Paid Inktomi listing using Looksmart description?

[sparrow]

Does any one know why only a Looksmart listing would appear in the "Pure Inktomi" search.

I've noticed a grave decrease in the number of click throughs for our Inktomi submissions.

Any ideas?

[makemetop]

PT are very good at getting Ink to get rid of the L$ PPC link. They have had more than their fair share of complaints about this (including mine).

The previous point of being in both was that you got a sort of double title and description benefit in Ink if you were in both and Ink picked up your L$ title and description. Your on the page optimisation still works. Ink does not rank you purely on your L$ listing details - just displays the L$ title and description just as it does for some sites with their ODP listing. It used to be a benefit :(

[sparrow]

makemetop, that was my point.
It use to be, it should still continue to be, because that is what we all paid for.

No of us have seen any disclaimers otherwise, so why are we not getting what we paid for!

[Marcia]

sparrow, all the partners do, whether it's PT or any of the others, is handle the inclusion; they have no say after that. All they can do is add and remove. There was also a thread a while back with some information shared about Ink using the ODP titles and descriptions on some sites.

[keyplyr]

>Does any one know why only a Looksmart listing would appear in the "Pure Inktomi" search.

That happened to my paid INK listing also. Since L$ really screwed-up my description, I was upset that INK, who was supposed to crawl my site and use the META tags, was using it.

It is definitely an INK problem and not their affiliates. They periodically have problems with their crawl picking up META info with some sites, so they started using L$ title/descriptions.

I wrote to INK and PositionTech many times for about two weeks receiving various excuses. Finally, one day it was corrected and has continued to display correctly.

[sparrow]

My 2nd email to PT must have worked, the site is know showing the "true" INK submission no the L$ title and description.

YAHOO! (not literally)

[sanity]

My problem is I can't write to PT or anyone cause it is a *free* page with the redirect-west link and a L$ description. I am totally stumped as to why it appears to be a paid page.

[keyplyr]

>My problem is I can't write to PT or anyone cause it is a *free* page with the redirect-west link and a L$ description. I am totally stumped as to why it appears to be a paid page.

You might try updating the page with a few changes to get it crawled again. This time the META description may post. Might even take a few attempts several days apart. Just an idea.

[makemetop]

>I am totally stumped as to why it appears to be a paid page.

L$ have paid for it - hence it shows as a paid page.

[sanity]

Thanks for the clarification makemetop!

So it seems *they* paid for the page to be in Ink and now *we* are paying for the privilege of the L$ click thrus. I guess I don't have a rep to approach about this.

[sparrow]

Ok everybody this is what PT has to say, got it straight from the horses mouth

"Inktomi is currently having a problem with a few customers URL's in the program displaying the Looksmart title and description. They are working on getting this corrected as soon as possible"

Hope it helps us all!

[graveyard man]

I received that same message about 5 days ago and also three months ago from PT. PT said not to look for any short term solution then and now. Normally it was only lasting 24-48 hours. The problem was also surfacing shortly before Looksmart's shift to PPC. That's why LS's move didn't shock me. I thought something was being tested. Problem is it will burn up clicks in LS rather quickly because of the ties to INK engines.

I was guaranteed from the get go, a year ago, that LS listings wouldn't overide Inktomi's. But I said to myself why would I be told that when I'm dealing with Ink not Looksmart.

[sparrow]

So are you telling me not to get real excited about this!

[graveyard man]

To me it seems highly advantageous for Looksmart to override Inktomi listings for as long as it can, as compared to before it moved to PPC. It inflates the LS clicks. Do you believe at a corporation the size of Inktomi they couldn't correct the problem fairly quickly?

[Marcia]

>I was guaranteed from the get go, a year ago, that LS listings wouldn't overide Inktomi's.

graveyard_man, there are no guarantees with the paid submission, particularly in regard to ranking. It's even stated that pages can be excluded from inclusion for various reasons that are loosely delineated, and there's not even a guarantee of being told why if they are excluded. Any explanations can be construed as an extra touch of customer service.

Being told of technical problems is a different story, but there are no specific or implied guarantees of that kind.

[graveyard man]

I beg your pardon. I did receive an E-Mail stating what I said. It seemed strange because I wasn't even asking questions related to the issue and it might have been meant for another. To say I didn't receive it is indeed bold on your part. And no I'm not going to submit it to you to prove my case.

