| 3:17 pm on Feb 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
How long has it been? From what I've learned on this board, that's typical. The ex-PFI will be gone for a while, but will eventually be picked up by INK again.
| 3:23 pm on Feb 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
2 weeks ago.
Yes, I am actually waiting for the free pick-up. :) I hope it will be faster than the usual up to three months.
| 9:17 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, New, wish I'd known about this before submitting too. The same exact thing happened to us. First about a year ago on Inktomi, then a couple weeks ago on FAST. We had hundreds of pages indexed on alltheweb, but nothing on Lycos. So we went into Lycos, just over two weeks ago and use THEIR own Insite submit, and submitted our home page URL, thinking it might actually get us on Lycos and at least we'd have someone decent to complain to if it didn't. Within a few days ALL our hundreds of pages from the domain disappeared on alltheweb, AND we have yet to appear on Lycos at all, although our account status claims we were indexed over a week ago! I had a very detailed post about it all, in this forum, but it appears someone deleted it.
| 10:45 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Same here. Ink PFI sucks badly. Once you ride that wagon you can't get off, as you discovered, you'll lose your organic listings as well.
Avoid the PFI and Ink will consider you a "more credible" site. It may take longer but definitely more worthwhile.
| 11:38 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|The reason was, that I had position 7 for my major keyword in MSN but my web site didn't appear in other inktomi feeds. |
If by that you mean content providers, I don't see why that would be.
|Yes, I am actually waiting for the free pick-up. :) I hope it will be faster than the usual up to three months. |
You probably wont be re-indexed for free.
|Avoid the PFI and Ink will consider you a "more credible" site. It may take longer but definitely more worthwhile. |
Explain how going PFI would make you "less credible". PFI gurantees that your site will be crawled/indexed on a regular basis; it doesn't flux the credibility of your site one bit.
| 5:22 am on Feb 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Same here. Ink PFI sucks badly. Once you ride that wagon you can't get off, as you discovered, you'll lose your organic listings as well.
Avoid the PFI and Ink will consider you a "more credible" site. It may take longer but definitely more worthwhile.
Couldn't agree more. Paid Inclusion with Inktomi has gone straight downhill.
| 8:49 pm on Mar 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just to close up: I got indexed again for free. Not the whole site yet, but I see already some referrers.
| 10:38 am on Mar 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you think Ink PFI sucked badly, wait till you get a load of SiteMatch :-)
| 4:02 pm on Mar 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I guess the real question is what is going to happen to the inktomi submissions after the July's proposed release date of msn beta? I mean after April 15th your ink submissions will vanish in yahoo and I am assuming that msn will drop ink in July? If you paid for an inclusing in feb you effectively only get 4-5 months of service.
| 7:28 pm on Mar 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If you think Ink PFI sucked badly, wait till you get a load of SiteMatch :-) |
It's the exact same thing with a new name. Not one thing has changed other than the name.
|I mean after April 15th your ink submissions will vanish in yahoo and I am assuming that msn will drop ink in July? |
I have no idea where that came from, but I have no clue why you think your Y!/Ink submission will drop on exactly April 15th. As far as I know, your listing will stay.
As far as MSN, they will probably be dropping Ink listings in July; so yes, your Ink/Y! listing in MSN will be gone from MSN.
| 11:40 pm on Mar 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"I have no clue"
panic, Site Match has a ppc component so it is very different than Ink pfi. And Yahoo has said Ink pfi pages will drop out April 15th.
You might want to read the Yahoo forum.
| 12:53 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
""I mean after April 15th your ink submissions will vanish in yahoo and I am assuming that msn will drop ink in July?"
I have no idea where that came from, but I have no clue why you think your Y!/Ink submission will drop on exactly April 15th. As far as I know, your listing will stay."
Since approximately Feb 23rd (I can't rememebr the exact date), current Inktomi customers have been having the added bonus of Yahoo! traffic.
On April 15th, customers who paid to be included in the Inktomi results, will cease to have the benefit of the additional Yahoo! traffic.
They have two options:
1) Do nothing and continue to receive the current Inktomi Distribution
2) Migrate / upgrade to Site Match and receive
* Yahoo! Traffic
* Inktomi Distribution
* allTheWeb/Fast Distribution
* AltaVista Distribution
| 9:16 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Panic, I think you've missed the news about SiteMatch.
It bears almost no resemblence to Inktomi PFI, and will cost you an absolute fortune in comparison to the old flat fee, if you wanted to achieve the same results.
Sadly, most of us are now being priced out of the market because if you're not doing SiteMatch, you stand no real chance of competing in Yahoo search results (not for competitive or commercial phrases anyway).
Free Inktomi listings don't stand a chance in the Yahoo SERPS, against the SiteMatch "fresh" pages.
| 9:21 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Free Inktomi listings don't stand a chance in the Yahoo SERPS, against the SiteMatch "fresh" pages.
| 9:36 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
MakeMeTop, I was hoping you would dispute that :-)
I look forward to reading more about the future of Inktomi optimisation from the maestro.
When's the next update on your site, or have you got an e-book in the pipeline? :-)
| 9:40 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
LOL - still testing - but things looking good ;)
| 9:42 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
On a serious note MMT, what do you make of YahooWatch's evidence of bias in the Yahoo SERPS towards SiteMatch pages?
| 10:30 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ink feed through PT was the worst decision I have made in regard to my sites.
After I stopped using them all my pages in MSN and Ink dropped to worthless positions. Now the same thing has happened at Yahoo.
Was spending $1,000s a month at overture and $600 a month on sponsored Yahoo directory listings. Have cancelled both. Yahoo will not get another dime from my company until the sites I run show up in their results. ... which Im not counting on.
