common sense to even know that what they're doing is wrong, they've got places for those type of people (it's just one bus ride away).

"Now you're sounding like one of them no-tolerance... ahem's." Sounding like? I AM one of those people, but I don't see why I would have to tolerate spammers, cheaters, etc who not only degrade the quality of search results, but search engine marketing as a whole.

Sorry, no sympathy there. :)

But you're not being forced to pay someone for doing it! If I PFI, I expect to get what was promised. If they can't or won't deliver they need simply say why and/or refund.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't you get what you paid for? You paid to have your site crawled/indexed on a regular basis, and you got your site crawled/indexed on a regular basis. Was there any gurantee that you'd get better placement? No.

I just re-read their terms of service. Nowhere are the words penalty, ban, multiple content, spam or any other reason for arbitrarily penalizing a site mentioned. It DOES however claim that all sites are ranked equally by their algorithm, which IS against their terms if there is a MANUAL PENALTY involved!

All the more power to you then. Take Ink to court... I'd love to see you try.

Now you're talking nonsense. I was referring to those who submitted an address for PAID INCLUSION. When you do this you GIVE THEM all your contact info where they can send a simple response. They also return a status code to your submission manager page. They could just as easily send a code or message there. Sorry, no sympathy there.

Again, I don't think they need to go out of their way to appease someone who has broken their terms of service.

Huh? I was paraphrasing an ACTUAL form-letter response e-mailed from NetSol, the people who I submitted to Inktomi through... Unbelievable indeed isn't it?

I bet.

Spamming: Bad SEO advice, corrected by a future SEO. Bad rumor mill tip. Remember at one time in the late 90's spamming was the ONLY way to get seen under certain competitive terms. EVERYONE was doing it. I didn't see an official notice when Inktomi finally fixed their filter. Were all the non-spamming sites just supposed to sit back and dry up as their competitors broke the rules. Now it's no longer necessary, so most people have stopped.

Not everyone spammed, contrary to what you think. You didn't see an official notice when Inktomi fixed their filter? That's because there wasn't one. Why wasn't there one? There didn't need to be one.

"Were all the non-spamming sites just supposed to sit back and dry up as their competitors broke the rules." No... they sit back and wait for their competitors to get busted, and laugh when they did.

Duplication: Accidental copying of an updated index page into the wrong subdirectory. Transferring domains. I've read Soo many messages from people on this very website who still do not know how to use 301 redirect! Or for that matter if Inktomi and FAST handle it correctly. For instance if you submit a 301 redirect page into the spider submit field on Lycos it rejects it! Besides it could be as long as a year for Ink to revisit the old site to realize it's not there and remove it. In the mean time there is now an entire site duplicated. Shoot this could have been what happened in our case. We used to be hosted at a large ISP that got taken over. Some of our pages (remember the good ole days, 1996) were still multiply indexed as IP address paths, alternate addresses (www.isp-address.com/~our-domain/index.htm), as well as the actual domain all pointing to the same page. When we moved, the domain moved too, but all those other pages were still in the index since they never re-crawl free pages, and I even noticed a couple still in there to this day! What about someone who moves to an entirely new domain name? Or say from a free hosting site to a custom domain? Do they need to change every single page? This sounds like a serious Inktomi flaw.

"Accidental copying of an updated index page into the wrong subdirectory." That would imply that the site is sloppy. I don't think anyone would want to see a sloppy page at the top of the SERPS.

"Transferring domains." Use a 301 redirect.

"I've read Soo many messages from people on this very website who still do not know how to use 301 redirect!" They need to learn it, now don't they?

"Or for that matter if Inktomi and FAST handle it correctly." They do. They always follow MY redirects.

"For instance if you submit a 301 redirect page into the spider submit field on Lycos it rejects it!" Could it possibly be because you're supposed to submit the NEW URL that the 301 is pointing to? Oh, of course not.

"Besides it could be as long as a year for Ink to revisit the old site to realize it's not there and remove it." Hasn't been the case with me, but if it hasn't visited in a year, that means the site has had no changes and is either done or has stale content. Don't blame Inktomi for not visiting your non-changing page every day. And besides, why would someone just move a site with old/stale content to a new domain in the first place?

