Site Match Officially Launched - SES Day 2

Garrett · #1 (**permalink**) 03-02-2004, 04:52 PM

Ever since whispers about Overture’s new paid inclusion product were leaked at last week’s WebmasterWorld PubConference, e-Business professionals have been wondering when the service would be officially released.

Overture’s Director of Strategic Alliances Dan Boberg announced the wait is over with the official launch of Site Match late last night.

Yahoo, which owns Overture, introduced Site Match as part of its new Yahoo! Search technology. Yahoo strives to discover all online content for free but the company has launched a content acquisition program (CAP) in an effort to bring in commercial and non-commercial data. Yahoo is also in the process of becoming more transparent so its users can better control their index listings on the search engine. This is something that its leading competitor Google has been highly criticized for not doing.

During one session, the question was brought up:

What's the difference between Pay For Inclusion and Site Match?

Answer: With PFP, you are paying for top results, whereas with Site Match you are just paying to be listed in the index.

With Site Match, users pay an annual subscription fee to submit their URLs for review. This does not guarantee inclusion into the Yahoo index; however, Site Match does promise more exposure for users, claiming the sites accepted will reach 75-80% of Internet users and 50% of searchers.

Remember, you heard it here first, folks!

atimmins · #2 (**permalink**) 03-02-2004, 07:00 PM

Just checked out the Site Match page. I was going to list two URL's I own. That is until it came time to check out. $49.00 per URL plus CPC charges, one category was $0.15 and the other was $0.30, with a $50 minumum deposit for each URL. Total bill $198.00, and I thought you only get sticker shock from new cars.

Now I've done CPC before and do it now as well, but I always know what position I will be in when I bid. The blind CPC charge with no gaurentee of ranking mean if I'm low in the SERP's then Overture is holding my $100 (for 2 URL's) and making interest on it. I think I will pass for now!!!

Lando · #3 (**permalink**) 03-02-2004, 07:18 PM

Well I'm not taking out a second mortgage! Thanks for the 'heads up' atimmins.

Some how this all sounds a lil familiar from a few years ago. Think I will just sit this one out for abit myself.

scticket · #4 (**permalink**) 03-02-2004, 07:46 PM

Does anyone else find that with paid inclusion the searches are useless. Other then Google What portals or other sites would you recommend Without paying for inclusion?

Thanks

vintagedge · #5 (**permalink**) 03-02-2004, 07:46 PM

I'm having a hard time understanding this one so I will relate it to my situation and maybe someone can enlighten me.

We are in the Yahoo Directory.
We are getting top 30 natural results for our major keywords (since Yahoo switched from Google results)
We have an Overture PPC campaign

Having said that - are you telling me that to continue getting my "natural" results from Yahoo that I will have to sign up for Site Match?

Karen
www.vintagedge.com

atimmins · #6 (**permalink**) 03-02-2004, 07:59 PM

If your naturally ranked then no. According to everything I've read thus far paid inclusion does not mean high ranking. It just gaurentees that thier spider will visit your site every 48 hrs. Yahoo states that rank will depend on the relevance of the site to the users search whether the site is in the paid inclusion or not, they will continue to display non-paid inclusion site in the SERP's.

IMHO, I have never liked Yahoo because it's to cluttered. With my screen set at 1024 X 768 I can only see one natural SERP without scrooling down. Now the SERP's will have paid inclusion sites mixed in which are also charged a CPC, yet such sites will not be labled as sponsored advertizing. It just further confuses an already cluttered interface!

cbp · #7 (**permalink**) 03-02-2004, 08:18 PM

Seems to be 3 threads going on this:
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=15045
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=14466
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=15072

CBP

cbp · #8 (**permalink**) 03-02-2004, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Having said that - are you telling me that to continue getting my "natural" results from Yahoo that I will have to sign up for Site Match?

No.

From what I can tell too many people are jumping to wrong conclusions re this. The paid inclusion will not be needed to be used by the vast majprity of sites.

CBP

atimmins · #9 (**permalink**) 03-02-2004, 08:20 PM

Popular topic!

I was just reading through the others that I noticed after my last post.

