Forum Moderators: skibum
We've had targeted banners -banners that come up if their keywords are searched- since '96 or '97, maybe before. And there have been several attempts to rejigger the return page so that sponsors get higher rank --so many, in fact, that they are kind of a blur to me now. So far, nothing has really stuck except bid-for-rank, which I believe is a direct result of some of those earlier trial approaches.
But here's the fundamental question (I think)... Where, in their respective contracts with free submissions, does it exclude an engine from making 'a deal' with a sponsor? In fact, what contract have they made at all when one submits to their free service? As far as I can tell, none.
The only trouble comes if they promise or imply that they are impartial and then do not fully disclose to the public when the rules change. AV, in a way, seems to have the burden of being expected to remain impartial. Obviously, one does not have the same expectation of GoTo.
If you believe search engines must remain impartial and egalitarian, Why? (Other than the fact no one wants to pay for what they once received for free.)
Then, how do you propose they pay their expenses? (Other than banner advertising --that's just not paying the rent.)
Taking AV as an example.
First off I don't believe they are. Take a look at AV's home page and count the number of commercial/paid for links, it surprised me.
If you are referring to the search results themselves do the same test, how many paid for links are on that page.
IMHO the returned web pages are largely free of paid for placing, why? Simple, Joe Surfer doesn't like them. If he did GoTo would be providing the new web page results for Yahoo [imagine the money they could earn] and not Google.
>Then, how do you propose they pay their expenses?
Don't you think I've got enough problems of my own!
I wish I knew, but what I do know is that less visitors to AV = less revenue. Whatever business model they pursue will always involve bringing huge numbers of visitors to their site, if they thought that paid for placings would achieve that they'd be there tomorrow.
The simple answer is to get more eyeballs to the site,the same way in which any business selling advertising works.
Finally taking commercial TV as an analogy:
Do people accept the concept of commercial breaks,yes.
Do people accept sponsorship of TV programmes,yes.
Would you accept advertiser intrusion into the content of the programs themselves?
Ahh, but we accept that kind of intrusion all the time on TV and in the movies... there are companies that pay big $$$ to have a certain bottle of mustard on the table in a sitcom, or have Mel Gibson chug a particular brand of soft drink.
>the returned web pages are largely free of paid for placing, why? Simple, Joe Surfer doesn't like them. If he did GoTo would be providing the new web page results
True, Joe Surfer doesn't like them, but he's being "GoTo-ized" every day. We're seeing the encroachment of pay-for-rank on a pretty broad plane.
It is comparable to the paid links on the search results page, not the results themselves.
On a returned page, RANK is a component of content.That's what we go to "read" --the sites that best answered our query.
So, I might resent having to read through pages reordered to accommodate sponsors, but --as long as I'm told they do it-- I still shouldn't necessarily expect impartial and egalitarian treatment of the sites found?
Agreed 100%.
I just think [and more importantly so do they] that less people would use the service, thereby negating the financial advantage of paid for placement.
The one thing we haven't discussed is the cost base. Hardware is nowadays almost "free", bandwidth cost even in the UK is at an all time low. If the SE's cannot make a profit with their current revenue streams then cost's need to be cut. If they don't there are plenty waiting in the wings to take their place [Google?].
But, I also keep getting caught up on the phrase the sites that best answered our query --Joe Surfer doesn't necessarily get the best answers brought to the forefront, either. This, too, can cause the SE to lose acceptance.
Search engines aren't interested in making your page rank higher, they're interested in returning the best possible results for the people who use them.Point taken. If an SE waves the "what-is-best-for-the-user" flag, then they are implying that the returns are not swayed by advertising or sponsorships. UNfortunately, we all know that's marketing B-S, and not to be counted upon when the company needs make a buck.
AND (he says, as he puts on his sinister devil's advocate hat & cape once again), we're talking some serious bucks here. What was that last black-hole $figure on AV, negative $50 Million? With the collapse of banner advertising, Nasdaq, VC funding, stock-as-money, etc., we (we = site submitters) may be staring at the prospect of having to pay for what has been a heavily subsidized service. So far, I haven't been impressed with our answers as to who is going to pick up the tab.
Exactly the point of starting this thread.
Somehow, submitters have come to equate "ethical SE behavior" with "lack of commercial intent." So, picking through the above, here are what I believe are the key phrases:
the first issue for the SE is largely a competitive one; will some other less commercial engine take their traffic
-and-
UNfortunately, we all know that's marketing B-S, and not to be counted upon when the company needs make a buck.
The point is that SEs are a business and they have to strike a balance on what their users will tolerate. That balance is driven by the bottom line, not some perceived promise to those submitting that it's a fair game. To my mind, the only time that ethics get involved is when the SE's advertise or strongly imply that the returns are fair and impartial in order to gain acceptance, and then -without proper disclosure- alter their public commitment for financial gain. What has thrown a small wrench in the works is that Joe Surfer seems to gravitate to SEs that give him the best return, and -as georged pointed out above- the best return cannot be dictated by who's willing to pay to be at the top. BUT, Joe Surfer (and Joe Submitter) are becoming GoTo-ized daily and are apparently accepting -or acquiescing to- the process. I think that's going to continue to be the trend.
In the other place, I've always been a strong advocate of the view that SE's are indeed NOT a public service and they are there to make money. The many postings we have seen over the past years relating to Webmasters taking about "suing" SE's for non indexing are rediculous. SE's make money by bringing people to their site or databases beacuse people think they will get good search results.. and then exposing them to sponsors and the like. Browsers can go or not go to a SE site; likewise Webmaster can choose to submit or not.
Ethics has little to do with it. You make a calculated risk on submitting what form your kwowledge you think a SE will perceive as SPAM now (or in the future). If you luck out bad luck, if you luck in good luck.. Or you can go an ultra conservative route and not submit anything that has even the slightest chance of being seen as SPAM and risk being pipped by competitors.
