Forum Moderators: open
IMO, with cloaking the residual profit goes to the SEO, with "trusted feed" the SEO is bypass and the SE gets the residual.
I'm a little lost by the analogy.
Did you really mean:
Free submission versus TRusted Feed?
If so, yes, with Free Submission you retain 100%, with Trusted Feed, you give up a huge chuck to AV...
It is an ethical issue as I understand it from other threads on this forum.
When the SEs get the money from "trusted feed", then it falls within their TOS, hence it is ethical. When a site is cloaked, then the SEO company gets the money instead, hence it is against the SE's TOS, hence it is unethical.
So is it your opinion that it is okay for a search engine to manipulate search results to increase it's bottom line but unethical for a SEO to do the same for him/herself?
For the second part - is it unethical for the SEO to "manipulate search results" [through cloacking] is moot. The reason is because the SE world is not a democracy. If tomorrow the SE says you cannot use GIF images because it upsets SE ranking, that would instantly become forbidden for SEOs to do.
I would say it is not unethical to use cloaking pages, but the SEs created tools to punish you for it.
For example in the begining of SE/SEO was multiple key words unethical, unethical, unethical, unethical, unethical, unethical, unethical?
Of course not - then you shot up to the top of a search. Today you would be banned, or ignored. So is it unethical?
We start with the same keyword analysis we do for all SEM. Then we compile a list of all the URL's for the client's site. We then match up keywords to relevant URL's. Then the data goes into the database, with custom Titles and Descriptions, and the feed is created. It's a lot of front end work, to do it correctly.
The benefit is, that once we identify the "end client" URL's, we direct corresponding keyword traffic from not only Ink/AV/FAST/Teoma feeds, but also spidering engines.
The days of bulk loading keywords, and dumping all the traffic to the "Front" Page, are history. But the search user gets a better experience as they land on the URL, that is best suited to the keyword search.
Jack is partially correct. AV and Inktomi want us using body content from the actual "End Client URL". We can edit it to some degree, sprinkle in some "target keyword" variations, etc. But both Feed Partners, are "extremely" strict about this, and do random, manual edit checks.
Let me apologize for talking about ethics. That isn't the direction I wanted to go with my first post -- but I digressed. IMO, the ethics of one technique or another has been beaten to death.
Returning to the function of both programs IMO they are largely the same. In 1999 you and I were exposing the content of the "hidden web" and reaping the PPC benefits, now the SEs are doing largely the same thing.
In addition to this sales teams of the SEs contacting clients and telling them that it isn't necessary to work with optimization companies. They say, paraphrasing now, "Why work with them when you could work directly with us? We have a great PPC deal and with our help we will make sure you out rank the free listings."
When you add the two aspects together SEs are really in the SEO business -- but now they hold all the cards.
Seriously, if I thought that way, I would be a fool, wouldn't I? No joke though, I was actually told on this forum recently that cloaking is unethical because it is against the TOS of some SEs.
I guess it is kind of difficult to communicate irony on this kind of forum. :)
Ironic too, is the cry of some SEOers that we must “play by the rules”, when we have such glaring examples of them breaking the rules (Looksmart’s sudden switch from a directory to PFC and keeping all the directory inclusion fees, and Inktomi’s ejection of all pages for any site that submits a page to their PFI program come immediately to mind, but there are other examples)
I agree with you. I was trying to poke a bit of fun at all the spammers (uh... I mean... SEO professionals) who so indignantly point at others who either do it better or use techniques they are incapable of.
One must expect the likes of Alta Vista, Inktomi and Looksmart to snarl, squirm and maneuver like the desperate money driven beasts they are.
But I would make a minor correction to your statement that "SEs are really in the SEO business". They don't have to optimize because they control the medium. They are in the advertising business.
And that is an industry of cynical carnivorous sharks. A little look around should make it clear that any talk of ethics in this realm is either naďve or, more importantly, a cynical tool that they use when it is to their advantage. They claim the big fish as their own. We, in SEO can eat minnows, but if we eat too many, then they can call us spammers and cloakers and ban us from the pond so they can have it for themselves.
I had a personal experience that demonstrated that to me explicitly a couple of weeks before L$ announced their movement to PFC. I was called by a salesman who offered me a “partnership” that felt more like a shakedown. I was to bring my clients into their program (at a PFC rate higher than what they later offered to publicly). But, they reserved the right to go directly to any of my clients if they became lucrative enough.
Dig it: We are competing with the SEs. They are jealous of every dollar we earn because that is revenue that they consider their right. If you are in SEO and a SE decides they would rather take the revenue you earn for themselves, they will “discover” your spam and ban you.
BTW, your last post said it better than I can.
If you can feed keywords through an XML feed instead of having the spider index all the other stuff on a page, it would seem that there is a distinct advantage.
What approach do you take with a client when their URL's do not contain many, or any, of the keyphrases they wish to target?
I'm thinking of maybe a site which had been put together without much consideration of including keyphrases in the URL - or even dynamic pages.
Do you suggest they go back to the drawing board and restructure the site to include the keyphrases?
Good Question... We do most of the "legwork" ourselves. Once we establish the "target" keyword list, and get the client's nod off, it's up to us to determine which pages are a "best fit" for the keywords.
The two active XML programs, both have editorial staff that randomly check feed data, against "target" url's. Targeting "Britney Spears" for a gambling site, is a bit extreme, but we've had clients try and push the envelope.
AV/Ink like working with the resellers, because they know we have to insure that relevant data is targeting "end client" url's. They know we won't chance letting one client push us to feed "unrelevant" data, possibly jeopardizing the entire relationship, for all clients.
We find ourselves constantly going back to clients, pushing for "new content" development, that better matches the target audience.
The XML inclusion programs are "not" a "One Size Fit's All" environment. :)