Lando · #10 (**permalink**) 03-02-2004, 08:40 PM

Karen: I can't say myself if that would be good or bad for you, as I have only one pay version, Inktomi, and have had excellent results over the many months for all of $39/year/URL. Google is my top referrer and I haven't paid a dime, at least yet. That's just due to 'natural' indexing.

As for all the dramatic SE changes that have been goin on for last few months, I just keep to my basics: keywords, keyword density / placement, tweak tags (Desc., Title, etc.), content and links. Traffic is rising and increasing percentage-wise over periods of time. Maybe it's better to be lucky than good?? ;) LOL!

If things change, I will certainly consider the new 'stuff' coming out, but until that time, I just cannot see changing anything unless I start to see substantial changes in a negative way. Sometimes you can make it worse.

vintagedge · #11 (**permalink**) 03-02-2004, 09:21 PM

Thanks to all who replied.

We have paid to be in Inktomi and Yahoo Directory and are very, very happy with the results that have been coming since the "change".

Goggles last change sent us from top 30 results to nowhere to be found and I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something important.

Karen
www.vintagedge.com

Garrett · #12 (**permalink**) 03-03-2004, 10:12 AM

Apparently, there was a big stink during one session yesterday when Search Engine Watch editor Danny Sullivan pulled Yahoo's Tim Mayer up onstage to discuss Site Match.

Naturally, the issue of pricing came up and they were discussing the pricing and as you guys have been discussing, it can be very expensive, depending on the industry.

A woman named Jackie Jahosky with Specialty-Lights.com stood up to Yahoo by telling Tim that the pricing is going to kill small businesses. Her company is a one person drop-shipping business. She works on a small markets so that price just won't work for her.

The audience clapped and cheered after she made that statement.

Danny responded by saying that eventually everything's going to head towards the paid format. Keep a heads up for that, he says.

It's understandable that as the search engine grows it wants to make more money. But then again, remember what happened to Netscape... ?

atimmins · #13 (**permalink**) 03-03-2004, 11:56 AM

First to Lando: I agree with you in terms of SEO methodology, i.e. stick to the basics. I perform SEO's professionally and have had some fantastic results, on Google and the rest. For me SEO is not about cloaking, re-directing spiders to spider food pages, computer generated keyword rich text, in other words nothing the engines can ever construe as Spam.

What I do, do is keyword research for my clients industry. Strategically place those phrases, proper use of the Meta tags, header tags and so forth. I generally use two alt tags per page. One holds the title tag and the other repeats the tightly focused description tag. To date, while rankings have fluctuated during Google’s algo shifts, none of my site were really hurt that much.

Of course I don’t stress over losing 3 or 4 slots in the rankings. Sooner or later they come back, it's the nature of the beast to move up and down. After all the Internet is a dynamic environment so by definition rankings will never be static.

Now for Garrett: Hmmm, it bothers me to think all search will eventually be of the paid format as Danny Sullivan put it. I have never been afraid of paid inclusions, if you own a site that changes often but not on any type of schedule, it's nice to know that within 48 hrs of any change the spider will be back to look things over. This gives me a very quick turn around to ensure my strategies are working, or need continued tweaking.

What I am opposed to is the CPC associated with the natural SERP's. This by nature becomes a sponsored listing and according to what I understand of the FCC guidelines they should be labeled as such. Paid inclusion is not a sponsored listing; you are paying for the service of regular spider visits. Those visits do not guarantee any kind of position.

I supposed one could argue that the Site Match CPC model does not guarantee positioning either. This is true, but how can a business calculate a proper ROI if it has no idea where in the SEPR's their site will appear, how many clicks it will get, or have control over the creative displayed.

I am in control of over 3.5 million dollars worth of CPC. The difference is I control everything: price, creative, and other factors that will determine the success of any campaign. I closely monitor the CTR and Cost per Conversion. Yahoo is not providing an avenue to calculate any of this without careful evaluation of server logs. With the amount of money I spend on a daily basis, and nearly 10K keyword phrases I need "at a glance tools", not Yahoo's shoot in the dark, and hope you hit something approach to CPC.

Well this became a whole lot longer than I expected, and I apologize. In summary, I'm all for paid inclusion, but totally against any CPC associated with it. If this is Yahoo’s vision for the future I want no part of it!