The discussion on how SE's make money is important. The fact is many major or plain SE's wont. At the moment Google is perhaps the best of the majors for returning relevancy. AV seems to be going down hill with many untransparant sponsor listings, GoTo is NOT used by Joe-surfer, mainly by Webmasters and those looking for products made by rich companies who can afford pay per click. Im still not covinced that GoTo returns are relevant, with their recent tie ups with groups (like pornograhers) that send people to a Go To page when they exit or even 404.
The future is only two or three mega indexes, (say Yahoo, google, ODP) lots of specialist directories integrated in specialist sites, and keyword weighting is becoming less critical every day, replaced by more intelligent link analysis which is harder (but certianly not impossible) to spam. The whole concept of the mega seach engine is showing its age since the Internet became a commercial vehicle rather than an information vehicle. The underlying assumptions of the current SE/Robot systems were based on the free exchange of information (for eg. Yahoo, Google, Inktomi and Lycos all have their origins in university projects to document info on the Web, not create shopping or business directories).
The mega-search engine, (apart from two of three) is DEAD. The future is specialist information repositories.
But as a place to find commercial products and services, not to find information in general.
That's why it will never become a mainstream SE. I see it more as one of the "specialist" directories/SE's I refereed to earlier. In that segment Pay per click makes sense.
But of course it makes no sense for economic data sites, voluntary type NGO's, academic info etc, who would have their own well respected indexes that gain market leadership over time.
The top results from GoTo and other Pay per clicks are from companies willing to pay for good exposure on such an index, which of course may be unrelated to the quality of their offerings.
Was that honest? Or was that just what it was? A kick back?
The search engines work exactly the same way. How you feel about se's taking money for listings is probably how you felt about the above story.
If we allow se's to take money for listings and referrals, why couldn't we allow every segment of our society to do so? Why stop at business? Lets go for it. Politicians are historically underpaid, let's let McDonald Douglas give them each money for referring that big defense contract? Isn't it funny how we expect public officials to act one way and public businesses to act another.
adweek [adweek.com]
Thanks for the article, it helps document one more slide down that slippery slope to a PPC world.
FWIW, I only own one SE stock, it's GoTo (and last time I checked, I was making money on it).
It seems like an inevitable compartmentalization to me. For instance, if I want to research a medication that the doctor just prescribed, I will NOT trust pay-for-position information. But if I'm shopping, I will take paid positions into account. Maybe not top position gets my first choice, but I'd care about who was willing to pay to promote their business.
different search engines (and more importantly databases) for different folks (and objectives). I dont want commercial spins filling my search results, and i guess shoppers dont want objective more serious info cluttering up their world either.
The day of using one search engine for all your needs is just about past. We will be using different specialist engines and directories depending on the task, and less so mega SE's pretending they can efficiently answer any searching need.
I have noticed a huge growth in the firms integrating ODP into their sites. Why? It is the easy way to add value to their site.
What about the GoTo model. Well, that depends on what is being sought. Those doing research will not accept this as being reliable. Services like NL provide better results for research. The data is updated more regularly and does not appear to be "tainted" by paid entries/positioning.
So, how do these services make money? No question, advertising and/or income from supplying services like Yahoo or other portals. It can't make it from pay per use. How many surfers would pay to find things? None, i think. Only specialist services will be able to get away with pay to browse services (financial, for example).
The model we've known will have to change. Testing in progress as we speak. Are yo ready to watch the results change according to what the differing services wish to offer? It is entirely ethical to serve results as they see fit. Only the results that give accuracy, relevancy, and an efficient service will provide the succesful model for others to follow.
</IMHO>
Wellllll...... I'd like to think that, but the mass marketing of SE services like IWON add a factor to the user side of the equation that I'm not particularly comfortable with. They may advertise their way into general public acceptance without necessarily providing "accuracy, relevancy, and an efficient service."
Some GoTo partners, by contrast, make no mention that GoTo rankings are determined by a keyword auction to advertisers. Example: Ask Jeeves. Jeeves is supposedly this awesome search tool for the average user. Yet it now folds someone else's pay-per-click auction into their results to pick up a bit of spare change (while not being very forthright about that fact).
Excellent article from Traffick -part ethics, part GoTo-ization:
Scientists Baffled by Strange GoTo Phenomenon [traffick.com]
Attorney Tom Wettach studied hotel display bias for HEDNA last year and recommended more study. "Systems that provide preference to one company and bury others raise serious antitrust issues," Wettach says.
This USA Today article [usatoday.com] is referencing both web and proprietary booking screens, but the issue is STILL inadequate disclosure that the return page has been compromised.
OK, so the loaded question:
NF, you don't feel it's proper (money for listings and referrals), even WITH full disclosure?
Long term the judgment will be made by the end users, Joe Surfer will have his say and decide the fate of the search providers. Looking at the recent plummeting usage of av.com and the failure of GoTo to enter the mainstream search engine market it looks like Joe has made it clear what "he" wants.
Joe wants Google!
Man, I had to blink twice when I saw this one pop to the top. Look at the date, so long ago in internet time, eh?
>Joe wants Google!
With the dotcommorgue filled with body bags, and with Yahoo's sour financials released just today, I have to ask
They must have the lowest cost base of any search provider, that's a good place to start!
From what I have read they will be profitable at 1 cent per search, they are confident that this will be in the third quarter this year.
Look at the figures for the AdWords, up to 8 per page
$15, $12, $10 and 4 to 8 at $8 =$77 per 1000 views.
I think that with care they could also leverage their brand into other areas. One thing they do know is hardware, how many people would put their trust in a Google branded PC, millions?
