Forum Moderators: open
[boston.com...]
Quoting IDC, it states "what you have here is a really nasty mixture of fuzzy ethics and commerce."
Tim Cadogan states "if you pay, it has no input to where you are ranked".
I did hear somewhere that Yahoo will identify paid for included / CPC pages in their index in some way to distinguish them from the naturally indexed results, from what I remember it was going to be with a small icon or cross I think, but if this is the case then in my mind it's still not clear enough.
After saying that I've never seen anything in the current index to support this but Tim did say that we can expect to see big chages in the index over the next couple of weeks or so.
As for Yahoo / Tim continually saying that PFI pages will not get a leg up from regular indexed pages I finf this really hard to believe, but we have to wait and see, I really hope I'm wrong.
Do you mean Yahoo?
If you have a decent site, make substantial money for visitor and want to be 100% sure, why not try it? If when averaged out, you make let's say $2 - $5 for visitor, 30 cents is not that much. Your listings and revenue are almost guaranteed
...advertisements are exactly what these paid listings are. They should be marked as such...
That's an opinion, not a fact, and it lies within the shifting light of truth. It can be difficult for some to achieve organic page one rankings unless you PFI and measure the result of your tweaks. Seen in this light, PFI is a tool for tweaking your on-page keywords for organic ranking, not advertisement.
Overall a somewhat balanced article that is spiced with opinionated comments meant to inflame reader passion. Most of us already know the truth about PFI, but the general public may have misconceptions. But sometimes you cannot change a mistaken view once it's entered the general currency. Thus you have misguided software like Norton's cookie blocking function that's supposed to protect your privacy.
Cadogan mounted a great defense of the program, but in the end a reasoned approach doesn't work in the face of a prejudiced reporter. What matters is the appearance of clean hands, not actual cleanliness, and Yahoo may have an upwards battle to show that it's hands are clean.
I was actually referring to Google. In the article, there was the following:
"''I think it's a very important thing for people to be able to trust us," Page said."
I think Yahoo is at least being very upfront about it revenue models and as Tim suggests will not be comprimising the serps relevency.
>That's an opinion, not a fact,
Yes, it is an opinion, but it is the opinion of the US Fedral Trade Commission (FTC) and has been communicated as such to the search engines.
The FTC will be cool with this.
But, as everyone says--the consumer will decide. I think this is a good move on Y's part toward making for better search and making some money, too. And, what's great is we have a real choice.
Google's results these days are lame. My wife is insisting that I sticky GG about what's going on in silver and crystal (her hobby). (Has she switched to Y yet? No. Just gripes about G.)
How many times does Tim at Y have to say that paid inclusion does NOT impact rank?
It does not necessarily have to affect rank (and I'm guessing that it won't for basic SiteMatch), but early evidence is that the *feeds* may already be affecting rank unfairly, even so far as to cause pages to appear high in the SERP's that do not have the kw phrase anywhere on the page.
Bottom line is that none of us will know how this will play out for at least a few weeks, and probably longer. For now, all we can do is make our *opinions* and concerns known, for Y!'s consideration.
I actually believe that Yahoo will not give PFI listings a boost. Why? Because of the way the Inktomi engine worked with PFI.
I did an inclusion with INK for about 20 or so pages of my 150+ page site about 2-3 years ago. I wanted the fast spidering so I could see the results of my tweaks. When the year of INK PFI was up, I decided to take a chance and see whether my high rankings would drop. To my pleasure, my rankings stayed as high after dropping PFI as when I paid for it.
My conclusion on INK was that if you had a well optimized site with good incoming links, you could rank well in it, irregardless of PFI or not.
About a year and half ago (Fall 2002), INK made some major changes that cleaned up the quality of their results dramatically. It made them as good as Google IMO (at least for two-word searches - I never used INK much for 3-5 word searches to compare).
All INK's PFI program allowed you to do, was get onto a rapid and frequent spidering schedule. They didn't give you any boost.
I don't think Yahoo will be stupid enough to make the same mistakes that brought others down in this business. If they taint the results too much, people won't use their engine.
As martinibuster and others are saying here though, this is a public perception issue for Yahoo.
a. the fact that a site paid to be included "did matter" in their ranking.
b. plus the fact that their PFI program turned their results to junk where "searchers found themselves getting fewer useful websites per search."
it would be interesting to see how Y would improve on their program to make sure that it does not make the same mistakes as AJ. of course, one can argue if the flaw lies in the implementation (AJ's failed program vs. Y's new program) or the concept of PFI itself.
How many times does Tim at Y have to say that paid inclusion does NOT impact rank?
How many times has GG said that AdWords participation has no impact on rank? And yet many people continue to insist it does. Fair play to them. At least with G, we have a couple years of evidence now to either agree or disagree with what GG says.