TrafficProducer · #14 (**permalink**) 03-03-2004, 04:44 PM

Google say they hay than 200 million search queries a day.

That quit a lot, don't you think?

With about 3,307,998,701 web pages what are the chances even for paid listings, (Adwords), etc. of sites being found?

OK! you are lised 1st for those Keywords, how many search for those words, tons and tons you say, well how come your Host Bandwith isn't burning with data flow?

internetadvisor · #15 (**permalink**) 03-03-2004, 05:32 PM

The first problem I see is that SiteMatch tries to determine what my cost per sale should be by pre-setting the prices.

With one site on Overture, I spend about $300 US per month, and don't bid above $.10 per click. Most specific searches bring me in the top 3, more generic keywords I'm often in 20th place.

Why not increase my bid to $.15 or $.20 per click and get more traffic with the generic keywords? Because my margin just won't accomodate it. I can afford a $5 cost of acquisition on a $17 sale, which works out to $.10 per click on a 2% conversion rate. At the $.30 per click they want to charge for my category, that would have me paying $15 to SiteMatch for every $17 sale.

Sorry Yahoo, the numbers just don't add up. I'm a loyal Overture user, since I get a much better conversion from Overture than most other PPC programs. I'd happily participate in SiteMatch if I could take less traffic that results in profitale sales, than have you set the price beyond what my small-ticket products can justify.

(Sure, I might end up loosing money on every sale, but I'll make up for it in volume, right?)

Russ

downstrike · #16 (**permalink**) 03-04-2004, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrett

With Site Match, users pay an annual subscription fee to submit their URLs for review. This does not guarantee inclusion into the Yahoo index;

That's typical Yahoo arrogance.
They may have charged more than $49 per year, per URL in the past, but the ongoing policy of promising nothing in return for payment is still unconscionable.

There are enough unavoidable risks to doing business without falling for this sort of thing. If I wanted to gamble, I'd look for a casino, not a search site.

cbp · #17 (**permalink**) 03-04-2004, 01:38 AM

Quote:

They may have charged more than $49 per year, per URL in the past, but the ongoing policy of promising nothing in return for payment is still unconscionable

They have not previously charged per URL in the past for the search index.

Have you actually bothered to read what you get for the $49? - they do provide something for it.

I think you need to have a more careful read about what SiteMatch is about before jumping to such negative conclusions.

CBP

Dave Hawley · #18 (**permalink**) 03-04-2004, 02:57 AM

Sounds like another very short term outlook by Yahoo. It's now wonder Google does so well. It's totally free and delivers more traffic to mote sites than most of SE put together. I wouldn't be suprised if Google makes more money from AdWords than any other PPC.

For me Google AdWords is head and shoulders above the rest when/if money is needed to be spent. It's MUCH cheaper that all others, brings double the traffic and has more useful features than all the others. It's taken nearly 6 months to get my ads working for me but has been well worth it. I can now bring 600 highly targeted customers per day to my site for as little as $55.00 per day. These really are highly targeted visits as I always mention words like "Buy", "Sell", or $$ in all my ads. I also very much like the way I can exclude the poorer countries that simply cannot afford some software.

Boo Yahoo and Go Google :o)

mryang · #19 (**permalink**) 03-04-2004, 06:27 AM

Hi Guys and Girls,

Having read with interest this whole thread I am still really confused!!

My site was before the "Flohorida" Google update listed under about 30 important keywords and getting at least 1500 visits per day just from Google which was generating me loads of business. After the update we have dropped off the face of the earth.

We operate PPC with Overture, Espotting and others and also use Google Adwords.

Where the confusion is is do I need to use the Site Match service or not??? Would I be wasting my money or is it going to have a positive impact? Help appreciated.

cbp · #20 (**permalink**) 03-04-2004, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Where the confusion is is do I need to use the Site Match service or not??? Would I be wasting my money or is it going to have a positive impact? Help appreciated.

The vast majority of sites will not need to use SiteMatch. You can rank fine in Yahoo without it.

