Forum Moderators: open
To my knowledge, Paid For Inclusion (PFI) programs that most Search Engines (SE) operate are based on a page level. That is, the site owner pays the SE to spider or index a PAGE from his site. For EACH page that the site owner wants to include - a separate and additional payment is due. The fee usually carries a promise for frequent updates. In some cases the service is time limited, demanding an annual fee for the service.
On first inspection it seems that everyone benefits: The SE gets some money, the Site Owner gets his pages spidered immediately and frequently and the Searcher (user) gets up to date information. Right? Wrong!
If we start at the end, it is truism to say that when users use a SE they want to get 'relevant results'. Clearly, for a SE to PRODUCE relevant results, it needs to HAVE as much relevant data as possible. But what IS relevant data? For one - it is data that was not knowingly filtered BEFORE it was even included in the SE index!
It is rather simple: The relevance algorithm may be as sophisticated as humanly possible, but without providing it with unbiased information (such that was not pre-selected by NON related criteria) it will not be able to produce relevant results. That is - some very good results would NOT show up, as the pages that holds them were not included in the first place.
The inevitable conclusion from that is that IF SE would ONLY spider pages that have been paid for - they will have to close. The chain of events is as follows:
- Users are getting less and less relevant results
- Users are abandoning the SE
- The number of referrals that site owners are getting is decreasing
- The incentive to pay decreases
- Even less Site Owners submits their sites
- Repeat from top
- Until site no longer can maintain itself - DEATH.
AH, you say, but no SE is foolish enough to do just that, they ALSO spider nonpaying pages!
Sure they do - but they are really torn in half in the process. They know all too well that every page they index, without payment, is a sure loss of potential revenue. Why pay when you can get it for free? But if they DON'T index - well, this is not so good either...
It is a tragic choice: To index or NOT to index, that is the question. :) As with any tragic situation, there is no good answer, so they are taking the middle route: They sometimes do - and sometimes don't.
And this is where they are also digging their own grave. They don't KNOW what they should index and what they shouldn't. After all - they have not indexed it yet! So it's a random choice, and they have to carefully balance the odds:
- If they spider almost everything without payment - no site owner will be paying them.
- If they spider almost nothing without payment ... we have been there already.
Whichever way they go - they are losing the most important battle. That's the battle for the heart of the USER. Just look around and see who gained popularity - and who lost it. I don't think that it's just a better algorithm.
MC
P.S. and that's why Google will NEVER have a PFI program :)
PFI is a very flawed business model. Has any engine boasted positive ROI *soley* on PFI?
Not to my knowledge, they are all polluted with XML ( CPC ) programs, as well - because engines ( except Google ) know that they can tax corporate / large accounts for more $$$, because they have more margin / more business / and in the end, more money to be made for all parties concerned.
It will be very interesting to see how other engines migrate towards more revenue, and still somehow, cater to the end user.
Google has proven that aggressively crawling the web on a regualr schedule attracts users, which makes Google a pretty good place to spend advertising dollars.
I think the other engines have finally begun to see the light, so I think the focus on PFI will become less over the next couple of years.
There will always be a certain level of revenue generated from it purley from the newbie webmasters who happen to read the sales pitch befoe they have a full understanding of how the web works, but the majority of revenue will be generated by advertising bundled around fresh editorial content.
They sort of tripped on their own marketing-speak, too. Because in most cases PFI is not PFI, it's PFFU - Pay For Frequent Updates. Otherwise, what you said is true - their index grows progressively less useful over time if no unpaid sites are included.
PFFU is probably very useful for pages which update frequently - pages like "Stuff on Sale here Today!" but in an attempt to over-sell PFFU, they called it PFI when it usually isn't.
And besides, Google is obviating the need for PFI/PFFU, because they Fresh-crawl for free.
Jim
You are absolutely right. I think many Site Owners would be happy for more frequent updates and be willing to pay for it. That is indeed entirely diferent from PFI.
For me - the ultimate test is what happens when the yearly 'subscription' ends. If the SE goes back to normal update frequency - and no less - that's fine. If you are 'thrown out' or 'penalised' - that's where the rot sets in.
MC
I'm not sure of the death of the paid inclusion (i hope so) but in my opinion the actual model practised by ink or altavista (i didn't tried fast) crawling just one page has no interest.
I experienced some models on my own se. Depending on what you want to do with your se.
In my opinion having heavy sites (lost's of pages) makes the pfi model very high costs, and i'm not sure that the customer get's enough trafic from the se when having all pages included by this way. It's sure that after a year having paid X pages in the pfi model, the webmaster will not come back or will be more aware of the pages he will submit in order to have a correct "roi" (hope that it is the good term)... for the SE of course it's a making money question... But i the se also have to pay attention. If it has only paid inclusion and no natural crawl it is sure and obvious that the serps (search results) will not be relevantto the users.
The question is, i suppose, how to build up a win-win-win model?
On my small se, i want to have good results for the searches, and i want to earn hard worked money. I want also the customers to come back and have a good opinion about pfimodel.
1.- i do a natural crawl on a regular basis given the serps a good result (could be better... but ...)
2.- i do paid inclusion program with a one time fee, given to the webmaster the ability to
a. have his site in the index nearly in real time (24h/48h)
b. having his site refresh on a weekly basis
3.- i do not like the time limit... so it's a lifetime inclusion.
In the difference with the "standard" pfi model, i speak from a site inclusion (all pages get crawled and refreshed).
Who is winning?
any body wins in this model (in my opinion of course, but i would love to read yours).
The normal webmaster get's in. The customers gets in and more refreshed. The users have good serps, and i earn a bit too....
Best regards
there are THREE participants in a PFI search engine business model...not just two...and if you can come up with a way that it produces a win for the searcher then my hat is off to you...you'll make a fortune...however, since the searcher is looking for a large database and usable results, PFI cannot work for them and for site owners at the same time
fail to include the interests of the searcher in the business model and you have something that cannot ever be long term viable...how in hell so many companies managed to try and do this scares the hell out of me...it's the sort of error I would be disappointed in a schoolkid making
