| 8:04 pm on Jun 13, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I agree Brett.
I love Google, use it everyday but it is too dangerous to have all my eggs in one basket.
Plus,I rank a little higher with some keywords in Fast and they do not delete my doorway pages (big plus). So I expect my traffic will increase slightly with a Fast/Yahoo partnership.
I am ready...... bring it on.
| 8:37 pm on Jun 13, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I've been rooting for Fast for a long time.
They have appeared to be webmaster-friendly, asking for feedback from the webmaster community on at least a couple of occasions that I can remember.
I also understand they run a lean operation so maybe they won't be out trying to clean out our coffers through "monetization" campaigns.
And IMHO they do serve relevant, up-to-date and deep-crawled results. I've found myself using them almost as much as Google in the last couple of months.
But most importantly, Google needs a serious competitor for the benefit of all concerned.
| 10:01 pm on Jun 13, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It's not just that Rugles. Have you spent some time using AllTheWeb lately? It's so different from just a year ago. They've rather quietly flushed it all out.
| 10:37 pm on Jun 13, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yes, when I saw this thread I spent 20 minutes checking out the improvements. They have come a long way in the last year. I like it and I also like the fact they do not seem to have problems with dynamic pages. I wish them luck and I am nuetral on Yahoo's decision (Although I do not want Ink to get the contact).
It is a good engine and wish them well.
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 10:49 pm on Jun 13, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'd love to see FAST move in here
If G and Fast were roughly equal forces, maybe SE's will get "better" - faster.
Also, no PR related probs :)
| 12:24 am on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This is fantastic news (I reckon).
Any reduction of Google's increasing monopoly has to be good for the landscape.
And then there's always the PR penalty :)
When you say 'the ink's dry' Brett, do you mean that the Yahoo/FAST deal is done?
| 2:05 am on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Based on those talks, I guess Fast stocks just went up ? :) or even Yahoo
| 7:06 am on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well, if it happens, getting in Yahoo's backfill results in 24 hours through PFI will be very nice!
IMHO - FAST would be a worthy supplier to Yahoo - they have built a great engine and worked hard to become a strong rival to Google. The added bonus is I do rather well with them :).
Still, it's not over 'til it's over. Whatever happens, I think (hope) I have all bases covered.
| 7:33 am on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I personally think this is bad. I'd prefer Y! to stay GG. I'm #1 in GG and FAST has dropped some of my sites from #1 to over 200. Can I get a response? No. At least with GG you get a reply.
What's wrong with putting all your eggs in one basket? It's very good if your the #1 egg and nothing happens to you ;)
| 7:52 am on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
My main concern, IF the switch actually happens, is not the backfill results. It is the implications for the Yahoo serps(which currently use PR) - and also whether the Yahoo directory inclusion PR boost for Google would continue.
From a selfish standpoint I have never fared well with FAST, so I'd rather they stick with Google from a short term perspective. Yes, from a longer term perspective though, it would certainly mitigate risk and over dependency on a single source (and reduce the PR0 fear factor). Another negative for FAST though is that it is PFI (or a long wait), whereas Google of course is free for entry.
| 7:59 am on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This is a good lesson.
We still should try to rank fine in any mayor engine, because it seems like a volley ball game: players swith position!
Probably European could be advantaged: optimizing for Fast is a must to do for European.
| 8:01 am on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>getting in Yahoo's backfill results in 24 hours through PFI will be very nice!
Absolutely! Can you imagine ... Yahoo big spenders stampeding your site without having to wait a couple of months, or forever.
| 8:38 am on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"to be or not to be Google
to be or not to be Alltheweb "
Ok, I agree, but you have to use google the correct way, just put to be or not to be between "" on Google and you'll get much more relevant information.
| 1:13 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I just wanted to say that no partner (read: Yahoo) likes to have any advance notice or hints of an upcoming partnership (in this case, FAST, Inktomi or Google), so I suspect it is still very much a three horse race. Yahoo could also extend their current partnership with Inktomi for a few months, and hold off on making a decision if the terms being proposed by several parties are really compelling.
I have no idea who will win the partnership, but here are my reasons for why all 3 have a great chance.
* clearly has improved the quality of the results
* has the ability to provide the service level requirements and speed that big partners need.
* has some really creative technology for foreign languages.
* supposedly has a really good cost position, and hence can propose a really low price.
* limited advances in Paid Inclusion. Unclear FAST can pay for the deal, given that company has just broken even (I think) and algorithmic web search is just one part of the biz.
* limited position in U.S. (Lycos)
Say what you will about Inktomi, they have proven they can work with big partners (MSN, and AOL in the past), and are probably the most advanced on Paid Inclusion. But clearly they have some corporate problems. If they lose this one, MSN then has them by the collar. (As RealNames found out, not a great position to be in). Inktomi would probably have to pay Yahoo for the deal, and hope to make it back in Paid Inclusion.
* Obviously the best algorithmic engine and still has all the buzz.
* Will Yahoo be willing to pay through the nose to get Google again (and the reputation factor)? Is Google content with just being the unpaid search provider?
I would not rule out Google yet, although that in that case, Google really has the negotiating leverage (I would argue).
Unfortunately I think neither Teoma or Wisenut is ready for a big partner (experience, scalability, etc), although in another 2 years (assuming the Yahoo deal is again for 2 years), they might be in a great position if they survive.
The Search world remains fascinating.
BTW I've been an avid reader of these forums for several years and am glad that I am now in a position to start contributing.
| 1:57 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Welcome out of lurking mode Orion :)
Good points. I do too think that nothing is final yet, but personally I would love to see Fast getting it. They have the technology and experience to handle it.
