Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Forum Moderators: open
"Your listing with use will not improve listings in Inktomi, but you will be listed with all of our other partners"
"It is possible that they index some of our directory, as we do have a partnership with them, but we cannot guarantee that users submitting to our Express Submit service will be included."
"Although the intrigue would spice things up, there isn't any...Inktomi can take portions of our directory and index them. It might do this, it might not. It is expressly up to them."
The key for me is that the listings in Inktomi use the Looksmart description, they are not simply spidering the directory. I cannot see how Ink would be allowed to use Looksmart's copyrighted work without their express permission.
I'm about to do a couple of Looksmart Biz Express submissions for sites that are recent (hence lowly ranked) additions to Inktomi and will keep you appraised of the results (if any).
I'm still seeing Slurp turning up (si and so) and a few more pages coming up on HotBot and iWon with descriptions taken from the page text not meta tags.
Interestingly, exact searches are starting to come up with word groupings in text deep in the pages - something I only associated previously with Google.
Ive gone in and checked out this listing. I made the mistake of presuming that it was Zeals description.Its not and apologies for that.
The sites listed in the following directories: Looksmart, Yahoo, ODP, Zeal and Direct Hit - not listed in snap. The description formulated does not come from any of these and is definitely one written by a human from a
Been hunting this description and finally found it. The site has been added to two additional categories in Looksmart by the Looksmart editors recently. Did not know that they were still adding sites to the directory other then thru the payment channel?
Will send you the URL via email if you wish.
>You cannot copyright a directory listing. You can only copyright the entire work (the whole directory).
There has just been a court ruling here in Denmark dealing with this exact issue. A local spidering search engine got a sentence telling them to close the website down - this primarily because the content and search results were similar to the directory's - even with some of the directory's descriptions with misspellings.
The court argued that it had to be from spidering the directory hence the extensive and fairly similar content(even after some re-editing from the copy-cat).
The directory argued that they have spend a lot of man hours collecting and humanly reviewing the danish part of the internet, and secondly that this could not have been done by one man alone.
- the directory won the case!
The essence of it is that it's not the content the directory own - but the way they have chosen to list and order it for searching.
Sorry for the long post, but i'm quite into here in Denmark (cuz of some prior interest in corporate law :-)