Forum Moderators: open
It certainly hasn't been the saving model Inktomi was counting on. Most people would agree that inktomi has a very poorly maintained db, and it looks like the market agrees with us. Inktomi's stock price is teetering on delisting and their poorly maintained db really only has two (and soon to be one) major avenue of exposure which are only being used as third tear results.
AV's pfi seemed dead on arrival
FAST? We haven't heard anything about it in months.
Teoma? How is it going to get people to pay without eyeballs? How is it going to get eyeballs without a quality database?
There is a self destructive dichotomy that happens when a SE goes pfi, it needs to squeeze the webmaster into paying by reducing the free inclusion. That makes the db suffer. The db suffering makes viewers turn away. The viewers turning away makes the pfi less valuable. It is a cycle of decline.
To there credit, both FAST and AV have realized that they need to keep the free content fresh and new in order to attract contracts/users. AV has done a good job lately, but it might be too little too late.
Inktomi is one contract away from becoming irrelevant.
PFI is a failed experiment, it doesn't even matter if we as SEOs like it or not.
It seems there are but two options that work.
One with relevant search results, such those as offered by Google, used by companies who wish to provide quality to their own paid subscribers.
The other with paid commercial results who share their revenue such as those offered by Overture.
The issue then becomes one of credibility in how the two above are used. Displaying them together but separate from each other seems the correct way to do it.
Mixing the two and passing them off to the public as relevant results is a money motivated scam practiced by prostitutes. One in particular has but one customer left. Since that remaining customer is also a prostitute I would expect them both to be working the public for a long time.
Paying to be included in a spam-o-rama seems insane to me, and ultimately not useful to the end user. And if the user base dries up because the results aren't helpful, then any model will fail.
The challenge is how a search engine can make money AND serve their original purpose as a search resource. If they neglect either side, they've got troubles.
I think that algorithmic engines are trying to say that PFI improves the quality of the search results (and makes us some money that helps to pay for the cost of providing search to consumers for free). So if you search on "Under a Tuscan Sun", you get an Amazon listing for the book.
I agree, however, with Google's position which basically says, we find the best sites and rank ANYWAY them according to relevance. So why in the world would we introduce PFI.
So if PFI does not really improve the search results, then it probably is a failed business model. Since today, search quality seems to be the #1 requirement to survive.