With Yahoo, we have no evidence one way or another. It's too new. So it comes down to trust and perception. Many perceive that Y is most interested in satisfying its shareholders (which they should be), and so the suggestion that paying customers will be treated the same as non-paying customers in the SERPs seems a bit farfetched. Fair play to them.
Site Match is NOT PFI.
It is PFI and then PPC in addition.
This is similar to Looksmart's Look Listings program where you pay a fee to be included and then pay $0.15 per click from then on.
In layman's terms that means we make free inclusion so unreliable that you'll want paid PFI. Thats what PFI has always been about.
> according to Cadogan, it doesn't matter.
Of course it matters or you wouldn't be doing it in the first place. Its just verbal gymnastics to skirt what the FTC has requested. Inktomi got away with it for so long Yahoo wants the benefit of it now.
Personally I'd go back to my bosses and say I don't want to be the next Martha. Eventually these government agencies get around to make an example of somebody. And they love the headliners in the newspaper.
As martinibuster and others are saying here though, this is a public perception issue for Yahoo.
As with any, perception is more than half the battle won. How did you think, G rose from nothing to where it is now?
Yahoo can pat itself, if doesn't lose any searchers to G.
well ... sure Site Match is not PFI. It is EXPANDED PFI
I'd love to see how it will all go, esp. when Site Match subscribers begin to loudly complain that they are not in the top SERPS. Y will be doing a delicate balancing act satisfying their (a) Site Match users (who will be satisfied only if their sites get crawled faster and they actually show up in the SERPS; (b) ordinary users who want relevant results whether a site paid or not; and (c) their shareholders who want great returns on their investments.
Does anyone have a problem with guaranteed inclusion (assuming one meets the editorial criteria, whatever those are) and random inclusion for freely crawled sites?
Does anyone have a problem with the shoddy results on Yahoo!?
I tried to use it, the results are miserable. I'm not sure Y! knows what it is doing based on what I've seen so far. It would have been better if they'd negotiated for a better revenue cut of Google's ads.
Let's think about that for a minute.
You can make some changes and know within a few days how your page was affected within the SERPS. You can then modify that page, and your other pages based on what you see happening when you make various changes.
While Yahoo may be correct in stating that PFI in and of itself does not guarantee any type of positioning, it is obvious that webmasters will be able to determine how to tweak their pages to get better results.
OK, if what I've said is correct, how long do you think it will be before the SERPs are dominated by clever webpage designers?
Every page inclusion program I have ever used gave a boost to rankings immediately, especially INK's. Now if your site is poorly optimized to begin with it probably won't. But a combo PFI/PPC could be costly and lead to a lot of empty clicks. A combo program just soldifies the hold on the top positions by well-heeled companies.
INK was always notorious for dropping free submissions periodically. A good cash flow could disappear overnight, for three months plus, unless you were spamming or in PFI. Voila, Yahoo is full of INK spam.
In ways I always thought of PFI as blackmail insurance. Could I afford to lose the revenue if one of my free submissions bounced. And vice versa, would I ever get back in if I didn't pay. Yahoo's program seems to much like the Looksmart program to me.
...how long do you think it will be before the SERPs are dominated by clever webpage designers?
That was meant to be taken ironically?
Seriously, until search engines can index flash sites and sites designed as print brochures, and liberate themselves from webmasters who can desin "search engine friendly" websites, the search engines will be beholden to "clever webmasters."
Yahoo, with it's extensive user demographics, is poised to deliver the most personalized results.
What bothers me the most about Site Match is the fact that I would be paying for clicks for non-chosen phrases. In other words, with standard PPC, I choose the keyword phrase that I wish to pay for. But with this Yahoo model, any old keyword phrase might be a phrase that causes me to pay. And I might not be willing to pay for that phrase. Why? Because that phrase might be one that is bringing totally unqualified leads to my site. Yet, I won't have a choice in the matter.
Seems to me that this is a significant problem with this model, but it isn't being addressed enough.
What bothers me the most about Site Match is the fact that I would be paying for clicks for non-chosen phrases.
Nope. That's what the 48 hour refresh is for. If you've done Ink PFI then you already know that the benefit is that you can optimize for chosen phrases on a 48 hour basis (instead of a monthly basis) and likewise deoptimize for unchosen phrases.
Pretty basic.
Perhaps I'm missing something here, in which case I'd love to be enlightened, as always... ;-)
I'm certainly not going to alter 1000's of pages in a vain attempt to avoid millions of potential, obscure kw phrases.
1 million times 30 cents equals $300,000. If you have that much money to throw away per year and still make a sloppy profit, then more power to you.
I'm not going to go into SEO 101 for you, but just as there are best practices for optimizing for certain phrases, there are also best practices for deoptimizing as well. Deoptimizing goes hand in hand with optimizing. SEO 101, my friend.
If you can throw away a third of a million dollars, like I said before, more power to you. If it is low conversion then do the math. What part of ROI don't you understand?