CBP

Garrett · #21 (**permalink**) 03-04-2004, 11:09 AM

The debate over whether paid inclusion programs will reduce search result quality is spreading like a wildfire but the search engine getting the blunt of its burden is Yahoo. Site Match was launched just days ago and is already encountering criticism.

Last night I spoke with an analyst from Jupitermedia who believes that the paid inclusion credibility crisis is only temporary. He said that paid inclusion programs could possibly create a conflict of interest for search engines such as Yahoo by giving search engines the incentive promote paid inclusion programs over algorithmic search.

However, despite this possible conflict there is no indication that Yahoo will head in that direction.

fctoma · #22 (**permalink**) 03-04-2004, 11:16 AM

Hi from Idaho...

I received an email from Infospider today, regarding our existing PFI account with them. The "jist" of the email is:

AltaVista's Paid Inclusion Program has Changed. A New sign-up is necessary for existing AV express inclusion customers to become Overture Site Match members!

NOTE: YOUR ALTAVISTA MEMBERSHIP DOES NOT TRANSFER OVER TO THE NEW OVERTURE SITE MATCH PROGRAM. YOU MUST SIGN-UP YOUR URLs TO THE NEW OVERTURE SITE MATCH PROGRAM. GO TO http://www.infospider.com TO BECOME A SITE MATCH MEMBER.

infoSpider is pleased to announce a new program! infoSpider has partnered with Overture to offer you the new Overture Site Match program. Site Match will expand your reach far beyond AltaVista's search results.

So, with the above said, I would assume the A.V. PFI just became a bit more valuable, and another way of looking at it, Yahoo is finding ways to utilize and squeeze money out of their recently purchased A.V. engine.

Also, what does this mean to Inktomi PFI? I know Yahoo has said that Inktomi PFI won't be included in Yahoo, but why would Yahoo include A.V. PFI? Just doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe they have more PFI customers for A.V. than Inktomi.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this. Quite a few of my A.V. PFI URLs have expired and I wasn't going to renew them until I heard this. Over the past few years, A.V. PFI has performed "good" for me, not great, and definitely not bad.

Have a great day from snowy Idaho...

TrafficProducer · #23 (**permalink**) 03-04-2004, 12:44 PM

There are other places to submit to.

Business websites only:-
http://www.bosslinks.com/submit_to_the_BOSS.html

lfca · #24 (**permalink**) 03-04-2004, 03:20 PM

[quote="fctoma"]Hi from Idaho...

We asked infospider.com the following question today --

Please advise what happens our AltaVista's Express Inclusion if we do not wish to sign up to Overture Price Per Click. ???

And we recieved the following reply..

Hello Valued Customer,
Please rest assured that your Express Inclusion Service will still remain active until its subscription period ends. Your webpage will still receive the daily indexing from AltaVista. However, we will no longer accept any new sign-ups for the Express Inclusion Service in favor of the Overture Site Match service.

cbp · #25 (**permalink**) 03-04-2004, 04:40 PM

Garrett wrote:

Quote:

The debate over whether paid inclusion programs will reduce search result quality is spreading like a wildfire but the search engine getting the blunt of its burden is Yahoo. Site Match was launched just days ago and is already encountering criticism.

That because so much rubbish has been written about SiteMatch in many forums by people who have not even bothered to read and understand what it is about.

There are some people who are under the impressions that every site has to pay be in the Yahoo search index. They still beleive this after being told that it is not the case.... the number of negative conclusions being reached are based on misunderstandings ....

I have no problems with the concept of Yahoo's SiteMatch. I see no need to use it with any of my sites and do not think more than a small minority of sites will need to use it and benefit from it.

CBP

atimmins · #26 (**permalink**) 03-04-2004, 07:18 PM

Well all of you go ahead an laugh. As for me...I'm trademarking and copywriting the term www.AdThoughts.com. In fact I just registered the domain name!!!

Gotta go now, I have to come up with some new content before I'm accused of cybersquatting. Would'nt want Google laywers to send me a cease and desist order ;-)

cohwill · #27 (**permalink**) 03-05-2004, 01:32 AM

So what will happen in Inktomi in general? Will their paid inclusion program go away?

aperey · #28 (**permalink**) 03-05-2004, 12:34 PM

Yahoo has dropped all Inktomi's paid inclusions from the database it acquired when it bought Inktomi. This is wrong and hurtful.

