| 8:40 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I hate to throw Overture in the mix but - I can't find any of our sites in Yahoo that did business with Overture in the past.
Is it possible if you paid for Overture in the past you are excluded also...
Has anybody seen Tim since the heat got turned up?
| 8:51 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Absence in Ink, and paying for Overture PPC ads in the past aren't related at all. Purely coincidental. Tim will confirm that.
The two databses have been and still are completely separate.
And...I think Tim is at Search Engine Strategies conference meetings right now.
| 9:39 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>I don't think I saw where the URL to the free Yahoo! Slurp submit was posted. Was it supposed to launch on 3/1?
No. It was to be launched the week of 3/1 ... still several days left yet.
| 9:44 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Is it possible if you paid for Overture in the past you are excluded also"
I'm not seeing this..
| 9:51 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've a large handful of sites not in where the only reason they have in common is Overture.
| 10:09 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My PFI all disappeared night before last, contacted PositionTech and was advised a scheduled refresh on the 28th did not take place - everything would come back in a few days - last night they started showing up again. Maybe the bug bit more than just me!
| 10:09 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well, earlier in this thread I felt like one of the lone naysayers against Yahoo, and what happens.. yup, Yahoo tried to shaft webmasters a *third* time.
First up, they charge you $299 for a directory listing.. and then once they've signed people up, drop them from the SERPs. Then, they imply that Yahoo will be running on Inktomi results, and actually feed Yahoo results from Inktomi with the net result that a whole load of webmasters sign up.. and then they announce they're dropping Inktomi to go for some even more stupidly expensive solution to extract money from webmasters.
Well.. this model has been tried before by Looksmart, and they are basically dead in the water. So Google is breathing a HUGE sigh of relief here, because not only has Yahoo p*ssed off most of its customers AGAIN, but it has adopted a business model which has been shown to fail.
OK.. I have to admit that the Yahoo/Inktomi confidence trick fooled me completely and I needlessly shelled out $1000 on this scam. But I swear that I will never spend another cent with Yahoo.
At least when Google shafts you, you can be pretty sure that it's because they're *trying* to sort out the SERPs. When Yahoo shafts you, it's merely because they're trying to screw more money out of you.
OK.. I'm angry, but I'm laughing at the same time, because in one swoop Yahoo have created a system which is not only too expensive for most of its customers, but also looks like it's going to provide totally crappy results for visitors.
| 10:15 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>The two databses have been and still are completely separate.
Kanetrain, Overture for quite a few years has subsidized its index with results from Inktomi. The results after the sponsored links in Overture are from Inktomi. I've never percieved it as differing databases. Just one big database that calls up the search engine results first on the engine you happen to be using. Its that intermingling of results that are causing problems with the Ink/Yahoo PFI customers now. I wouldn't be surprised to see Overture customers having problems eventually because Looksmart customers did.
| 10:36 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Wow! Just read 19 pages in this thread. Here's my $.02:
1) As the Web marketing manager for a consumer product retailer, our average sale and gross margin can in no way justify a PFI that includes a $.15 CPC. No, I would not pay for inclusion. So, the main thing that's important to me is that Yahoo follows through on their claim they will still crawl "aggressively" and my client's site gets lots of pages indexed. I would hope that our competitors also conclude it is too expensive (we're in the same business), but I also believe our regular SERPs would beat them anyway.
2) Rankings can definitely be affected with PFI. Yes, the algorithm will be applied the same, but as any of us would do, we'd be tweaking constantly to get better and better positioning. Plus, as written in Search Day "As part of this structured relationship, Yahoo is establishing guidelines for what it considers to be quality content. This should help content owners have a better understanding of the ranking criteria Yahoo uses, without revealing too much detail that could be helpful to spammers." This sounds to me like Yahoo will help PFI partners optimize the site so they get higher positions and more clicks, thus more revenue for Yahoo(makes sense to me). So, technically, it may be true PFI URLs are ranked the same, but PFI partners have a competitive advantage by getting greater opportunities to improve their ranking.
3) Yahoo believes the surveys that say relevant results are most important and credible results are second. I agree if a PFI site gets constantly optimized to rise to the top for a particular search term, it may be more relevant. But what if, especially in competitive categories, all the top results are PFI *and* searchers are increasingly aware of this? Which way would the surveys go? Yahoo is taking a chance that searchers priorities do not change, otherwise Google will jump all over it.
| 10:38 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If anybody still wants to submit their sites to Inktomi or FAST then go and do it at Lycos Insite, as they are *still* selling both, and as far as I can tell they are the only ones left doing this.
Anyone have any idea how long they will continue?
