This is a quick way to increase your post count, even if we have not come to any real conclusion in the end.
I dont know why but i am feeling that agerhart
works for yahoo or some big company. All the thread i read he has been supportive of Y! changes so much and cant find any wrong thing. Well agerhart here's what I think.
Yahoo PPC maybe good, PI may be good, but can you tell me if its fair for a user when a user who searches for lets say "blue widget". Hes shown results : Top 3 Sponsors result (thats fine)
then Top 20 webs results but first 3 are PPC (which a searcher doesnt know). So for a person who doesnt have money for PPC he can not get traffic. He has already lost 40% of traffic.
I am quoting this bc in the pub con I talked with some one from Stats compnay and they told me from Position 1st to 2 there is a drop of 30% of traffic and from3rd to 4th 10%.
So in all if I dont have money I can loose 40-60 % of traffic which is a big hit.
The fact is people, Google does not do PFI why should Yahoo have to?
Because they want to monetize all of the traffic, not just the PPC stuff. This is a maxim that we should simply accept.
The question is not are they going to do monetize all the traffic, the question is are we going to do anything about it? For people who sell and do not optimize (like me!) this is a great thing.
For people who produce content and subsidize their content with free traffic, they are dead in the water.
Hasn't it already been confirmed that SiteMatch is NOT going to be listed first before free stuff? Instead it is going to be mixed in, like current INK?
I do not work for Yahoo. If anything, I'd say that logiclamp works for Google.
I am simply voicing my opinion about the current situation. My opinion may change as things unfold.
|Hasn't it already been confirmed that SiteMatch is NOT going to be listed first before free stuff? Instead it is going to be mixed in, like current INK? |
You are correct. Tim has stated this numerous times.
Where does it say that here:
Tim can talk all he wants, but I would refer to that link as the official word.
|I would refer to that link as the official word. |
I would refer to that link as the sales speil.
|Yahoo! Search crawls the web every 2-4 weeks and automatically finds new content for indexing. If pages already in the Yahoo! Search index link to your site, it will be considered for inclusion in the next update of the index. Getting your site listed in major directory services such as the Yahoo! Directory and DMOZ is an excellent way to be sure that there are links to your site. |
The Yahoo Paid Inclusion program is Looksmart II. Basically we take your money, upfront and per click, and well, you know the rest.
Why would overture list the pros and cons of their program and the benefits of using and not using their pprogram. As I am sure many will agree, its a sales pitch with the pros and benefits only!
Stop whining and adjust. We are always going to have bumps in the road. Nothing is static.
The fear that SEO will become extinct and only big pockets will survive is ridiculous! The internet is still relatively new to the general public with more people going online everyday.
As soon as an engine does go paid placement only and no algortihm in place, they will lose users.
C'mon, how much traffic do you get just from overture.com, not one of the sites that are showing overture results.
|Yahoo acknowledged that there will be no distinguishing marks to alert Web surfers that a company had paid to be included....Google, of Mountain View, Calif., says it doesn't let advertisers pay to be included in its traditional search results...Google executives say their users favor this neutral, technology-driven approach. |
|“The bottom line is that this is just going to be another way for businesses and the wealthy to buy search engine results so they get the material they want in front of the eyes of search engine users,” |
SJ Biz [sanjose.bizjournals.com]
|Yahoo's own search engine hides paid placement |
Public users reading these, will know, where to go to look for unbiased results. Hurrah!. Strike One.
emphasis (bold) mine.
I had a very simple premise which I really thought was plain as day to everyone.
Yahoo is trying to monetize all their traffic and content publishing webmasters (and their fans) should show their displeasure.
Honestly, I really did not expect to have to defend my position I thought it was brutually obvious to everyone.
i must wonder what MSN is thinking of all this...
|Yahoo is trying to monetize all their traffic and content publishing webmasters (and their fans) should show their displeasure. |
Honestly, I really did not expect to have to defend my position I thought it was brutually obvious to everyone.
Here is my advice. Read this thread again. Read all of the comments. Read all of the threads on this topic...because you're not grasping the point.
Yahoo! is only trying to monetize a portion of its traffic. There are still free listings.
I would add to that advice that you should also take that pill that Mike suggested.
Stop disagreeing with me and I will :)
Seriously though, I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand. If you don't want me to post, you could simply not say anything. That's usually what I do when I am not interested in what someone has to say.
Yahoo is going to monetize traffic until the seams burst.
I have always been leary of PFI's and trusted feeds, but I say give Yahoo a chance and we will see how things unfold.
I don't think we can pretend to know exactly what Yahoo will do or intends, so I am willing to take Yahoo at their word.
|Yahoo! is only trying to monetize a portion of its traffic. There are still free listings. |
Yes, but how will you ever be able to tell the difference? Reading this thread, I think you are willfully missing the point. PPC listings are going to be indistinguishable from naturally ranked listings. Unless, Y!'s plan is for SiteMatch to be a total flim-flam, they are going to deliver results to their PPC customers. Delivering inferior results is going to be a bad thing for the SERPs, which is a bad thing for the whole ballgame. It is by no means certain that search is going to be primarily performed over the Web in the coming years. If one of the biggest engines takes it upon themselves to provide spammy results, it's a step backwards in the face of a much greater threat.
|Yes, but how will you ever be able to tell the difference? Reading this thread, I think you are willfully missing the point. PPC listings are going to be indistinguishable from naturally ranked listings. |
We weren't discussing that topic in this thread.
|I don't think we can pretend to know exactly what Yahoo will do or intends, so I am willing to take Yahoo at their word. |
Which is most definitely a reasonable stance to take. I'm operating under the premise that the quicker complaints start happening about the features that are already announced, the quicker we might get some changes, especially from a company that is so willing to listen to the community. They have already admitted that the PFI is indistinguishable from regular listings. I know that this is a feature that is much-demanded by commercial websites, and a big engine like Y! stepping up to provide it is probably going to work out fot them. But, it aint going to work out for me, and I don't think it's going to work out for searchers.
