Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Forum Moderators: open
Good point steve. If there is a bump to the top with paid inclusion, it will only work with those that have the margin to play with. It really is a self limiting plan.
The success of Y! as a search engine hinges on the ability to crawl deep and wide and the integrity of the algo. This PFI plan makes me wonder if they doubt the ability of their crawler.
joined:Feb 10, 2004
[edited by: heini at 10:11 pm (utc) on Mar. 4, 2004]
[edit reason] TOS [/edit]
Why would I suggest that they do that?
I get a better cost-per-click on Overture, Google Ad Words, and Looksmart for this category. Plus in Overture and Google I have more control over keywords and a better ability to spread the traffic I buy evenly over a month.
The disapointing thing is that I have been pleased with the results of the Yahoo crawler so far. This just makes it totally bad news to explain to them. Plus I have to somehow explain to my clients why we didn't waste money when we were signed up for both the Inktomi and Altavista paid inclusion program. What am I supposed to tell them?
One issue that I've had with Inktomi's crawling, that I haven't seen mentioned here yet, is that Slurp doesn't recognize the 301 "Permanently Moved" redirect. So if you want to move a website to a new domain name, the only way to get Inktomi to drop the old URL is to return a 404 code at the old domain. And guess what? That means that you don't get to keep the link cardinality benefits from websites that link to the old domain name. Everyone know how difficult it is to get people to update old URLs, so frankly, I think that this is a bad "feature" of Slurp. Google, of course, recognizes 301s and updates old URLs within a couple of days.
So why should I pay to include with a search engine that doesn't even handle the most basic of server codes in a rational, user-friendly way?
3 pages in the same domain/host are as follows:
1st URL: $49.00
2nd URL: $29.00
3rd URL: $29.00
Min Click Deposit: $50.00
However, for every different domain/host, you must pay the $49.00 and the $50.00 minimum click deposit.
Subdomains are considered seperate domains to their parent domain.
i.e. www.mydomain.com is one domain/host = $49 + $50
subdomain.mydomain.com is another totally different domain/host = $49 + $50
So the only way you could've gotten anywhere near $225.00 would've been to 1 host plus click desposit, 1 hosts plus click desposit and and additional URL.
ie. $49.00 + $50.00 = $ 99.00
$49.00 + $50.00 + $29 = $128.00
When you compare the upfront costs to those previously charged, it is cheaper (albeit without the click thru costs) to get into Overture Site Match, than to be in Inktomi/Fast/AltaVista.
Just looking at Inktomi, which was a 2 Tier pricing structure ($39 for 1st, $25.00ea for 2 - 1000 URLs), and compare it to the Overture Site Match 3 Tier pricing stucture ($49 for 1, $29 for 2-10, $10 for 11plus), 14 or more URLs are cheaper to submit than previously. Plus you get the added benefit of Yahoo!, AV and Fast traffic.
Obviously you have click prices on top of this.
At the end of the day, if the program does provide significant value thru converting traffic, and you are making use of the features of the program (fast inclusion, regular refresh and reporting) than it will not be expensive. Rather it will become another cost to factor into your monthly budget. Consider PFI as a form of business insurance - that your site is listed in a search engine ensuring you get relevant traffic to your site. I spoke of this concept at Pub Conference.
The previous Ink program was a fixed cost or actual cost not a variable cost. Variable costs programs would appeal to entities selling products at high prices, in large quantities, or at low break even points. So I think we can narrow that list rather quickly. I canít imagine though any company of enough size not wanting a guaranteed position with variable costs. If they got the guarantee and it was not made clear to the public it would be moving in to FTC territory.
Also the idea that quality couldnít be influenced by money is a suspect one. Obviously with adult links costing 15 cents and health and beauty links costing 30 cents we can throw that arguement out the window.