[Marcia]

graveyard_man, if you received such an email, which I'm not doubting, then you should send a copy back to whichever partner you signed with questioning the fulfillment. That's between you and them, since it was personal correspondence between you and the company that's not included with the sign-up agreement with the rest of us.

All we do have is what we're told in publicly available Terms of Service. We can't quote emails, but we can do an excerpt from a web page with reference. Here are provisions 3 and 4 from Position Tech's publicly available Terms of Service [positiontech.com] for paid Inktomi pages:

PTI does not represent or warrant that Customers URLs will achieve a favorable position, or any position, within Inktomi.

PTI does not warrant or represent that the use or the results of the use of the materials available through the PTI Service or from third parties will be correct, accurate, timely, reliable or otherwise.

Granted that you may have received something additional, but that's all that's available for the rest of us, so that's what we have to go by.

[graveyard man]

Why would I have submitted an E-Mail to PT when they were honoring there agreement at the time and for a lengthy period of time. My postings stated that I wondered why I received such an E-Mail guarantee. My assumption was that somebody inquired and they were very savvy.

>Any explanations can be construed as an extra touch of customer service

I leave that up to the courts to decide. And if a person made an honest mistake or didn't mean to say it I wouldn't hold that party to it. I wouldn't go through life betting on a statement like that though. Any document can be used as material evidence.

I thought the point of the forum though was to find out why Inktomi was doing as it is doing. It seems to be shifting to defending PT. Am I dealing with a PT employee?

[Marcia]

Let's diversify our information, and post the pertinent provisions from the Terms of Service of another Inktomi partner, ineedhits - where I happen to have some Inktomi pages right now, in addition to some with bCentral.

From items 1, 2 and 4 from the ineedhits Inktomi Paid Inclusion [ink.ineedhits.com] Terms of Service:

Ineedhits.com Pty Ltd shall not be responsible for URLs dropped or excluded by Inktomi for any reason.

Ineedhits.com Pty Ltd does not represent or warrant that Customers URL's will achieve a favorable position, or any position, within Inktomi.

Ineedhits.com Pty Ltd does not warrant or represent that the use or the results of the use of the materials available through the Ineedhits.com Pty Ltd service or from third parties will be correct, accurate, timely, reliable or otherwise.

>I thought the point of the forum though was to find out why Inktomi was doing as it is doing.

We're all in it together, and that's exactly what we're trying to do. Individual issues have to be taken up between the individual and the particular partner (or partners)they use, but the publicly posted guidelines are the information that applies to all of us.

There have been instances, on occasion, where there have been problems, since the very inception of the program. Since it's in Inktomi's best interests, since they must want to continue to get our businss, to resolve issues that come up, the best thing we can do is discuss them, as we do here, and correspond when we have a problem to let their partners we do business with know, so that they can be resolved.

Exactly what we do here is share information and lend mutual support among ourselves, so that we can all do better.

[graveyard man]

>shall not be responsible for URLs dropped or excluded by Inktomi for any reason.

You find me a judge whose first question wouldn't be. You mean you wanted a contract where if everything went well you liked it but if problems arose you don't want a thing to do with it? A contract of convenience. Most courts I've seen don't let you divorce yourself of legal responsibilities unless its beneficial to both parties no matter what's written. Another words most courts will hold that no contract can totally absolve any party of total risks. What if the sole intent was an illegality to begin with. Are you telling me a judge would say. Oh, their activities are illegal but they had a contract.

But lets get back to one of the points. Am I dealing with an agent of PT or emloyee of PT?

[Marcia]

First of all, an excerpt to serve as a gentle reminder from our Terms of Service which all members agree to when joining up, prior to receiving membership and posting privileges:

Always be respectful of other users, the system, and the moderators. We put the system online in good faith, please use it in good faith.

Consistent with our Terms of Service, which you can find right here [webmasterworld.com] in full, and our long tradition of respectful behavior among ourselves, we do not ask anyone when they apply for membership what they do. Whether they are webmaster of a convent or a brothel is not our business, and we do not intrude. Neither are they required to post their URL or email publicly. All we require is that potential members agree to abide by our very simple TOS and treat all others with respect, and continue to do so as long as they choose to remain in our midst.

>>Am I dealing with an agent of PT or emloyee of PT?

