| 8:56 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Your right, I know of no sites apart from Yahoo where this warrants teh fee.
Even Y is getting greedy and asking for 30c a clcik as well.
| 3:36 am on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
To us, paid inclusion died when Y! changed it and went the 30 cent a click route on top of the yearly fee. The Trusted Feed program we still do for large clients.
| 3:55 am on Oct 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yep. Experimented with Y. NG. Dropped the others over the past 12 months too. We're down to PPC, organic, a few paid directory listings, and whatever creative approaches we can find to generating more cost-efficient traffic. :-)
| 2:20 pm on Nov 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
When MSN dropped Ink's paid inclusion listings, it turned the program one dimensional distribution.
Ink did this big rollout trying to bring resellers back into the fold, after they spit on us, like we were step children, when Yahoo first purchased Ink. We did inclusion feeds for two years before they dropped most of the resellers, then they wanted us to go through this huge certification process. (What a joke)...
Overture is pushing SiteMatch at Ambassador resellers, but they have their hands full trying to get advertisers to utilize the Content Match/Local Match product lines. Unless Inktomi cuts off the "free" listing route completely, I just don't see the viability of the product compared to other paid search alternatives.
| 3:58 pm on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
LookSmart seems to be complete garbage. We spend a paltry $25-$30 a month on it, but I'm considering axing it from our list of monthly paid services.
I can't see any benefit in upkeeping a LookSmart listing ever since they lost MSN as a partner. We stuck with it just to see what would happen, and they seem fraudulent as well. I get the same click stats as I used to get when they provided us with an MSN listing.
They really seem like embezzlers. There is also no proof of traffic by reading my logs. I mean, I get detailed info on Yahoo!, Google, AltaVista, et al. Looksmart and it's partners show no referals, though.
It really seems underhanded.
| 12:41 am on Dec 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Given LookSmart's track record, they would be the last company I would give even a cent to.
They had a good thing going and then they totally alienated their clients.
LookSmart's top level management basically imploded the company, and it doesn't look like they will rebound soon if ever.
You would think they would learn something from their past mistakes.
How abouts stats? Without them, how can you trust or regain trust in them.
We are a data driven market LookSmart.
You are a technology company, it can't be a difficult task.
| 9:55 am on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Can anyone please liist which search engines are still still offering paid inclusion/placement in search engines.
| 10:02 am on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Where does it pay to pay for inclusion these days?
It never actually has! But, today, there is no doubt. PFI is pointless.
Pity really, I liked the PFI model much better than those in play today!
| 10:26 am on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Is it worthwhile to pay $75 in excite and its partners for inclusion.
| 10:33 am on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
As a firm supporter of PFI previously, I have to agree that single page PFI really is pretty much worthless since Yahoo went CPC. MSN have no PFI results currently and all other PFI options (including Excite, IMO) are pretty much useless apart from Yahoo's Trusted Feed program which still gives value for money - provided the feed is correctly optimised.
I am expecting something of a comeback for single page PFI in the future though. But currently I've gone from putting in hundreds of pages per month to (apart from feeds) none!
| 10:51 am on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Makemetop for the guidance.
| 10:45 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
PFI died when Google denounced it and MSN followed suit. Didn't Ask Jeeves drop theirs too?
| 9:11 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Can you show some living examples of PFI that works?
Or should I completely bury the idea of PFI for my sites?
| 2:37 am on Feb 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There really aren't any.
I don't really know if Yahoo!'s PFI is even worth it's weight anymore. There was a time when we collectively thought that a link in the Yahoo! Directory would be a bit helpful in organic positioning, however, I just don't see it making much of a difference, if any.
SEM has become an ad-buying industry. I truly believe that organic SEO is on it's way out as well, and that most people are chasing the dream that it will one day go back to how it was two or three years ago.
Unless you're in a fairly non-competitive arena, or you offer an incredibly unique product, invest your money into PPC.
Looking at the dates on some of these posts in "Paid Inclusion Engines and Topics", it's fairly telling that PFI has gone the way of the dodo.
| 5:43 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Wow, I didn't even know Excite was still around!
| 4:45 pm on Feb 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think Uncover the Net is a decent one...if you went the PFI route.
But...what I believe is maybe even best at this time is using services like Text-Link-Ads, Linkadage, or LinkWorth.
| 9:41 am on Mar 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I though that MSN listing depended on Inktomi and Looksmart see this link [pandia.com...]
| 10:01 am on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I run a PFI niche directory and many of my customers are very satisfied with the results. If you find a well ranked directory in search engines for your niche, it would be very beneficial to be included in there.
Anything between $20 - $100 for inclusion is a bargain in those directory sites.