"Or say from a free hosting site to a custom domain?" That's why you delete all pages from the old address, and put a link to the new page on the index page (with an optional 301 meta refresh) and a message saying that the site has been moved. Inktomi is human edited, and the editors will see that you've moved your site. Simple as that.

If this is true then my PR7 competitor can copy my original PR5 page from my PR6 site to a page on his site, point a bunch of his PR7/PR6 pages to it or simply replace an already highly externally linked PR6 page on his site with it, and voila he is now the "official duplicate". Then I get banned, he makes lots of money off of it to defend against me while I can't any longer afford to pay an attorney to file a copyright infringement case. Doesn't sound very fair to me. Another Ink flaw.

Considering PR (PageRank) is for Google, I don't see how the PageRank would matter. However, if by that you mean their placement in the SERPS, that's a different story. There are rare occasions where this happens, but I'm guessing that Ink editorial would compare the original dates that the pages with the content were initially crawled. I'm not sure exactly how they do it, but more often than not, the "good guy" comes out on top.

Noone would, intentionally. But again, imagine your average schmo who thinks up and registers what he thinks is a lucky find. Developes a whole site, then submits (free or WORSE YET PFI ahhh!), spends hours, days, weeks, exchanging perfectly honest links with others (whom I guess also get hurt because of linking to his penalty), and then waits, and waits. Only to eventually discover it was banned before he even started. I don't see any posted list out there with names of banned domains. Come on not everyone who develops websites on the internet visits this website, or knows what a penalty is. In fact most of the visitors to this website probably didn't even know until this post was started (shoot even customer support at NetSol doesn't appear to know to this day!)

Starting without any research is just asking for failure. I'm not sure how a non-paying customer would go about getting their bans/editorials lifted, but paying customers just need to get in touch with their portal/reseller and have them ask.

Ah-ha! I'm glad you admit that... He-he, which brings us back to the start. HOW does one contact Inktomi for oneself?! :)

That seems to be the million dollar question, now doesn't it? ;)

Yeah, Panic you act like you have the inside track on everything, answer the fellow's question.

Oh sure... since outland88 (whoever that is) is telling me to give out Inktomi contact information, I think I pretty much have to. Why don't I just give out my whole address book while I'm at it?

flobaby




msg:17216
 8:55 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

You should be able to go straight to your portal/reseller that you paid (Lycos, in this case), and ask THEM your problem, not Inktomi.

Absolutely right. You should. Unfortunately, when you do (as in MY case, it was Lycos) you will get automated replies teaching you how to optimize your website. They couldn't be bothered to actually check into the situation and it took a nice person from this board to confirm that yes, Ink had put a penalty on my home page.

Panic, I just don't get your complete, unquestionable allegiance to Inktomi. As if everyone who has a problem with them MUST have done something to deserve it, no doubt about it. There's a lack of logic going on here.

Btw, if you're going to give us your address book, I want your Mom's phone number. Tell her she raised a stubborn kid ;-)

7Sins




msg:17217
 11:53 pm on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Panic is lordpanic com your site? and are the posts there made by you?

Some very classy subjects on that site, I can see how you got the webmaster and SEO credentials you display on this site.

panic




msg:17218
 12:12 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Absolutely right. You should. Unfortunately, when you do (as in MY case, it was Lycos) you will get automated replies teaching you how to optimize your website. They couldn't be bothered to actually check into the situation and it took a nice person from this board to confirm that yes, Ink had put a penalty on my home page.

Your best bet is to call them Lycos.

Panic, I just don't get your complete, unquestionable allegiance to Inktomi. As if everyone who has a problem with them MUST have done something to deserve it, no doubt about it. There's a lack of logic going on here.

I've never seen them slap anyone with an editorial that wasn't undeserving. I've heard people cry that the editorials were unfair, but when Ink points out what's wrong with it, it's always been true.

Btw, if you're going to give us your address book, I want your Mom's phone number. Tell her she raised a stubborn kid ;-)

Hah

Panic is lordpanic com your site?

What gave it away? The link to it on my profile that says "Homepage" next to it?

Some very classy subjects on that site, I can see how you got the webmaster and SEO credentials you display on this site.

