| 7:35 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The above is a very important story. It was posted with the permission of Paddy.
I hope he sticks around the industry. I think we will see a big comeback from him yet.
| 7:46 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Pretty rough seas out there these past few months. Good luck to Paddy and anyone else finding themselves in similar situations.
| 7:59 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't think Top Pile was specifically blaming Google. They got caught in between the proverbial "rock and a hard place"..
They banked on Google, and didn't have rankings in Yahoo/MSN. Google dumped most of their stuff, and they got caught with their pants down.
I think every SEM company has experienced some form of Top Pile's dilemma. Our roller coaster ride goes back as far as AOL dumping Excite in August, 1999. That notable event in our SEM life cycle, encouraged me to always try and distribute effort/resources between multiple SE's...
I'd seen the SALSA system around, but really wasn't that familiar with their topology and structure... Sounds like they scaled up big at one point.
Maybe many here can learn from Top Pile's demise, be pro-active rather than re-active as much as possible.
Develop other technologies and traffic sources, so your company isn't 100% reliant on SE's...
There is life after Google, many are experiencing that fact in present day.
| 8:01 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm not sure I understand why losing a company that used cloaking and interlinking between thosands of sites as a fundalmental part of it's business is a bad thing..
I mean they are free to do what ever they want to rank higher.. when it works they are are on cloud nine ..when it dosent they blame Google?
| 8:09 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am sorry to hear of the demise of a small independent and it should be a lesson to us all that we need to be very carefull of how far we stretch ourselves and if we like it or not most webmasters DO rely on the free traffic that SE's provide ,and are therefore at the whims of 2 or 3 major organisations and the associated changes which none can predict for 1 month let alone 6 to 12 months down the road with levels of expected traffic
thank you paddy for your frankness which should make us all go to back to our business plans and do some reavaluation on
WHAT IFS! and effects to viability of our business
| 8:15 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm with dauction. I run a small site that's been around a while and from what I understand of the top-pile model, they were working to manipulate the SE system. I might have lost traffic to their clients...
If I've misunderstood what they were doing, please don't flame me, just explain why I should take off my hat and shed a tear instead of heaving a sigh of relief.
| 8:27 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I can see that this thread is going to shift away from the original intent, into the same old "morality/integrity" issues....
At one point in our SEM life, 99% of the traffic we generated for clients was from our own domains. We pushed the limits in every form possible. BUT, we saw that these topologies were becoming less successful, and found we could integrate many of our techniques directly into our client's web sites. SO, we shifted from 100% traffic delivery from our domains, to 100% organic consulting over an 18 month period.
Am I sorry for the techniques we utilized to deliver traffic from '97 through 03'? Hardly...
We still do some testing on our own domains, so we have a measuring stick for how much gray area we can dive into, on direct client consulting.
I think Top Pile's demise is a wake up call, regardless of the methods for traffic delivery. There are 1000's of websites out there that were buried for months by Google, that don't have a clue what cloaking or link directories represent.
It's not about who deserves a "tear shed in their direction".. It's about finding the path of least resistance to acquiring quality traffic.
| 9:00 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe "guaranteeing" top results is not a great strategy. |
Couldn't agree more. I closed my SEO side of the company back in 2003 - up till that point I was guaranteeing top 10 rankings for every site (and managing I might add!) but like many others in here I saw the storm brewing and started building my own sites instead and working solely on them.
There are still many companies guaranteeing top 10 rankings for their clients, I even saw one that said "Google top 3 ranking guaranteed" - they had some very interesting small print I might add ;) Snake oil has gone up in price again I see ....
|Am I sorry for the techniques we utilized to deliver traffic from '97 through 03'? Hardly... |
I used to loathe the concept of guestbook/blog spamming, doorway pages etc. but for the past year Google has continually dropped my good quality unique content sites so I feel "forced" to build junk pages to rank well and drag visitors to the main sites.
Old Motto for High Google Ranking: Content, content, content .....
New Motto for High Google Ranking: Build junk and they will come ........