Here is why: The Inktomi database, except for paid inclusions, was woefully outdated for a long time -- from approximately 2001 - 2003. Many web sites and web pages created in those years were never spidered by Inktomi and were never accepted for free inclusion in their database -- despite repeated submissions. I know, because I tried.

However, these web sites and updates were accepted through Inktomi's paid inclusion. And the cost was fairly reasonable. So it was possible to get current web sites and new web pages into the Inktomi database if you paid. These pages they found their natural position because of relevance. It worked very well.

But Yahoo has now dropped all of Inktomi's paid inclusions! This has hurt many businesses, I'm sure.

Yahoo wants to get paid all over again--and much more--to add them to their database. Meanwhile, it seems, Altavista's paid inclusions will be honored by Yahoo and continued. This is wrong.

Yahoo has an obligation to honor Inktomi's paid inclusions. Otherwise it has broken Inktomi's contract with the webmasters and organizations who paid Inktomi--which is, after all, part of Yahoo now. Inktomi contracted to spider for a year, by the way.

In other words, Yahoo has gotten the profit from our payments to Inktomi but has declared itself free of any obligation to us!

This is certainly unethical, and very possibly illegal.

mawells · #29 (**permalink**) 03-05-2004, 01:50 PM

It is my understanding that the Inktomi paid listings will continue to appear at Yahoo until April 15th of this year. After that, they will appear at Inktomi partner sites (MSN) and those Webmasters who have paid for this inclusion will have the option to transfer or continue the Inktomi and purchase the Overture Site Match program in addition. Did I misunderstand anything?

Benser · #30 (**permalink**) 03-05-2004, 01:53 PM

Lets all get this straight! Yahoo is now using Inktomi for its index and is a reseller for Inktomi. At the same time they are selling a per click inclusion to the same index? Even if they discontinue reselling Inktomi submissions I'd still be in the index. Why would I want to force mayself into paying .30 cents a click in my case? And if I decide its not working out and choose not to reload my account with funds does that mean I have just back-listed my website from the index after deciding the per click listings didn't benefit my situation? I thought the LookSmart deal was stupid. Sounds like a worse situation then what LookSmart did with their directory inclusions. Only this time its not LookSmart, its Yahoo saying "LookStupid" pay us or be black listed. This is of course if you were already in the index. I'm I missing something here. Why pay for the per click if I'm already listed?

Woofer · #31 (**permalink**) 03-05-2004, 02:26 PM

Wasn't Tim Mayer the one that sold Inktomi, then Fast, on the PFI model?

G.Paul.Needham · #32 (**permalink**) 03-05-2004, 06:18 PM

Yahoo!'s exclamation mark just took on a new meaning.

Their SiteMatch venture is short-sighted and betrays a certain contempt for the consumers that visit their website.

Search engine's have a primary responsibility to the consumer. Google understands this very well. Evidently Yahoo! does not.

When a person is searching for, say, sunglasses, they do not want to see a highly abridged list of online sunglasses merchants that happen to have funds on account and that are willing to pay 15-30 cents per click. Yahoo!'s defense seems to be that the highly abridged list of online sunglasses merchants that happen to have funds on account and that are willing to pay 15-30 cents is ordered based on relevancy. Big deal.

Perhaps Yahoo! realized that they just cannot compete with Google's algorithmic search technology, that they can never be a reliable search engine for the user. If so, they have started down a very slippery slope.

cbp · #33 (**permalink**) 03-05-2004, 08:13 PM

aperey:

Quote:

But Yahoo has now dropped all of Inktomi's paid inclusions! This has hurt many businesses, I'm sure.

How has it done that? Paying to be in Inktomi NEVER got you in the Yahoo index in the past. You will still be in the SE's that Inktomi provides data for - you are getting what you paid for.

Benser:

Quote:

Lets all get this straight! Yahoo is now using Inktomi for its index and is a reseller for Inktomi.

No they are not using Inktomi.

G.Paul.Needham:

Quote:

Their SiteMatch venture is short-sighted and betrays a certain contempt for the consumers that visit their website.