So have both Ink and Google, but it would be nice to see some "fresh meat" on the search engine scene for once.
| 3:36 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'm leaning towards hoping that Fast takes over the Yahoo web results....probably because I'm managing to rank slightly higher on a lot of key terms with Fast. I get the majority (60-70%) of my traffic from Google- but it'd be nice not to rely on them so much- I mean we all know that the dreaded PR 0 thing can ocassionally hit a site for no valid reason. But then on the flip side, I don't have a lot of experience w/ Fast, so who knows if these rankings will stay consistent.... I DO know that AOL dumping Ink for Google is nothing but GREAT news! Can't wait for August to come.
| 3:41 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
First thing they have to do, is decide if they are going to be Fast, or AllTheWeb. I'd like to see them get one of the top madison avenue firms to redo a name and a logo - complete branding refresh (ala Goto) top to bottom.
| 3:45 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
FAST or ATW
Don't see that. FAST is a trademark in corporate search. Going for ATW (or other new branding) would follow the path Google went - get exposure via Yahoo and build branding for Google.
Which FAST does most likely not intend to do.
| 3:59 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>First thing they have to do, is decide if they are going to be Fast, or AllTheWeb.
FAST is catchy and the public can remember it easily - IMO. But they need to figure out one name.
For some reason I am not even in FAST with some sites, so really my own vested interest is in Google staying with Y!. However, I think it is better for the Web in the long run to have some competition in search. Therefore, I hope FAST gets it even though I will personally take a hit.
| 4:23 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Oh yes, glory be and pass the gravy! Having another engine in the position of being able to put a halt on google's impending monopoly of the web can only be a good thing for all - users and webmasters/owners. One engine bascially in charge of the net is a very scary thing!!
I've been using Fast a lot more lately (also Teoma) - google's relevancy has gone down as their spam has risen and , this, in spite of their PR penalties.
| 4:49 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>> google's relevancy has gone down as their spam has risen
Being the top cow, Google attracts spammers like a barnyard attracts flies. If Fast gets Yahoo, they may actually help Google by giving the spammers some diversion.
| 9:45 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, can't resist it
Alltheweb how to make pizza [alltheweb.com]
Google how to make pizza [google.com]
| 9:54 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
What will happen to Google PR if they are no longer affiliate with Yahoo? All the talk in the Google forums about lowered PR0 and this could really cause PR to slump.
| 9:57 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I knew that allthecheese on pizza was bad for you, but I didn't know it could be an "Atom Bomb"
[see ATW result #3.]
Wow. We've got a new definition for the pizza grease-bomb. :)
| 10:00 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
that is regarding the Yahoo directory, they own shares in Google, so whether google decides to take the yahoo directory weightings out of their algo reamins to be seen.
| 10:05 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I just checked my rankings in FAST and I actually have higher top 10 rankings on popular phrases than I do on Google. While I get 200-300 hits a day on Google, I do not receive any traffic from FAST/Alltheweb. Although Fast doesn't seem to drive traffic right now (to my site), maybe Yahoo will give it a significant boost. I agree, the dreaded PR0 in Google keeps us on edge most of the time.
| 10:17 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If Y! goes with Fast, I predict a renewed interest in the whole PFI/deceptive advertising issue. Until now, Fast hasn't been on anyones' radar screen, they are not a U.S. entity, but a partnership with Y! would put them in the spotlight. If they share PFI revenue with Y!, they could both be lambasted for deceptive practices.
Putting the Yahoo! brand at risk for a few bucks does not make a lot of sense, but they have sold out their constituency before.
| 10:25 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
John, deceptive advertizing issues have to my knowledge not been connected to Pay For Inclusion programs. It was PPC not properly demarked, that got on the radar.
PFI, as FAST offers it, does not have any influence on ranking.
I do not see any case here.
Furthermore PFI is in action at INK, a US based company. Lycos.com offers PFI.
| 10:40 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>John, deceptive advertising issues have to my knowledge not been connected to Pay For Inclusion programs.<<
"Search industry veterans like Sullivan foresee possible problems down the road. "There is the potential for abuse," he says. "Pages that consumers want could be ignored by spiders."
Full article here:
>>PFI, as FAST offers it, does not have any influence on ranking.<<
"Guaranteed inclusion and ongoing refresh of your content every 48 hours"
That puts me at a distinct advantage over the non paying site who has to wait for the "regular" cycle, my stuff gets there first.....who knows when the others get in (if ever).
| 11:04 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
mcguffin, why would you bother with the #3 listing when the #10 spot clearly lets you Discover How To Create Your Own Internet Money Machine...*
But with some degree of seriousness, I am inclined to believe that even Google's spam is a bit more relevant than AlltheWeb's spam. More crude to webmasters, perhaps, but more on-topic to searchers?
Maybe things are different outside of my areas of interest. Anyone care to stickymail me some examples where AlltheWeb's spam is clearly superior?
* (added: different results are flipping back and forth with every 1-3 refreshes.)
| 11:20 pm on Jun 14, 2002 (gmt 0)|
John, we've had members here on the board complaining about ranking poorly for their paid pages..:)
Also: talking about Yahoo we should perhaps keep in mind they run a directory which relies almost exclusively on PFI.
I agree though - daily refreshing offers opportunities to tweaking, it should give some advantages to people hwo know what the are doing.
What would you think anyhow is the number of paid pages in FAST's db?
I'd be very surprised if FAST's 2 + Bill. index holds more than 0,1% or so of PFI pages. Very probably it's rather 0,01..
Nevertheless, Littleman has lately started a thread on PFI as business model somewhere here, which I can't see to find at the moment, in which some very good points are being made. It's far from being a perfect solution in my view.
| This 79 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 79 ( 1  3 ) > > |