I'm always sad to see someone fail at an internet business if they really were a customer orientated firm (which I get the impression Top Pile was). Best of luck in the future mate - next time remember the words "eggs" and "basket" ...... ;)
| 9:28 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is of huge significance.
I shared the podium with Paddy on many an occassion and I think it was always obvious that we had very different business models and ideas of what was best for the client. But I have to say that I know nobody that showed more belief in his product than Paddy.
Paddy will be back for sure, but will need to be careful to run with a business model that is cleaner than Imperial Leather but much less slippery when wet.
The final analysis, though, is that a business must not live or die by natural search alone - and that has serious long term implications for Adsense affiliates as well as "pay per click only" business models - which is what Paddy moved to when the rankings and refunds started to bite. A site or business must build a reputation - for sure - and that is not just going to be achieved by reciprocal linking, cloaking or keyword density. And even if it does succeed on the engines with those techniques, it shouldn't and therefore - in the end - the business model fails. You can make the quick bucks, or build a business... but few will achieve both.
This tells me (again) the natural SEO has a basic flaw in its business model beyond the Salsa solution business model. It fundamentally aims to get "something for nothing" for the web site and that is a huge HUGE flaw. Search engines aim to give the user something for nothing - but their idea of something is not - as a rule - the SEO's idea. So real sites with real content BBC - WebmasterWorld - many millions more - have a "right" to be in natural SERPS but everyone else should consider this a privilige unless they really are "best of breed".
Sure - it's not "nothing" in that it can be hundreds or thousands of hours of work, but it is nothing to the search engine in terms of money if the site in question is not the best one on the topic in question - or worse in the engine's eyes, a site that could have paid to get on the PPC side of the listings.
In marketing terms, Toppile's approach to marketing was the equivalent to fly-posting and stickers on underground in the real world. Currently PPC is the equivalent to Neon lights in Time Square. But even those analogies will be short lived. PPC is on its high now, but get ready for that model to falter very soon as well.
Internet marketing is becoming a much more subtle instrument and blunt approaches will be less and less effective. Internet brand is coming into its own...
Beware the agencies?
| 9:44 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't feel sorry for any business that relies solely on another business and their algorithim. For the traffic they lost, someone else gained.
| 10:01 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Can you see the applications / resumes explanation of how / why they left their last job?
Low Search Engine Rankings killed the business.
I can see the non-internet savvy Human Resources Department mulling that one over during the consideration process.
As the severity of future implications for others who rely so much on engines for traffic goes, look out. The fallout may not have all fallen just yet.
| 10:24 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"I don't feel sorry for any business that relies solely on another business and their algorithim. For the traffic they lost, someone else gained."
let me see. You have your own powerplant or rely on your power company? How bout food, water etc. Should you feel bad if the road that leads to a store closes for 5 months?
[edited by: walkman at 10:28 pm (utc) on Feb. 28, 2005]
| 10:28 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For all the nay slayers
It is better to have tried and failed, than to never have tried...
Its so easy being stood on the other side looking in and passing comment on someone who tried but did not quite succeed, give the guy a break he does not need ripping to bits, your acting like a pack of wild dogs hiding behind your made up names, at least he has the guts to send out an email with his own name on it...
Good luck for the future Paddy
| 10:39 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't know these people, I don't need to.
I have known the disappointment of business failure, I don't wish it on anyone.
My best hopes for their future ventures.
| 10:51 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Salsa GUARANTEES your site top ranking in the search engines under key phrases that your potential customers will key into the search engines. Using proprietary technology and 6 years experience of what works with search engines, Top Pile create hidden 'Salsa sites' that concentrate on your top phrases and that re-direct users automatically to your web site.
Top Pile update their central system every day to reflect the latest criteria used by all the major search engines. Their proprietary software then re-generates every single Salsa site, so that they are permanently optimised to achieve top ranking.
When the user clicks on the search engines' link to your Salsa site they are forwarded straight to your main Web Site, using unique cloaking technology that is undetectable by the Search Engines. "
I would say good riddance.
| 12:59 am on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Not to mention, for every one of their 'customers', a dozen other got displaced that perhaps would have been rightly so higher up.