On a seperate note I have just put my first site through to the new Overture service, and how disgusted I was to find that when it says 1st URL = $49.00, 2nd - 10 = $25.00 and 10th+ $10, what it REALLY means is that your URL has to have exactly the same domain name, for example; www.aaaaa.com as the first, www.aaaaa.com/aaa.html as the second etc etc. This is the only way to qualify for this discount, you cant add one site and then a different one to qualify for the discount I am told by ineedhits.
I really feel the move is a terrible one, tell me what is the point in paying .30c a click and not even be guaranteed a particular position when for .50c a click you can probably get on the first page in a sponsored position through the traditional Overture PPC...all very strange!...
| 10:43 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Is it possible if you paid for Overture in the past you are excluded also |
I've seen nothing at all to back that up. Nor would it make business sense.
| 10:46 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I guess the Google IPO is back on, if this is the best Yahoo! can do..
| 10:49 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
On the index page, the link reads:
|New Yahoo Inclusion Program Unveiled Posted in Yahoo by Tim |
As announced at the WebmasterWorld Publishers Conference, Yahoo starts a new Inclusion Program: "The primary means of generating our index is via our free crawl.... We supplement this free crawl with the paid inclusion program."
And guess what we're discussing?
As many have said in this thread, we should be greatful and encouraging Yahoo! to do new stuff. Tim, who has a high "Director of Product Management" position (I think) at Yahoo, spends hours answering hundred's of questions which could be easily answered if the user asking the question does a search on Google, with the "site:webmasterworld.com" field.
| 11:20 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I read the press release on Yahoo's site. Maybe it's just me but it seems like they are trying to bury the paid inclusion news: First and foremost is the Content Acquisition Program, then it has 2 parts, non-commercial and commercial, and Overture, a subsidary of Yahoo, is running the commercial component of the Content Acquisition Program, which is called Site Match. The better half of the press release talks about the non-commercial side. It seems to me like there should have 2 releases, one for how Yahoo is opening up their index to non-commercial, "hidden Web" content, and another on a great new paid inclusion program from Overture for commercial sites. Most interesting is that the press release from Overture is the same. Seems like they should have been pushing their new service, which means revenue to them, with a different headline and emphasis.
| 11:23 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hey, even though you are angry, Tim is still a member here at WebmasterWorld. Please treat him with the same respect that you would others.
| 11:25 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>. I mean Tim from Yahoo who started these threads.
I don't think his full-time job is posting at WebmasterWorld - he was here at 7 this morning, so I hardly think he is ducking anyone.
And we should all treat other members the same way we would like to be treated.
| 11:29 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|sidyadav, ya being silly here, aren't ya? |
|Hey, even though you are angry, Tim is still a member here at WebmasterWorld. Please treat him with the same respect that you would others. |
pmac and Mardi_Gras are right.
I would treat Tim in a great way. Do any of the Google VP's come to post here? Nope. Tim is the only VP who is wasting his time on a Webmastering community, He could easily have a [not so high positioned] Yahoo employ post here - just like GG.
After all these Ink PFI thingy complains - I'm sure Yahoo might be working on something (better), especially knowing that the person who posts here on the behalf of Yahoo has great powered in the company itself.
[edited by: sidyadav at 11:32 pm (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
| 11:31 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
No It is Search Engine Strategies time in New York I am not ducking out. I presented twice today and am very tired. I was on the boards until 3.15 last night and on again at 7am. It is the Yahoo/Overture party in half an hour so I need to go to that. I will post responses tomorrow am. Please be patient
| 11:35 pm on Mar 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hats off to Tim for actually engaging in the debate. I guess comparing him to Alan Ralsky was uncalled for, and I apologise.
..but, I've looked around several other boards and the webmaster community is not only horrified at the new program, but hardly anybody is interesting in paying for it.
| 12:26 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This sounds a lot like that MSN / Looksmart idea that went over like a lead baloon.
And I do not believe for one second that Y! is including pages through PFI so that it can have pages in it's index just so it can have results from non crawlable sites...it's all about the money.
It insults our intellegence to say other wise.
I stopped using MSN the day they implemented Looksmart with their .15 per click traffic stuff...the results were horrible.
Why Y! seems to go down the same road is beyond me.
| 12:29 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hats off to Tim if he engages in a full, honest debate.
Tim, please address what Yahoo's intentions are about monetizing traffic.
Already, a significant number of searches have the "free" results below the fold because of PPC. With the addition of SiteMatch, can you honestly say that Yahoo's strategic direction is not towards fully monetizing as much traffic as possible?
