Forum Moderators: open
Happened at 10:00pm New York time.
Wait for the press releases early tomorrow morning.
Warren
[edit]for complete nonsense.[/edit]
[edited by: edit_g at 4:36 am (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
It is now official!
The new Yahoo PFI program has been released and is called......
Overture SiteMatch = formally known as Inktomi Search Submit
and
Overture SiteMatch Xchange = formally known as Inktomi Index Connect.
[edited by: engine at 11:45 am (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
[edit reason] TOS [/edit]
But then they go on to mention PPC as part of the new Site Match which was never mentioned in any contractual agreement with Inktomi PFI beforehand.
Thus, is it unclear? or is there a hell of alot of cheating and screwing going on here?
;;;;;;;;; 2 minutes later ;;;;;;;;;;;
I've just logged in to my ineedhits.com account and I've got $0.00 there, thus I guess I've been more than screwed.
[edited by: cyberfyber at 5:06 am (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
"Non-commercial organizations can submit their Web pages and digital content for inclusion in Yahoo search results for free, while commercial content providers pay a fee to include their content in search results."
[news.com.com...]
and here:
[reuters.com...]
No, you haven't.
Customers who are in the current Inktomi program, will still get what they paid for, until the end of their subscription period. As a bonus, up until April 15th 2004, customers who are in Inktomi, will also get Yahoo!
Customers can then make an informed decision on if the Yahoo! traffic is worth while to them. If yes, they sign up. If no, they don't sign up.
So, with respect to your zero click balance, you don't have any URLs in the new program. Hence your balance is zero. With the INH system, you can manage URLs in the old Inktomi program and the new Overture Site Match.
Warren
[edited by: engine at 11:47 am (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
[edit reason] TOS [/edit]
Inclusion = Yes, so PFI = No
The main exception would be if I needed needed freshER results, right?
cheers
David
However, paying a CPC fee on top of this as well! That's worse than LookSmart IMO!
[content.overture.com...]
[edited by: engine at 11:43 am (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
[edit reason] copyright [/edit]
I am uncertain of how the pricing makes sense...
Adult sites are 15 cents and apparel sites are 30 cents... So if you want to create a Non-Family Friendly search engine this is perfect for Adult sites?
Morally corrupt = less expensive to advertise?
Shopping = more expensive?
What are they doing?
Overture Site Search partners will include:
Yahoo
Altavista
Alltheweb
About.com
Excite.com
Goo.ne.jp
Espotting
Everday.com
Bluewin.ch
Sonerplaza.fi
www.fi
Note: MSN is not included so I guess they will continue to use Ink for the time being.
Well I think that the pricing of 11 URLs for $10 each is good. $49 for one URL is a bit steep though.
Thats too steep for me with the CPC rates on top.
Oh come on Tim, Y employed the same extensive greed with Y Shopping, and is screwing it's Y Store partners.
The only thing Y is focused on is the bank account.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I really don't expect otherwise from any business, but the claim that it is in the users interest is a bit weak.
[edited by: nanocet at 3:43 pm (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
This is Yahoo now and we are focused on the user.
I fail to see how this enhances the user experience.
[edited by: skippy at 3:28 pm (utc) on Mar. 2, 2004]
I heard it mentioned that PFI is good for certain dynamic pages that aren't as easily indexed, but I have yet to find an specific explanation. Personally, I make sure all my important dynamic content is spider friendly.
The other advantage I heard about PFI is "freshness". I have to say once again that one of Yahoo's competitors has something known as a "fresh bot". After a little study, it is quite possible to get the fresh bot to visit frequently. So PFI from the standpoint of "freshness" seems a bit old school as well.
Yahoo needs to decide which is more important, delivering paid content or delivering quality search results. When I search for something, I go for quality. How does quality fit into Yahoo's plan? And how does PFI help Yahoo to compete in the search engine market?
I'm sorry to keep asking this question but I know people from Yahoo! are reading this thread and I would like to hear an answer.
A lot of us have very large SEM budgets - why should we use site match when, to me, it looks like a step backward from everything that is attractive about PPC engines: I can control spend, placement, position, geo-targeting and measure returns. With Site Match I will have: not as much control, more outlay and more risk.
Given my points above; why should I use Site Match, Yahoo?
Excuse me but isnt that the same Ink submit that after you pay all your free listings drop (according to many many posters)!
It can't and Yahoo is admitting this.
Tim keeps saying Yahoo will do a competitive job of free crawling the web. People are skeptical since Ink never did that, but the point is, that if Tim is right, then this is a whole new ballgame.
Bad judgment on Yahoo's part to release this before adequately free crawling. It sounds like some bean counter's idea "Put up the PFI before we crawl decently and some scared folks will sign up." Some shortsighted merit in that, but overall a bad idea.
Still, I certainly hope Tim is right, and really really look forward to him being right.
In other words, nobody should PFI unless they have over 50,000 pages and all those pages sell a product that costs over $3.
They want revenue from any click. They run a business.