And to all those who are sorry to see this company go under, that could have been you. (to be displaced)
| 1:41 am on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
And the beat goes on;
High search engine rankings or full
refund on all major search engines
Didn't take their fellow SEO's long to pick up the scent, and launch a google Ad-word campaign.
| 4:12 am on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Paddy Said "All of these clients have balances remaining in their accounts and as such will become creditors of the company in liquidation. Due to the priority rules governing insolvency, I regret to say that there is no prospect of clients receiving any refund whatsoever."
I give him high marks for honesty, and telling it like it is. I've seen many companies going into bankrupcy that still keep telling everyone, not to worry, they will get paid. Third party payment processors seem to favor stringing their clients along.
| 11:26 am on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I regret to say that there is no prospect of clients receiving any refund whatsoever |
I agree with Ledfish top marks to Paddy for honesty, have been there done that in a non internet based business seven years ago.
Morals aside to the business concept/ethics, insolvency is NOT a pleasant thing to go through and i wish you luck for the future.
| 12:05 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Most of the people who post getting high and mighty over ethical SEO were never there at the start, got duped by the SE's, joined too late, or never worked out how simple it was to "populate the web" with pages and so envied those that knew.
I'll miss the days of proxy rotation and telling the technies at the big search engines how their spiders work.
Good luck Paddy find something different as fun left this sector with Inktomi paid inclusion.
| 1:02 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A colleague of mine rang Top Pile in mid-Dec 2003 to find out how they were doing post-Florida. The tech he spoke to said they'd lost approx 40% of their traffic which I personally thought to be rather conservative. Obviously things didn't get any better.
We had a horrible year in 2004 for the same reasons as Paddy has outlined. We lost 70% of our revenue on the 12 March last when our equivalent to his Salsa also died. Fortunately we didn't have 40 mouths to feed.
We were still promoting this service till about last summer which still works great in Yahoo & MSN but is dead in Google. Yes it uses cloaking (big deal) but no it isn't spam.
We learnt the hard way last year what a business model was & feel quite a bit safer now although I'm sure something I haven't spotted will jump up and bite at some stage....
To those of you who are smiling to see the end of Top Pile, fair enough, you might not like the methods Paddy used which in the long term haven't worked out.
However, of the many SEM people, search engine reps & engineers I've met & spoken to, I know very few with the guts to build a company with 40 staff however flawed the underlying business model is with 20/20 hindsight
Henry Ford, who had two flops before striking lucky with Ford, defined failure as "the opportunity to begin again, more intelligently."
Well done Paddy for having a go. The sun is still shining over Dublin 4 this morning :)
| 4:59 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've been known to raise my eyebrow at the SALSA methodology over the years - but echo Receptional in stating that Paddy had a true passion and belief in his system and what he felt he could do for the SME market.
Having also shared a panel with him (and a pint or two) at SES a few times in the past, he always made the point that his loyalties lay towards his clients. He never hid what his methods were, always let people know when things were going awry (as when he changed his business model earlier last year) and genuinely believed in being as transparent with his customers as possible.
However, we all are learning the lesson of building a business model around "free" SE traffic and most of us in the SEM industry seem to be diversifying (I certainly am).
I'm sure that Paddy will be back, with a business model which has learnt from these experiences.
I wish him luck and a speedy return to the "front line".
| 5:21 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Firstly, I am sorry for anyone that has to go through a process like this one.
But there are key lessons to be learnt from other peoples mistakes (these are ALWAYS the cheapest leassons to learn).
1. This business model is flawed. It is a very high risk proposion to go against the way google wants to classify the web (relevant link popularity on-page stuff ect).
2. Understanding the basic theory of how search engines WISH to classify sites (relevancy) enables a business model that is more sustainable.
| 5:27 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
To be a little clearer:
any business model should be based on creating and maintaining a competitve advantage. And hard to erode. If the florida update or any other places at risk your business model, you need to reevaluate you busniess plan.
| 6:41 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What should we learn from the demise of Top Pile?
I suppose compassion is one thing. I never agreed with the way Top-Pile got it's traffic but we all have different ways to improve results. Importantly Top-Pile were honest about what they did, that's probably why most people in SEO know their approach. They also tried hard for their customers, kept them as well informed as possible and even in defeat are concerned with providing good information.