Anyone who pays for Site Match rather than the regular Overture program isnt thinking as Site Match is ridiculously overpriced program compared to other paid options.
Mark my words... over the next months the number of webmasters who complain about their site being dropped way down in Yahoo search results will sky rocket.
This will result in more webmasters trying site match. Its the only way Yahoo is going to be able to show that their Site Match program is working.
| 11:16 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>evidence of bias...
I see evidence of optimisation! The "bias" is simply the fact that a good SEO can use PFI to their advantage. However a very good SEO can still beat PFI pages by understanding the way the algo works for both PFI and non-PFI.
Yahoo IMO are absolutely telling the truth when they say they are using the same algo for both forms of listings. However, I also believe that PFI does things like give a base link-pop assumption and a higher starting base for "quality" factors for a PFI page. These can be overcome with free listings by having a higher number of quality incoming links and gaining other things that boost the "quality" factors needed by Yahoo in their ranking algo.
So like all things, it depends what you mean by bias! IMO any web site that uses SEO/SEM tactics has things biased in their favour - but a page that does not use appropriate SEO/SEM tailoring can use PFI until they are blue in the face. They'll still appear nowhere! So how does that make Yahoo biased in their favour?
Utilisation of PFI makes things easier for the marketer, but it is up to them to make use of the tools available.
I've got sites ranking for killer phrases in highly competitive areas where a large number of people are using PFI and I've let it lapse. I still beat them and will continue to do so (I hope) until such time as they can overcome the inbuilt "bias" that Yahoo has for my sites due to their age and larger "quality" link popularity. Being listed in all the major directories helps rather well, also!
As far as the site you mentioned is concerned, it seems obvious to me that PFI pages will rank better than pages not using PFI if taken as an average. The vast majority of pages not using PFI have no optimisation done to them and the vast majority of PFI pages have! So what does that prove? Optimised pages do better on Yahoo than non-optimised ones.
I think that's something we can all agree with :)
| 12:17 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Great stuff MMT, and I hope you're proved right. My particular concern was the (alleged) advantage given to paid sites for their "freshness", a factor influenced by the fact they get spidered more frequently than the free listings pages.
But it comes down to which other factors affect the ranking and where they sit in priority with the current algo. I suppose we can only guess at that, and then again, the algo is likely to change.
| 3:25 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So... all I need to do is spend some bucks to make a paid inclusion for my COMPETITOR's site and have all of his freely spidered sites dropped from the index? And all I have to do a year later is not to renew the paid inclusion and by this have him completely removed from the index?
No, I'm not going to do it: in my industry there's still room for everybody and my competitors web presence and SE-presence is rather weak.
But who prevents anybody from doing this to ME?
| 5:30 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That question was asked already and Mike from Yahoo answered it in the Yahoo forum. Can't recall which thread, but he was adamant that it couldn't happen.
| 6:24 pm on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I tried to do a search on the topic, but came up with no useful results. Can you help out a bit more in finding this thread?
What I DID find, however, was that "paying-for-inktomi-then-dropping-from-the-index" dates back to (at least) 2001 already...
| 11:54 am on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>>>What I DID find, however, was that "paying-for-inktomi-then-dropping-from-the-index" dates back to (at least) 2001 already...
I alsy found that signup in for free inclusion to Inktomi by (hotbot I think) could get one penalized in 2002.
| 1:42 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I understand how PFI works on the backend.
The most important point that MakeMeTop made here is that PFI gives a clear boost due to the fact that it must ESTIMATE the link pop of the page rather than using the normal link structure data of the web. This is how they can still say "we just apply the regular algorithm on PFI pages" and yet still give a boost in reality so they make more money.
This is especially true for the XML Feed programs which their partners are feeding Yahoo. Since they're not real pages, but are rather just fake auto-generated pages which can be manipulated, there is no regular link data to associate with it from the regular web. Therefore, they just estimate the link pop factor for the auto-generated page... which ends up giving it a boost.
Im very happy to hear that Ask Jeeves... and now MSN have both recently announced that the trusted feed PFI programs hurt relevancy and cause mistrust of the search results and have decided not to use them in their indexes (MSN said they wont use PFI in their new search engine). I'm confident that Yahoo will soon follow suit and will dumpt their new PFI program. They have to be smart enough to know that if they want to compete, they MUST have relevant search results that people can trust and PFI simply does not jive with that end goal.
We all soon will witness the death of this failed experiment called PFI.
| 3:36 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I recently spoke to someone at Yahoo search and am convinced now that the problems most penalized sites are facing was not done intentionally by Yahoo.
They are surprised by the huge problem that has been created and am sure they are working to figure out the best way to address the "real" problem of legitimate, high quality sites being penalized.
At the same time, they need to be certain that the changes they make dont open the flood gates to the real spam sites they are trying to keep out of the index.
Based on the conversation with Yahoo Im convinced that the problems faced by legitimate, quality sites being penalized will be addressed. They are fully aware that people's livelihoods are seriously affected by them not showing up in search results.
While Yahoo's goal is to maximize profits, I sensed that they are sincere in their efforts to ensure that high quality, valuable sites show up well in their organic results.
| 9:58 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you speak to someone at yahoo again I'd love to address the issue of how when some people paid for PFI at time that sitematch was born all the free pages that were in yahoo were removed. This happened to me and a few people I know.
PFI did add a de-activate url section finally to the
control panel but this seems to not have changed anything since the same urls are still in msn and yahoo and the free ones listed never came back.
My only hope is that when the free trial ends on April 15th the pages really will get dropped that are paid so that the free pages will return. It really seems that if you paid during the transition period there is no yahoo free crawl on those pages.