This is what I was refering to earlier in this thread when I said:

Quote:

That because so much rubbish has been written about SiteMatch in many forums by people who have not even bothered to read and understand what it is about.

CBP

Mel · #34 (**permalink**) 03-07-2004, 06:27 AM

Amazing how much misinformation or misunderstanding there is circulating about SiteMatch.

While I see no real advantages to it for the great majority of my customers, there are IMO some who may find a use for it despite it being kind of like writing a blank check. I suppose it will work like Looksmarts PPC, if you stop paying for clicks you stop appearing, but still I think if I were faced with a short term campaign that I wanted real volume from, I would go with Adwords where I can control the cost, the position and the searches I am returned for. Yahoo will still be a target for organic search, and I suspect that SiteMatch may not be as big a winner as Yahoo would have hoped for.
Does anyone understand why Yahoo thinks people will pay higher than the going rate for PFI and pay per click on top of that with no cap or control? If so please enlighten me.

Curious George · #35 (**permalink**) 03-07-2004, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aperey

Yahoo has dropped all Inktomi's paid inclusions from the database it acquired when it bought Inktomi. This is wrong and hurtful.

I believe those of us that just purchased 1 year subscription from Inktomi just got bamboozled by Inktomi, Yahoo! et al. They want us to pony up another $49 for inclusion on Site Match or loose our index on Yahoo!'s search results. That is just unfair.

Curious George

cbp · #36 (**permalink**) 03-07-2004, 05:49 PM

Quote:

I believe those of us that just purchased 1 year subscription from Inktomi just got bamboozled by Inktomi, Yahoo! et al. They want us to pony up another $49 for inclusion on Site Match or loose our index on Yahoo!'s search results. That is just unfair.

How is that unfair?
You purchased from Inktomi a 1 year subscription to be crawled every 48hrs to be included in search engines powered by Inktomi -- you are getting what you paid and contracted for ... Yahoo was never part of the deal. As a bonus, when Yahoo changed to their own search technology, they included those PFI Inktomi sites in the short term --- you should be thanking Yahoo for this, not complaining.

CBP

minstrel · #37 (**permalink**) 03-07-2004, 06:48 PM

I'm not sure I can agree with you, cbp.

If I bought a year's worth of advertising in a magazine that was purchased by another magazine a couple of months later, and that new owner said, "sorry but instead of a year's worth of advertising, you're going to get only 4 month's worth", I think I'd have a lot of difficulty feeling grateful.

cbp · #38 (**permalink**) 03-07-2004, 06:57 PM

Those who paid for Inktomi are still getiing what they paid for.... ie the 48hrs refresh and inclusion in search engines which Inktomi supply the results to. Inltomi NEVER supplied results to Yahoo (Google did). No promise were ever made that Inktomi paid inclusion would ever be used by Yahoo (the fact that they are in the short term is a bonus).

CBP

minstrel · #39 (**permalink**) 03-07-2004, 07:11 PM

Ok, you're correct. My analogy doesn't apply...

TheWebDoctor(tm) · #40 (**permalink**) 03-07-2004, 09:00 PM

It doesn't matter how fancy the language might be and how many people think it's a great idea. Senseless breaking of the public trust will destroy any business.

Regardless of those that think Yahoo's group of search facilities now provides better services and the fact that Danny Sullivan states paid searches are a fact of the future only shows a short-sighted view.

The FTC can't do any investigations until a wrong doing is carried out. Therefore, Yahoo and anyone else can say they will do something; only after doing it will they be investigated. The bunch of Yahooes running the show will fall like Environ.

Several years ago I wrote Yahoo about their business ideas. They provide games, email and several other services for free to people that most especially misuse the free email product. Now, instead of charging for that service they want to squeeze the little guy for more money.

Yahoo will never be a power. They were a power for a couple of years, but their directory lacked the relevant results needed to assist businesses and searchers. Then they wanted to charge for reviews with no guarantee of being accepted. Now, they want to do this per URL and then charge a CPC on top of that.

Imagine, if you will, your local yellow page company came to you to have you advertise in their listings. Then you paid $40,000 for a full-page ad and the yellow pages company said, "every phone call you get will result in an additional dollar charge." How long do you think you'd stand for that? How many businesses would advertise in their yellow page listings? In fact, how many businesses do you think would use such a poor resource?