Spare the sarcasm.

flobaby




msg:17219
 12:36 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

I've never seen them slap anyone with an editorial that wasn't undeserving.

As I recall, in your rigid world, they don't penalize a particular page either, they penalize an entire site, which isn't what some of us are dealing with. So you haven't seen as much as you profess.

I would also be remiss not to mention our co-poster Kanetrain who has spent quality time with customer service from Positiontech and Ink, neither of whom could fix the mystery of his missing pages. Strange how no human can seem to return his site to it's original non-penalized status. I guess (in your world) that is exactly how it should be. After all, Ink knows best.

Your best bet is to call them Lycos.

Actually, I quite enjoy calling them other things besides Lycos.

toddb




msg:17220
 12:42 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

:::sarcasm:::
This really makes me want to PFI.
:::/sarcasm:::

Thank you all for stating both sides.

flobaby




msg:17221
 12:51 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Todd,
I'm having success with a couple of my internal pages, so in actuality, PFI is working for me. It's been a good lesson in lateral thinking, teaching me that the index page isn't everything. Lemonade out of lemons.

makemetop




msg:17222
 1:22 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

A couple of points:

It is possible to get a penalty on a single page if it is an automated penalty. Nothing you do can revive that page, but other pages can work fine. If it is a human review penalty your whole site will go.

It is perfectly possible to contact Inktomi for an editorial re-review at the spamcrusader e-mail address.

Inktomi make it perfectly clear that they don't want spam in their index even if you are PFI. If you haven't read their terms - then maybe you should!

Look, I've had pages booted from Inktomi in PFI and I've had clients who I've had to get unbanned/penalised. In every case (bar one) the penalty was justified as far as their terms were concerned. Didn't stop me doing PFI which works extremely well for me and my clients.

As far as customer support is concerned, there is a reason I tested a lot of PFI suppliers years ago. I chose ones that specialise in PFI - not ones where it is a little adjunct to their main business. The reason? Primarily through issues of customer support!

panic




msg:17223
 1:51 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

As I recall, in your rigid world, they don't penalize a particular page either, they penalize an entire site, which isn't what some of us are dealing with. So you haven't seen as much as you profess.

I know for a fact that editorials are handed out for whole domains. What you (or others) were experiencing could've been something different that I've never seen before.

I would also be remiss not to mention our co-poster Kanetrain who has spent quality time with customer service from Positiontech and Ink, neither of whom could fix the mystery of his missing pages. Strange how no human can seem to return his site to it's original non-penalized status. I guess (in your world) that is exactly how it should be. After all, Ink knows best.

I'm not sure why it hasn't been restored, but I'm guessing there's a good reason for it. And you're right... Inktomi knows best, especially when it comes to content.

Actually, I quite enjoy calling them other things besides Lycos.

I meant to say you should call Lycos :P

panic




msg:17224
 1:52 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

It is possible to get a penalty on a single page if it is an automated penalty.

What would trip that off?

flobaby




msg:17225
 2:34 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

What you (or others) were experiencing could've been something different that I've never seen before.

What a beautiful sentence. Thank you from the bottom of my heart :-)

7Sins




msg:17226
 7:46 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

The homepage thing did give it away some what, I just wanted to be sure first.

So you are a school boy with a hate site (is linking to that site allowable in the WW terms of service?) that struggles to pay your ISP bill on time.

Having joined WW in June 03 when you stated you didn't know what effect "meta keywords" had on Inky PFI, you are now the foremost expert on Inktomi now able to make blanket statements that everyone having problems with them is obviously a cheating spammer and scammer.

I can see why you have inside contacts in Inktomi, and are able to give other webmasters and SEO's with years of experience and that have had 1000's of dollars worth of PFI pages for years absolute confirmation that they have a penalty for spamming and deserve everything they get.

Just as a matter of interest, do you have any paid pages at all in Inktomi?

makemetop




msg:17227
 8:17 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

>What would trip that off?

It has only happened to me once some years ago and that was with an experiment with developing body filler automatically from a library of sentences (in my "elegant spam" experimentation days). Unfortunately the person doing it decided to use an auto-translation tool to translate a page into French and back to English to create a new page. The resulting text made no grammatical sense and tripped a filter immediately - just for that page. Nothing we did could restore the page.