This whole PFI/CPC thing has been going on for years. It is nothing new and every SE apart from Google (and those with Google powered results) has been doing it.
As Yahoo has bought most of the ones who were doing it, anyone who thought they were doing this as an altruistic exercise must be exceptionally optimistic or have had their heads buried in the sand.
Can no-one else see that the costs of initial PFI for a site have actually dropped significantly?
Previously a 10 page site cost me $790 per year to get listed in INK, AV and ATW with no click guarantee and payment coming straight from my bottom line. You had to be pretty sure of your SEO abilities and conversion rates to justify paying out money on more than a few pages! Now it costs me $100 and if I'm not getting a good ROI on a page, I can pull it - saving money. If it works well - then the cost will be worth it. If I'm good at SEO than this is a better solution than going for bidded positions.
I can't see what the problems are! As in all previous PFI deals - if you don't want to use it - don't!
And people seem to forget about the long discussions about free results outranking PFI results. That's been going on for years too! I'm sure it will happen at Yahoo! In fact, in certain areas - it already is.
|The fact is people, Google does not do PFI why should Yahoo have to? |
Yahoo doesn't have to; Yahoo wants to.
Different companies; different philosophies, strategies, and tactics.
|Because they want to monetize all of the traffic, not just the PPC stuff. |
Sure, and they monetize that traffic with ads or sponsored links on the SERPs along with the free search listings.
Fact is, if Yahoo wants to compete with Google as a search engine, it needs to offer a similar or better level of quality in information searches. Where we're more likely to see PFI/PPC take over is in purely commercial listings where users don't mind if the search results show only 100 boilerplate catalog or booking pages instead of 10,000. Charging retailers for search listings would increase profits, reduce costs, and eliminate a lot of duplicate pages from search results.
|We weren't discussing that topic in this thread. |
Read your opening post. I'm telling you one thing that is wrong with a PFI/PPC model where paid listings are indistinguishable from unpaid, and I don't think I'm the only person trying to.
>I'm telling you one thing that is wrong with a PFI/PPC model where paid listings are indistinguishable from unpaid...
And I'm telling you that this has been going on since late 2000. What's new?
|Charging retailers for search listings would increase profits, reduce costs, and eliminate a lot of duplicate pages from search results. |
Eliminating dups is the only good argument I've heard for this yet.
My AdWords buys prove to me that you can separate sponsored listings from the "product" and still be very effective. My feeling is that if you intermingle the two, you're going to end up with a product that is less effective overall, even though it might make more money. As an interested observer of the market, I would like to see more effective products, I don't fault Y! for being more interested in making money, but I think it is pound-foolish.
|And I'm telling you that this has been going on since late 2000. What's new? |
Your cynicism is appreciated, but what's new is a bunch of people who ought to know better, trying to tell me it's a good thing.
I think we need to remember that monetizing a web site is what most webmasters do. If you think Yahoo should not make money from their site then I think you are disillusioned. Google does the same thing with adwords. If people can convert with this model then it will work. If they can't Yahoo will not make any money.
It is not optimal for the webmaster, but ink was doing something similar. Like makemetop has said this just isn't new.
|If you think Yahoo should not make money from their site then I think you are disillusioned. |
Did somebody say that?
|Yahoo! is definitely still crawling sites for free. If you can't get your site indexed by Yahoo right now, then you need to get into another business. I have spoken with a few other SEOs, and we all agreed that Yahoo is currently indexing new pages and sites faster than Google is. |
Well then, by God, if you and a few other SEOs agree then I'd say that makes it the Gospel truth.
If you're interested in any contrary opinions, which I'm not sure you are judging from some of your other posts in this thread, my experience is that neither G nor Y is faster than the other. The only difference I see is that G continues to be willing to come back more often than Y.
|There is nothing wrong with a PFI/PPC model, as long as there is another option for purely informational sites or people who can't afford to pay. As I just mentioned above, there is. Enough said. |
Yes, there is a free crawl. But I guess what differs you and the folks agreeing with you from the folks disagreeing with you is that you trust Yahoo implicitly to always and forever treat non-paying sites the same as paying sites. I'm not willing to make that jump at this point.
|The current Yahoo! SERPs look better than Google's do. I'm speaking from a consumer and SEO point of view. |
In your opinion, fine. In my opinion, they don't ... in some areas. Your statement is way too general. In some areas, Y is better; in some areas, there're little difference; and in other areas, G is better. In the end, it's great to have the competition and the options.
Sheesh. Is that what we've come to? A moderator disagrees with another member, or feels he's been misquoted, and decides to accuse the member of being drunk? Nice touch.
| This 134 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 134 ( 1  3 4 5 ) > > |