That's exactly what forced CPC will do. It doesn't matter who says what and what their predictions are, any CPC on organic listings are simply idiotic.

Now, I don't so much mind PFI, but I totally dislike PPC and CPC. PPC and CPC is like stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

If Yahoo didn't have the CPC addition and guaranteed inclusion, I'd pay. But, their idea of PFI isn't PFI - it's PFRPU (pay for review per url).

Mel · #41 (**permalink**) 03-07-2004, 11:32 PM

Hi Lee;

Yahoo is still providing free indexing to most sites and is still, (according to my logs) spidering actively. I know that all of my personal pages and a great number of my clients pages are includedin the yahoo index and ranked in Yahoo with no action on my part other than publishing the pages for them to find.

While I agree that the Yahoo pfi program is not appealing to me, no one is forcing you to use the program and in fact I fail to see how you consider that Yahoo is breaking the public trust by offering an optional program to their free indexing.

Yes IMO it is an ill-considered plan, yes consumers may well not decide to use it, but it is not forced cpc.

YahooMike · #42 (**permalink**) 03-10-2004, 11:01 PM

The Yahoo! Team is posting this Site Match information / Overview to answer questions and clarify issues that have been raised on the message board.

Q. Why should I pay for Site Match if my site is already indexed or may soon be indexed for free?
A. Our primary goal is to discover and include all content on the web through our free web crawling process. Today 99% of the information in the index comes from the free crawl. Site Match, however, provides many benefits to content providers even when their content is already indexed.

Both content providers and search users benefit from greater interaction between sites and the search engine. In fact, for several years a good number of message board posters have been asking for greater clarity from search engines about how to participate and what the “rules” are. The Site Match program addresses this additional need by providing a value-added service that focuses on providing a clearer, more consistent way to interact with Yahoo! Search. Specific components include: the ability to proactively submit content to us, frequent refresh, quality review, detailed reporting, and support when problems arise. The program is cost-effective, easy to manage, and includes the ability to control total cost.

Yahoo! believes that Site Match delivers:
1. Higher quality search results for users, including reducing the amount of search spam (spammers are economically disincented to participate)
2. A clearer, more consistent way to interact with Yahoo! Search for content providers who historically have been subjected to unpredictable changes in the way their content has been discovered and presented by search engines.

Customers in particular who will find Site Match extremely valuable include those with:
- Sites that have harder to find content or with information that can’t currently be crawled by any search engine (e.g. sites with dynamic content, such as extensive product catalogs)
- Sites seeking more control over the content that is discovered
- Sites seeking more control over how the content is presented
- More dynamic sites seeking faster refresh rates
- Sites that are looking for more user data and clearer, more consistent interaction with the search engine

Yahoo! believes these benefits are of value to many businesses, and the considerable demand for the program we’ve seen thus far would seem to support that. However, the program may not be valuable to everyone. We understand this – not everyone wants or needs the value-added service that Site Match offers. That’s OK, because it’s likely that we already have your web pages through our regular crawl, and if we don’t yet, we’re working to get them over time. This is a cornerstone of our mission to provide the highest quality search experience on the internet.

More specifically, you may not find value in the Site Match program if the following is the true:
- Your site is well discovered by the free crawl
- The right content is discovered and you are consistently satisfied with when and how your content is presented
- The information on your site is fairly static and the faster refresh is of less value to you
- You don't think you need more user data on search performance

If this describes your site, then the free crawl may be adequate for you and you don’t need the added value of the Site Match programs.

Q. Does Site Match require both a per-page, per-year fee and a cost-per-click?
A. Site Match includes a yearly review fee per URL and a cost-per-click fee. Site Match has a much lower up-front cost (less than 1/3) than the 3 programs it replaces: Inktomi Search Submit, AltaVista Express Inclusion, and FAST PartnerSite PFI. One concern with the old programs was that some sites paid upfront and then got relatively few clicks (a common scenario for specialized sites). This resulted in the service working out to be quite expensive on an effective cost-per-click basis. The new cost-per-click pricing is more equitable in that it scales with the value the program provides to each participating site. In addition, we offer a range of budgeting options that allow content providers to cap their spend at whatever levels they are comfortable with. Finally, and most importantly, cost-per-click pricing helps ensure a high quality user experience. Cost-per-click pricing motivates content providers to submit only relevant content (no one wants to pay for an irrelevant click), further improving the quality of the search experience for users. Without CPC pricing, content providers have no incentive to provide high quality content and avoid gaming the system.

