Now that's set the cat among the pigeons.
for complete nonsense.[/edit]
[edited by: edit_g at 4:36 am (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
It is now official!
The new Yahoo PFI program has been released and is called......
Overture SiteMatch = formally known as Inktomi Search Submit
Overture SiteMatch Xchange = formally known as Inktomi Index Connect.
[edited by: engine at 11:45 am (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
[edit reason] TOS [/edit]
OK wow, not only a PPI but a PPC on top of that. Now that is just stupid expensive!
I'm just a tad bit lost with that one. Those already within the Inktomi PFI will continue to have their term honoured for the length of their agreement (I'm assuming for at the very least Altavista and others MINUS Yahoo...if one so chooses).
But then they go on to mention PPC as part of the new Site Match which was never mentioned in any contractual agreement with Inktomi PFI beforehand.
Thus, is it unclear? or is there a hell of alot of cheating and screwing going on here?
;;;;;;;;; 2 minutes later ;;;;;;;;;;;
I've just logged in to my ineedhits.com account and I've got $0.00 there, thus I guess I've been more than screwed.
[edited by: cyberfyber at 5:06 am (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
So what kind of boost, if any, do people who pay get in the SERPs?
They will tell you no boost. Of course they said the same thing about ink results but it always seemed easier to get ranked with pfi pages.
"Both commercial and non-commercial content providers can submit Web pages that are added to Yahoo's search index, its database of searchable Web sites."
"Non-commercial organizations can submit their Web pages and digital content for inclusion in Yahoo search results for free, while commercial content providers pay a fee to include their content in search results."
Great. So it's like running a ppc campaign - but with no control over where your listings appear. With a huge set up fee. Why on earth would people flock back to that?
"I've just logged in to my ineedhits.com account and I've got $0.00 there, thus I guess I've been more than screwed."
No, you haven't.
Customers who are in the current Inktomi program, will still get what they paid for, until the end of their subscription period. As a bonus, up until April 15th 2004, customers who are in Inktomi, will also get Yahoo!
Customers can then make an informed decision on if the Yahoo! traffic is worth while to them. If yes, they sign up. If no, they don't sign up.
So, with respect to your zero click balance, you don't have any URLs in the new program. Hence your balance is zero. With the INH system, you can manage URLs in the old Inktomi program and the new Overture Site Match.
[edited by: engine at 11:47 am (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
[edit reason] TOS [/edit]
So if all the important pages of my site are already listed in the Yahoo SERPS, then I assume don't need to sign up for anything.
Inclusion = Yes, so PFI = No
The main exception would be if I needed needed freshER results, right?
So what makes Site Match different from a PPC campaign where you have no control over your appearance in the listings?
Please tell me this charge model is an early April Fools Day joke...
Well I think that the pricing of 11 URLs for $10 each is good. $49 for one URL is a bit steep though.
However, paying a CPC fee on top of this as well! That's worse than LookSmart IMO!
Geez, An annual "review" fee AND a PPC on top of that. That's unbelievable.
Here is the pricing information from the Overture website:
[edited by: engine at 11:43 am (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
[edit reason] copyright [/edit]
I am uncertain of how the pricing makes sense...
Adult sites are 15 cents and apparel sites are 30 cents... So if you want to create a Non-Family Friendly search engine this is perfect for Adult sites?
Morally corrupt = less expensive to advertise?
Shopping = more expensive?
What are they doing?
There is also a $50 deposit for clicks according to the Marketleap website.
Overture Site Search partners will include:
Note: MSN is not included so I guess they will continue to use Ink for the time being.
There will be no boost to ranking. This is Yahoo now and we are focused on the user.
|Well I think that the pricing of 11 URLs for $10 each is good. $49 for one URL is a bit steep though. |
It would be, apart from its actually $10 for the 11th URL and onwards. If you had 15 URLs to add it looks like it would cost $49 + 9*$29 + 5*$11 = $365 ($24.33/each)
Thats too steep for me with the CPC rates on top.
<<< There will be no boost to ranking. This is Yahoo now and we are focused on the user. >>>
Oh come on Tim, Y employed the same extensive greed with Y Shopping, and is screwing it's Y Store partners.
The only thing Y is focused on is the bank account.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I really don't expect otherwise from any business, but the claim that it is in the users interest is a bit weak.
[edited by: nanocet at 3:43 pm (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
|This is Yahoo now and we are focused on the user. |
Overly sarcastic. My apologies Tim I should have said
I fail to see how this enhances the user experience.
[edited by: skippy at 3:28 pm (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
Charging both PFI and CPC on top of that is not focused on the user, it is focused on your stock.
One of Yahoo's competitors is indexing everything for free. I can't see how the PFI model can stand the test of time.
I heard it mentioned that PFI is good for certain dynamic pages that aren't as easily indexed, but I have yet to find an specific explanation. Personally, I make sure all my important dynamic content is spider friendly.
The other advantage I heard about PFI is "freshness". I have to say once again that one of Yahoo's competitors has something known as a "fresh bot". After a little study, it is quite possible to get the fresh bot to visit frequently. So PFI from the standpoint of "freshness" seems a bit old school as well.
Yahoo needs to decide which is more important, delivering paid content or delivering quality search results. When I search for something, I go for quality. How does quality fit into Yahoo's plan? And how does PFI help Yahoo to compete in the search engine market?
So what, exactly, makes Site Match different from a PPC campaign where you have no control over your appearance in the listings (and you pay a large set-up fee)?
I'm sorry to keep asking this question but I know people from Yahoo! are reading this thread and I would like to hear an answer.
A lot of us have very large SEM budgets - why should we use site match when, to me, it looks like a step backward from everything that is attractive about PPC engines: I can control spend, placement, position, geo-targeting and measure returns. With Site Match I will have: not as much control, more outlay and more risk.
Given my points above; why should I use Site Match, Yahoo?
edit_g, a very rational question.
Yahoo, what have you been drinking?
"The new Yahoo PFI program has been released and is called......
Overture SiteMatch = formally known as Inktomi Search Submit"
Excuse me but isnt that the same Ink submit that after you pay all your free listings drop (according to many many posters)!
"One of Yahoo's competitors is indexing everything for free. I can't see how the PFI model can stand the test of time."
It can't and Yahoo is admitting this.
Tim keeps saying Yahoo will do a competitive job of free crawling the web. People are skeptical since Ink never did that, but the point is, that if Tim is right, then this is a whole new ballgame.
Bad judgment on Yahoo's part to release this before adequately free crawling. It sounds like some bean counter's idea "Put up the PFI before we crawl decently and some scared folks will sign up." Some shortsighted merit in that, but overall a bad idea.
Still, I certainly hope Tim is right, and really really look forward to him being right.
In other words, nobody should PFI unless they have over 50,000 pages and all those pages sell a product that costs over $3.
What's the fuss about? The revenue model is PFI charged on a fixed cost PPC basis.
They want revenue from any click. They run a business.
| This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: 45 (  2 ) > > |