homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics Forum

  posting off  
So I paid up for Inktomi
and I'm DEAD LAST for my "site.com"

 3:20 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

penalty? Pages that I advertise on (mention my name once) show up way before it. As far as I can remember, I've never had any hidden text, Never cloaked or spammed. What can it be?

I had my .net and .org pointing at the .com and they had indexed the .net (still is indexed). Could that be it? If so, once they realize that the .net is dead, do they undo the penalty (if that was the case)? Would this be manual or automatic? Sites with much more SEO stuff show up fisrt so it's that either.

I've e-mailed them but I doubt I'll receive an answer anytime soon.

On edit: I had about 2300+ pages (seemed like google pages) on Yahoo, now when I click on "More pages from this site" only the index /paid for page shows up.

This is getting to be very frustrating. If I didn't have a decent domain name, I'd start fresh. Can anyone help the brother :) out? Any Ink guys around, so I know what I did wrong? Please?



 5:53 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)


If you search WebmasterWorld for "Inktomi penalty" you will find several threads related to similar occurances.

It seems that with Yahoo/Inktomi, once you are penalized, you are booted from the game for good. Other engines just put you in the penalty box for awhile until things are "cleaned up".

I think the penalty on one of my domains was related to linking too. However, I don't see anything wrong with what I did and no other search engine thinks so either - including those other two engines owned by Yahoo: ATW and AV.

It is frustrating to be permanently banned for honest linking when there is blatent spam throughout Yahoo.



 6:27 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

I know this must be frustrating. At this point you can email spamcrusader@inktomi.com and tell him why you think you may have been banned and what you have done to no longer make this the case. With the new Yahoo program we are looking to address this need. We will discuss this at the PI session on Thursday at Pubcon.


 6:34 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Linking? It could be, but they have all these linkfarm sites on their index.

This for life thing is troubling, not fair and hurts everyone. We lose for the obvious reasons, but Y! and surfers loose too. Because of this, now clean, decent sites are missing from the index. Just because you make a mistake once and linked to Linkme or whatever once, doesn't mean you deserve a lifetime ban. People make mistakes.

What if the bot made a mistake and your site is gone for good for no fault of your own? What if you bought the domain name with a penalty? What a moron you hired did that and now you're toast? Many people make a living online and having at least 25% of people completely blocked is a lot. Y! has to offer a review process of some sort. Spammers and bad sites will still not be able to get in. Only good sites or sites who cleaned up their act will and everyone wins.

I'd be willing to fork $500 right now for that chance. Just a review, and if I did wrong, a chance to explain and show how that's not done anymore. Like with their directory, win or loose, the money is Yahoo's.


 6:40 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

thank you very much Tim. I guess we're typing at the same time and didn't read your last post. I look forward to that review thing day.

Many real spammers or violators just create new domains anyway until they get caught again and again, and again.
Will e-mail to the spamcrusader again. I have to retrace what I did for the past 5 years because he'll probably think I'm trying to insult his inteligence if I put the wrong reason.

Is, I was drunk an excuse...if it's true :)?


 6:53 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

>At this point you can email spamcrusader@inktomi.com and tell him why you think you may have been banned and what you have done to no longer make this the case.

I've e-mailed this address many times before and never gotten a response, which seems standard for Inktomi. Ask one of their resellers and they go, duh. You pay for guaranteed inclusion but all they do is blame it on you when you're not included. And what about refunds.

I'm going to file a complaint with the FTC. There's to much of this mess going on. Some of these companies are entirely out of control with taking your money and not delivering.


 7:50 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>I had my .net and .org pointing at the .com and they had indexed the .net (still is indexed). Could that be it?

Yes, that could be it. Have you got 301's or 302's?

I had a small site in a /directory/ of a domain a few years ago and moved it to ISP space, used a 301 redirect. Not a problem - indexed, same rankings at the new location, no loss of sales.

Then I moved that domain to another host and it had been so long I forgot to put up the 301 in .htaccess. All of a sudden the site in question disappeared, and what had been in that /directory/ over a year before was showing up with the previous title, description and location - even though there was NOTHING in that folder at that point and hadn't been for a while.

I uploaded a "moved" page to the old location, which is finally now showing up and ranking at #20 at MSN. ;) Says nothing more than that it's moved, it's also ranking #27 at Yahoo. But the actual site which has been at the ISP space for a couple of years has a penalty on it and is buried.

I've seen a former client's site get bounced for using a 302 when they were specifically told to use a 301. That caused problems with all the search engines; the second domain was an active domain with links that had been purchased for type-in traffic and was simply "pointed."

It was fixed that time, but then they got themselves kicked out of Yahoo this past summer, duplicating pages from their site on another domain linking back to their main site and shopping cart being one of the things they did.

302's are not a good thing altogether. Neither is duplicate content or anything that could be construed as duplicate content.


 8:34 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

At this point you can email spamcrusader@inktomi.com and tell him why you think you may have been banned and what you have done to no longer make this the case.

I also have a problem with Inktomi [webmasterworld.com] and I wrote to them. Unfortunately, I didn't get any response so far.

I know this must be frustrating.

Indeed, it is.


 9:56 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Have you got 301's or 302's"
I didn't. It was at least 6 months ago, but now I removed them from apache and BIND completely.
Also I linked the .org and .net on another page hoping Slurp goes there and sees that they're down, and magically my penalty is removed (if that was the reason). The funny part? ATW had the .org indexed, Ink had the .net.
That's why I think my .com was banned...


 10:05 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)


I'd also pay $500 or even more, to have my site reviewed. As you say, just a review, and if I did wrong, a chance to explain and show how that's not done anymore. Like with their directory, win or loose, the money is Yahoo's.



