| 5:11 pm on May 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google doesn't offer paid inclusions as far as I know. Nevertheless, paid inclusions may save google and other search engines time and money in combating spammers.
| 5:47 pm on May 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Have you been reading spam email?
| 5:49 pm on May 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Im pretty certain that you cant pay to submit your site to Google, this comes from a page from within Gooogle that states this.
| 5:50 pm on May 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>Have you been reading spam email?
Have you been sending spam email?
| 3:05 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes, you can pay someone to submit your page to all search engines. Probably you will be even indexed, but I don't think it is worth the money.
| 4:15 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You could pay me to submit to Google, but I'd use the same method as everyone else! But I'm sure you cant pay Google
| 4:34 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Paid inclusion was a hair-brained concept that was short-lived and has now finally been abandoned as the totally unworkable business model that it was.
To be fair to Google, they are the only search engine to have refused to even contemplate adopting it. Ask Jeeves, on the other hand, embraced the idea so fully that they have yet to realise that, having abandoned it, they no longer have any kind of "submit" whatsoever. They are, in effect, a search engine that doesn't search.
| 4:52 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google should do a paid inclusion. Ways to make more $$$. They have a partial paid inclusion called adwords. They should take it one step further. Yahoo has already figured that one out.
| 6:16 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Some years ago people began trusted google more than yahoo because the search result were not bought. Probably now is time to trust more yahoo than google because SEOs concentrate more on distorting google search results.
| 11:47 pm on May 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Paid inclusion was a hair-brained concept that was short-lived and has now finally been abandoned as the totally unworkable business model that it was. |
Paid inclusion couldn't compete with the G combo of (at that time) relevant organic results and low CPC. However, the tables may be about to turn because the degree of spam G gets is exceeding their capability to deal with it.
IMO, there's nothing inherently evil about paid inclusion. It's "unfair" to those who can't afford to pay for competitive placement. But arguably, those who can assemble link farms enjoy the same type of unfair advantage. (They have enough money and resources to create the link farm.)
| 10:32 am on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Google should do a paid inclusion. |
Technically speaking, I would consider Adwords to be more "Paid Inclusion" than Advertising as for some it is the only way to be ranked for even their own company or website name due to the awful algorithm Google has.
For comparison, take the offline phone book and yellow pages. One is a free list that everyone gets found in if they are being searched for, another is to catch people that aren't necessarily looking for your particular company.
Currently, as Google cannot even tell that a search for "Location Blue Widgets Ltd." is a search for that company and not 10,000 MFAs the only way "Location Blue Widgets Ltd." can be found is to buy adwords for their own name. Thus paid inclusion.
P.S. This is just a rant, I'm not actually making an argument that Google is offering Paid Inclusion just making a point of the rather shady line between Paid Inclusion and Advertising.
| 11:35 am on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|IMO, there's nothing inherently evil about paid inclusion |
I didn't say it was evil, I said it was unworkable.
| 12:47 pm on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I say its a way for google to make more $$$
| 8:14 pm on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I didn't say it was evil, I said it was unworkable. |
I'm interested in knowing if you think it is unworkable today. I agree that it was unworkable a few years ago because it was much easier (and cheaper) to get competitive organic rankings and/or sponsored links. However, I think that today, it is now very well understood that appearing on the first few results pages of competitive queries is worth quite a bit of money.
As someone else pointed out, sponsored links are a form of paid inclusion. If you can get all (or most) of your site's pages competitively and cheaply indexed, it seems paid inclusion is workable today.
| 10:09 pm on May 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
With Google's business model it won't make sense for them to offer a paid inclusion service.
Instead the more bias engines like Yahoo offer this service.
But I definitely agree it is lucrative.