How many of your clients 'deserve' to be at the top of results for their business area? Are they the authority site for their niche? Thought not. Unless you are dealing with an authority site or a huge budget you simply have to push the boundaries, let's not forget that Top-Pile tried to get a fair slice of business for very small and micro businesses. They had to do it that way, better that than promise more services and not deliver. Imagine the cost of 'White-Hatting' a small business in a competitive area into the top 10!
I say we should save the contempt for those who promise more effort than they expend and hope that those who have lost jobs through the Top-Pile closure are able to find good jobs. I have bills to pay, I bet they do too.
| 11:13 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|You have your own powerplant or rely on your power company? How bout food, water etc. Should you feel bad if the road that leads to a store closes for 5 months? |
Although the remark wasn't aimed at me I feel I should jump in as that was a really poor response. I would have no intention of re-selling my own power to others. I do not go to the shop to bring food home to sell to other either. Therefore, relying on Google alone as a business model is not a good plan - fair enough if you're doing it for your own business but re-selling Google traffic was risky to begin with and I don't think their customers were made aware enough of those risks. Poor show in my opinion.
|It is better to have tried and failed, than to never have tried... |
Again, yes if it is your own money you are risking. But not other people's money.
|I agree with Ledfish top marks to Paddy for honesty |
The honesty should have been months before they went into liquidation i.e. stop taking on new customers and taking deposits back when the end was in sight. I'd be interested to see all the "bonuses" that were paid out to staff and directors in the final months instead of issuing the rest of the refunds ....
But then again, these are just speculations based on the dozens of companies I have seen first hand do to their customers. I'm currently involved with Trading Standards in shutting down one firm in Liverpool who offered a similar service (though they never provided ANY traffic to their customers) ....
| 11:52 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I closed my SEO side of the company back in 2003 - up till that point I was guaranteeing top 10 rankings for every site (and managing I might add!) |
Come on even a 5 year old child could get a ranking back in 2003 on any of the engines, you only had to put a page on the server and it would rank (or it did for me!)
Most of the top CEO's have failed more than once in building their empire, even Henry Ford had two failures before finally making it, are you telling me he used his own money and everyone got paid?
I don't think for one minute that "most" company directors or CEO's set out to swindle money out of anyone but as long as they learn from it they will go onto be a better and stronger person in business
| 6:59 am on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Several month ago afriend my called me and asked me to push his keyword via my websites. He offered me 4k to push the sites in question for about 2 months.
Having talked to his client I was informed from them that the SEO offered the number 1 spot on Google for 8k.
I told the SEO guy that what he does is unethical and I don't want that deal.
The answer to funding SEO's is find content, content, content and have patience.
| 7:18 am on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Come on even a 5 year old child could get a ranking back in 2003 on any of the engines, |
ncw164x - pardon me for not being in tune with your supreme intellect but back in 2003 there were only 10 places available in the top 10 - right? As far as I'm aware there are still only 10 top 10 places today. So how can ranking be easier in 2003 compared to today? The same number of places are available and yes, maybe there are many more people trying to get those positions but alluding that a "5 year old" could do it means that all the people not in the top 10 in 2003 are less intelligent than a five year old in your estimation? Would that be a fair interpretation of your comment?
Again, as far as I'm aware there are still results 1-10 on search engines, they don't start at 11 yet do they? Saying "it's harder to rank these days" as an excuse for legging it with other people's money is not really acceptable in my opinion when you're charging to get people rankings.
Imagine an insurance company who sold insurance policies and when the first customer has a crash they turn around and say "ooops! sorry we don't have the funds so we're going to liquidate, have a nice day!" The owners would be arrested, not pitied ..... they sold ranking/traffic insurance and when things went pear-shaped they weren't ready. That's incompetance, not bad luck.
Disclaimer: I do not know the individual who owned Top Pile and my comments are based on the information provided in this thread and threads in other forums. This is not intended to be a slur toward the individuals responsible for the running of said company and is more a generalisation of activities and situations of this type.
| This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 (  2 ) > > |