 10:28 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

What a sad state of affairs when people are willing to shell out $500 for something that should be free. A review for chrissakes. There should SO be something in place for this.

Meanwhile Cabos, if you are to go the PFI route, I'd suggest submitting an internal page instead of your index. That's seemed to work for some of us.

It most definitely is worth it if you can get something, anything, in Ink.


 11:20 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

I already tried the money offer for review, but they declined, even though their site says support is saupposedly available for those who pay for a support agreement. I'm wondering now, considering even the partners don't seem to be able to get any help.

from their site:
"Inktomi technical support is provided under and in accordance with the terms of an appropriate written support agreement."

Same thing as paying for support isn't it?

Their "support" page "http://support.inktomi.com/Offerings/" is one of the most amusing instances of passing the buck and effectively saying nothing, that I've seen in ages.

Wrote to spamcrusader 2/16 with complete problem description as previously suggested. No reply yet at this time 2/22. But I am trying to be so patient.

Wrote to info and slurp-help (the only two addresses on their website related to tech support in any way, at same exact time. Got the following form response from slurpy:
Snipped, no email quotes, TOS 9

The game goes on....
Personally I think they all KNOW Inktomi is about to be scrapped and replaced by Yahoo! anyway with their upcoming new PFI, so they're all just too busy out looking for new jobs. I don't blame them.

[edited by: DaveAtIFG at 12:36 am (utc) on Feb. 23, 2004]


 11:35 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>ATW had the .org indexed, Ink had the .net. That's why I think my .com was banned...

That shows right there that there was a problem with 3 domain names with the identical rightmost unique token turning up with the same content.

Just about everything that sites can get hit for is right on Inktomi's support pages, which actually give exhaustive information compared to most. Maybe not the ramifications of associations that are found, but more than enough.

Read the excerpt from the Hilltop paper in msg#17 in this discussion - not the same situation but the principle is there


No, we don't know who's using what but between digging into theory just a little bit and reading what the search engines themselves tell us, all put together it's not far-fetched that we can have clues as to what problems can be caused by.

No techie here by any stretch, but I believe every user agent gets a numeric code from Apache when they access pages. If it isn't a 301 or a 302 and there are 3 domains returning 200 that's 3 sites with the same content and it's as good a way as any to run into a problem, especially when there are cases as precedents that it's happened to.


 12:15 am on Feb 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi Marcia,
thanks for the reply. I thought so too. Whatever "bad" thing I've done with this site, I've done it to the other ones who are now ranked and indexed on Yahoo and Ink. Too bad they're the non-commercial ones. The domain was the only thing that was different.

As Tim promised Y! will do something so we can address this and more. I can't imagine Y! keeping sites excluded forever. One way or another, I'd bet that 75% of the sites have done something stupid (by mistake or on purpose) at one point or another to deserve a penalty by Ink's definition. It's not good for Y!'s business. I keep explaining it to myself and you guys, but we can't remove the penalty :). We'll have to wait till the conf to find out more I suppose. At least we have a Y! guy listening.

thanks Tim and everyone.


 9:06 pm on Feb 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Inktomi resellers will take your money even if your site has been penalized by Inktomi.

The result, you can pay $1,000s to a reseller and your results show up dead last on a Yahoo or MSN search.

This practice is totally misleading and should not be allowed to continue.

Inktomi should be obligated to provide a list to its resellers stating that a site has been penalized. If an Inktomi reseller has taken money on this basis, they should be obligated to refund it.

The fault here seems to be more with ink than the resellers.

From what I see there is a pattern of consumer abuse here. My case is not isolated.

I will wait a couple of weeks to see if anything changes. If it does not, it is my intention to bring this to the attention of the FTC as it is there mandate is to protect consumers and ensure that competition is fair. The FTC does not act on behalf of individual complaints, but will act when a pattern of complaints arises.


 2:58 pm on Feb 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

And then to kick you when your down, your "penalized" sites now won't show for yahoo either.

My site has had a bogus porn filter placed on it for months now. Email after email sent to inktomi and positiontech either goes unanswered (great customer service here) or they give the old stock answer of "your site IS indexed and thats what you paid for"

I told them to keep my money and just remove me from PFI but they won't do that either.

I like the FTC idea. Maybe I will look into that also.


 3:23 pm on Feb 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think INK is dying. Yahoo doesn't need it anymore. It has served its purpose. Maybe it is an accounting phenomenon from the takeover, they need the write-downs? I do not know. I do believe however that INK will disappear from sight in a couple of years.
They know you and I NEED to be in their results so they can switch plans and charge at will. SEOs and search marketers can b*tch all we want. It's about their bottom line and they are the big dogs.
I wish I was them!


 3:30 pm on Feb 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

webvisitor, I agree with you.

I think that Yahoo will handle this penalty thing a lot better just because they have to. They command so much market share that they would upset too many people if they ran their business the way INK does.


 7:03 pm on Feb 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

>> handle this penalty thing a lot better just because they have to

Isn't it Yahoo that makes you pay and arm and a leg just to have a site reviewed for possible inclusion in their directory? How many people have paid for the review and got nothing? How many people paid big bucks to get their sites included, then watched their traffic evaporate when Yahoo downplayed the Yahoo directory?

Many webmasters envision they're going to be treated like real paying customers by the search engines but the history of this business indicates they are treated more like scum.

The only PFI game in town worth playing is Yahoo's Inktomi. That's their nitche. They've got no serious competition, so you'll get what they feel like giving you, be it good or bad.

I'd watch my backside as much as ever.

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