I've also got a situation currently where an auto-filter has been tripped immediately on a new site through (I think) the algo determining that I have hidden links on a site where I don't - confusion between layers/tables and bgcolor. I've reported this myself to spamcrusader.

flobaby




msg:17228
 3:35 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Gee, you mean Inktomi can bad judgement calls? Wow, I'm shocked.

panic




msg:17229
 4:31 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

So you are a school boy with a hate site (is linking to that site allowable in the WW terms of service?) that struggles to pay your ISP bill on time.

I don't see how my site is a hate site since I've got no "hate" material on it, but if you say so.

I haven't had a problem paying my ISP bill for about 2 years now... since I got a job doing SEM. (Just as a matter of fact)

Having joined WW in June 03 when you stated you didn't know what effect "meta keywords" had on Inky PFI, you are now the foremost expert on Inktomi now able to make blanket statements that everyone having problems with them is obviously a cheating spammer and scammer.

Uh, ok?

I can see why you have inside contacts in Inktomi, and are able to give other webmasters and SEO's with years of experience and that have had 1000's of dollars worth of PFI pages for years absolute confirmation that they have a penalty for spamming and deserve everything they get.

I don't see how you tie those two together, but I can sure see why. (Let that thought marinate for a bit)

Just as a matter of interest, do you have any paid pages at all in Inktomi?

Oh of course not. What's Inktomi?

By the way, if you insist on taking personal shots at me, at least come up with something better than my age. What I've noticed is that those who discredit me by using my age against me do so to make themselves feel better about being as old as they are and still not having accomplished anything.

kanetrain




msg:17230
 5:34 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

With regards to my site:
"I'm not sure why it hasn't been restored, but I'm guessing there's a good reason for it. - Panic"

Panic, your guess is wrong.

panic




msg:17231
 6:43 pm on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Panic, your guess is wrong.

What was the reason they gave you?

MikeNoLastName




msg:17232
 12:59 am on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hey Makemetop,

>It is perfectly possible to contact Inktomi for an >editorial re-review at the spamcrusader e-mail address

Here is what I got back from the slurp-help e-mail address JUST TODAY, following a very nice letter simply asking if we could find out what the reason for the penalty was. We even offered to PAY for tech support, since the page said tech support was only for those who pay for it. This is what I got:
---------------------
Mr. ****x:

We cannot provide analysis or consulting service related to search result ranking or placement. All available public information is in our content guidelines at
[inktomi.com...]

Regards,
Inktomi Tech Support
------------------------
In case it gets snipped, it appears to be JAFL (Just Another FormLletter), which claims in two lines that they cannot provide analysis or consulting service related to search results. All available info is in their content guidelines followed by their guidelines page address.

So much for the claimed willingness to work with webmasters. I don't seem to see anything about imposition of manual penalties, how to determine WHY a site was wrongfully penalized or what to do about it after they mercilessly take your money and spit in your face on the referred to page!

In all fairness I have NOT yet heard back from the spamcrusader address which I sent about the same time, but if they both work for tech support, I suspect I won't. What's that word they exclaim after Kenny dies on Southpark? oh yeah B....!

**************************************************

ON THE OTHER HAND, I DID finally get a very nice and pleasant response from Lycos tech support (after my 3rd e-mail), who said they were following up [with FAST] ASAP, and within 8 hours ALL (hundreds) of our previously free-indexed pages were restored as well as the paid one which was previously banned. BRAVO for Lycos/Fast!

(Interestingly they all show last refresh dates up to a year old. Where WERE those suckers all hiding all this time I wonder?)

***************************************************
Mike

helenp




msg:17233
 1:09 am on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

funny, just got an e-mail saying the same.....

kanetrain




msg:17234
 11:14 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

"What was the reason they gave you?"
Panic - I don't feel inclined to share such information in a public forum.

As a side note... If *someone* works for a PFI (Trusted Feed) Company, it could definitely take away some of their credibility on these issues. I don't mean to say that they can't weigh in on the issues, but it can definitely explain the one-sided thinking.

I'm only speaking hypothetically... those who read this thread should know that some posters here *may* have ulterior motives.

This 67 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 67 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
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