Some people around here are under the misconception that Yahoo is not moving towards full monetization even though it is already obvious that you are well on your way.
| 1:05 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just saw an light in the dark night.
| 1:28 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Having been in this business of SEO since 1997, helping hundreds of small and large clients attain high positions on SERP's I can gurantee any newcomers that the comings and goings of SEO is a laugh a minute. Those of us who have been doing it for any number of years will attest to many failed attempts at creating better relevance, monetizing results and what have you. You just know that Google will indeed go public if not now, sooner or later. And when they do the door will be open for someone new and fresh and full of good rightousness. What worries me most is that the price of entry for the next good thing grows with each passing day. Yahoo has long been in for the buck and just because they seemed quiet for the past year or so by no means meant they werent planning to make a play on their strong brand.
i highly recommend, if you have never done it, to stand behind a few casual internet users and see how they use a search engine. it is an eye opening experience to be sure. i mean what person in their right mind would type in good sightseeing tours or cheap airline flights to try and find what they are actually looking for!
After receiving Yahoovertures notice last night here on the left coast at 10pm - i quickly had a large glass of grand marnier and went to bed. Slept through the night. And awoke this morning to realize the sky wasnt falling (once again) and that the natural progression of things continues to march on.
More and more I find myself helping clients convert their traffic to sales, working on usability issues and things that at first blush really have nothing to do with SEO. Things change kiddos. You've got to be flexible and willing to analyze how you can benefit from change because it happens with or without you anyway.
Peace - out
| 1:33 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
and dont forget - a fool and his money are soon parted. So never rush to outsmart someone smarter and moving faster than you! Give things time to settle down. analyze things yourself. I make a point of making the rounds of these types of forums when changes do occur and usually after a few days have a clear idea of what the right things to do are. Rushing to position tech to secure inktomi positions you probably already have is much like typing in cheap airline tickets to fly from here to there.
| 1:35 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Netraffic -- agree, but some members around here are leaving people with the clear misunderstanding that Yahoo is not trying to move towards full monetization of all traffic.
This is a very painful disservice to newcomers who might leave with the misunderstanding that building websites which depend on free traffic from Yahoo is a good idea.
| 1:42 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Logic said ->
some members around here are leaving people with the clear misunderstanding that Yahoo is not trying to move towards full monetization of all traffic.
Not I sir. And anyone building a site based on free traffic is fiddling with a hobby not a business. Two very different things indeed.
| 1:45 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Disagree. There are a lot of Google AdSense or Affiliate websites which build great content and depend on free traffic.
They are going to go away, because the margins are going to become negative for them and so will all their great content.
| 1:56 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There are a lot of Google AdSense or Affiliate websites which build great content and depend on free traffic.
Hmmm - seems like you have an agenda Logic - i have never come across a site whose business model uses adsense or affiliate programs (except way back at the advent and even then...) that wasnt much more than a hobby site. We must surf in different circles.
Monetization costs my clients more ad dollars too. They have to take away the money from something else to ante up to the bar and many have to choose between adWords and Overjerks to make ends meet - so i am certainly not arguing the point with you. I agree
| 2:06 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Please, Tim, or anyone else here
Take the time to read what I have to say, thanks.
I need some explanation.
The new Yahoo! Inclusion program sounds like the directory fiasco when they stopped using it's results.
When I mean fiasco I am talking about the money issues.
Give me one simple reason why I should choose "Site Match" instead of "Content Match".
Content Match (old overture system)
- You are displayed first.
- You don't have a review fee
- There isn't a ranking issue
- You don't need to wait for a bot to change what you want to be displayed
- No ranking guaranteed
- Review Fee
- A fixed price of 15 cents or 30 cents per click once your pages are approved
Anyone with some common sense will find the "Site Match" program completely insane. There isn't any advantage, reward.. Anything, NONE. No reason at all to join this program.
It's like asking me to write down the positive aspect of smoking. There is nothing positive.
This is the worst long-term strategy I've ever heard
If you want to be a player in the SE game long-term, you NEED to provide the best & most accurate search results.
Yahoo will make some quick money from this, but the search results will suffer and people will continue to migrate over to other search engines as they have been because people are looking for relevant results. Not a competition between huge corporations.
Allright, you are talking about a "free submit" option. Ok. Another reason why I shouldn't choose the "Site Match" option. Especially if there isn't any "ranking improvement".
What do I get with "site match"? Well, my pages are refreshed every 48 hours. That's still not good enough for me to pay for that program.
Something is wrong, really wrong with this idea..
| 2:10 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I need clarification on something...
If I paid for inks PFI, will my site be dropped completely from Y! when 4/15 rolls around?
Or will it just stop being updated every 48 hrs, but still stay in the serp's?
G is going to eat Y! for breakfast if Y! keeps this up.
i give site match 6 mo. tops.....
| 2:11 am on Mar 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
SiteMatch is an incremental erosion to the free traffic that Yahoo once provided. It is a misguided attempt at increasing their short term revenues at the cost of long term search engine user satisfaction.
Tim or some other members will probably talk about 'free crawling', but if you do a search on certain keywords you can already see that free SERPs have been pushed below the fold.
Do not let anyone kid you - Yahoo is incrementally moving forward in the full monetization of all search engine traffic.