Did littleman flip his noodle?

[littleman]

Redzone you have some excellent points here [webmasterworld.com].
I know I am shouting louder than anyone else about the p-t-p movement. On the surface it may actually look like I am just pouting -- and I've probably made a couple here cringe, including some of the moderators. If I thought that my complaining was just pure venting I'd save it for the back room. I might be crazy, but I feel like what we do now may actually effect the future of the SEs and the SEO industry. If I thought it was all for not I wouldn't be doing it; however, public pressure has made the search engines back track before.

[tedster]

The SEs never said they were a charity. And they do perform a valuable service, bringing surfers the opportunity to visit sites.

The situation of the recent past was not financially viable and something had to give. Which model becomes stable enough to produce a long-term answer will be interesting to see. As much as the added costs are problematic in various ways, I do understand the changes.

I say the best way to vote is with your wallet. If you find a way to promote sites without paying, more power to you. I say the search engines are charging for two reasons: because they can, and because they must.

[rcjordan]

LM,

>cringe
No, I don't think so.

Do I think you're stepping in front of a speeding freight train and shouting "Stop!"? Yes.

We've just witnessed a major seismic event on the web. I'm at once dismayed and excited. Dismayed because there are going to be many that will not survive, and also because I suspect I have a few sites of my own that will suffer severe damage -sites I've worked on for nearly six years now, sites that now produce sponsor revenue.

But there's opportunity here, too. For example, if you believe -as I do- that a great, intuitive domain name brings traffic because users "just type it in" without searching, then the value of that domain has just lept up. If I'm willing to bid 5 cents a click and a domain brings in 3000 users a day on its own accord -that's the equivalent of $54,750 a year. How about sites that have survived and have built an established user base? Didn't their value just go up accordingly?

I'm still reassessing everything, but I thought I'd throw out these points I've been mulling about.

[Air]

Littleman,

Cringe?
Not.

There is one thing I know about you, and that is - you are one of the most versatile, and adaptable people I have ever encountered. I have no doubt you'll be among the first to make this trend pay off.

[littleman]

Carman (Air),
That's one hell of a complement, thank you.

[NFFC]

>cringe

Nope, even had some "Go Littleman" T-Shirts printed, wearing one now!

>public pressure has made the search engines back track before.

I think the public will view the latest moves for what they really are¹ and many will change their preferred SE to someone with clean hands.

¹Essentially it is a collective admission that their business model is deeply flawed. Many are saddled with out dated, and by today's standards, expensive technology. Their inability to plan more effectively for future changes in the market have left them horribly exposed, the newer boys on the block [google, fast] are more efficient, work from a lower cost base and have a greater understanding of what the searcher requires. Compare Googles and Fasts crawling with the waste of bandwidth that is Slurp, despite Ink's claim to superior technology they are unable to get even the basics right.

If Ink and others seriously believe that "doing tricks for $20", the same business model as a street girl, is going to lead them to the promised land of search profitability they are mistaken. The arrogance they have displayed over the last few months has been breathtaking and still even now they just don't get it:

"Webmasters are the most overlooked demographic se's have." Brett