No one here is obligated to reply to any intrusiveness, but since I choose to, I'll state that I am not an agent or employee of PT or any search engine. If I were I'd want to work for Google in their SPAM department. I am simply a professional search engine spammer, just like everyone else here. And I need answer to no one but Brett Tabke and my clients.

>But lets get back to one of the points.

This disucussion is not to interpret legal issues and resolve personal grievances and conflicts, be they individual or with companies regarding thir service or Terms and Conditions. That is strictly between the parties involved, and when necessary our best advice can only be to seek proper legal advice on their problems. We are not the Supreme Court, nor are we barristers. From our Terms of Service:

This forum system is not a venue for personal or private vendetta's. Keep your personal business as just that - personal. This forum is not a venue for personal disputes.

Now let's get back to the subject of this discussion, which is Inktomi using Looksmart titles and descriptions.

[keyplyr]

>Inktomi using Looksmart titles and descriptions.

Well, it's nothing new. I started an unnoticed thread [webmasterworld.com] a few weeks ago concerning this.

[Marcia]

Ouch, keyplyr, that seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle somehow. So you wrote, and even though it took 6 weeks the problem with the LS title & description was resolved. Took a while, but it's simple - better than nothing, that's for sure.

Thanks for the link to your posts, it's good to know.

[sparrow]

wow, marcia!

I never knew that starting this discussion would result in some fierce conversation.

Thanks for standing up for all of us.

[overthehill]

I have been asking ineedhits customer service for answers to these same questions for a couple of weeks. The latest email I received from them stated the following:

<snip>sorry, no email quotes without the sender's consent, please paraphrase what was said - sw</snip>

This one blows my socks off. Why in the world would I want to pay Looksmart any more money in order to change my paid Inktomi listing?

Larry

(edited by: seth_wilde at 6:17 pm (utc) on May 16, 2002)

[magnus]

Another question that is valid... If they (Inktomi) are running the redirects to Looksmart, are we as webmasters paying the .15 per click to Looksmart for what is really an Inktomi listing?

Example,

If an Iwon.com search engine listing that is pure inktomi results is clicked but the url is also in Looksmart's Looklisting program, does the webmaster get charged .15? Anyone know the answer to this?

[sparrow]

Wouldn't it depend on the url been clicked on?

[crobb305]

I have had the problem with Looksmart description in my Inktomi listings for 2 months. Inktomi told me to contact the reseller (Verisign)...So, I contacted them...they had no idea about the problem and "escalated it". I got a response back that everything was fine (even though it wasn't). So...I finally got to Ink support and they weren't even aware of the problem (at least the guy I spoke with last week). He then suggested that Looksmart may be submitting my url back to Inktomi without my permission and to contact them. Of course I did, and received no response. How unorganized can a company get?

On top of that, I had my Looksmart directory listing changed 3 months ago and Inktomi is STILL showing the old one. UGH!

:)

[crobb305]

I finally talked to tech support at L$ today about L$ title/desc being incorporated into Ink search results. They said this is because of the "parntership" between L$ and Inktomi and that there is nothing that can be done (other than to be removed from the L$ directory). I am afraid to be removed because there may be an Inktomi ranking-boost if you are in L$ due to this partnership (Like Google does if you are in yahoo/ODP).

Basically...Inktomi still crawls the site every 48 hours but extract the title/desc from L$. I have noticed my traffic WAY down because the L$ editors gave me a horrible description.

:(

[keyplyr]

>Basically...Inktomi still crawls the site every 48 hours but extract the title/desc from L$.

So INK still crawls the site? OK, why? What's the point? To make it "appear" they are upholding their agreement?

>...because of the "parntership" between L$ and Inktom... there is nothing that can be done.

We are being taken. They figure a few of us will complain for a short while and then just accept it like everything else that's been comming down lately.

I'm sorry, I refuse to accept this crap. People, this is a really big injustice. Don't stand still and let it happen!

When they pulled the "L$ switch" on my site I wrote constant emails to everyone I could find, telephoned every phone number I could dig up - I did this several times a day, every day... and yes, it took 6 weeks, [webmasterworld.com] but I got my META title/desc put back like INK promised when they took my money!

[crobb305]

I canceled my L$ directory listing yesterday. I am hoping that Ink will pick up on this cancellation and change my title/desc back to that in my metatag. I am afraid, however, that the removal of my L$ listing might mean lower rankings.