Q: What if I can't afford this program? Will you have a lower priced program in the future?
A: If your primary goal is to get your site indexed and if your web site has not already been crawled by Yahoo! Search, it is possible it will be crawled in the future. As of March 1, 2004, 99% of all content in our index has been discovered via our free crawl, and our primary objective is to discover all content on the internet for free. Furthermore, we now offer a free Add URL service (http://submit.search.yahoo.com). We will continue to evaluate different product mixes and pricing models and will evolve our programs based on market demand.

Q. Will Yahoo! Search results sacrifice quality by favoring sites that pay for the Site Match program?
A. Absolutely not. Since its inception, the Yahoo! Search mission has been to provide the highest quality search experience on the Internet. The motivation behind this is simple: if we do not provide the highest quality search experience we will not be providing users with an incentive to stay and continue to use our product. It is the quality of our results – as defined by their relevance, comprehensiveness, freshness and presentation - that will ultimately lead to our success in search and we will not compromise the quality of these results.

Q. If I participate in Site Match, will my site be “banned” from the search index?
A. No. The Site Match and crawling systems are separate (one doesn’t affect content in the other) and participation in Site Match does not impact the efforts of our crawlers to index all of your content. For instance, if you submit 1 page to Site Match, other pages that may be in the regular index will not be affected.

In addition, content from both systems is reviewed and evaluated against the same criteria to ensure all content meets a consistent, high quality standard. If you joined the Inktomi Search Submit program, for example, you may have been reviewed. If problems were discovered, your site may have been partially or entirely removed from the search index. The same thing happens to sites that have been discovered through the free crawl process. If problems were discovered, your site may have been partially or entirely removed from the search index. Any review-related penalty is solely designed to ensure the best experience for our users, not to encourage ongoing participation in our inclusion programs. Also, removal of URLs from Site Match will in no way impact our crawlers’ efforts to index those URLs.

Q. Will the Inktomi index be merged with the new Yahoo! Search index before Inktomi disappears?
A: Today there is a single, new Yahoo! Search Technology (YST). YST powers Yahoo! Search and in the coming months will also be powering search solutions for all our partners. Yahoo! Slurp, Yahoo!’s new crawler, is already reaching and indexing more of the web than any of our prior technologies.

Q. What happens to my site if I previously participated in a paid inclusion program (e.g. Inktomi Search Submit)?
A: If you previously participated in a subscription-based paid inclusion program from Inktomi, AltaVista or FAST, you have the option of continuing your current subscription in which case the terms of your subscription will not change. This will continue until the end of your subscription. As an added bonus, your participation will also extend to Yahoo! Search results until April 15, 2004. Note that Inktomi Index Connect (feed-based) customers may continue participating in the full network of portals, including Yahoo!

Q. Does Site Match allow URLs to be targeted to specific countries?
A. Yes. Site Match provides a “geotargeting” feature. Through the Overture-branded system, just log in (after subscribing) and go to View/Edit URLs. Click Edit for each URL and you’ll see options to target by region or by country. This is another feature that helps us deliver a higher quality user experience: users don’t see results for businesses that can’t address their needs. By offering geo-targeting we enable content providers to improve both their experience and the experience of the user.

Mel · #43 (**permalink**) 03-11-2004, 02:29 AM

Thanks for posting Yahoo search, its good to get the information directly from those who have it. The information which you have presented is consistent with my own observations of the new Yahoo search engine and should put to rest at least some of the rumors and speculation which is in the air.

I hope that you will continue to drop in once in a while and share more Yahoo information with us.

webgod60 · #44 (**permalink**) 03-11-2004, 12:45 PM

I agree, this new system just plain sucks. All we will get are sites advertising items that we are not even looking for, and will push our free search engine listings all the way out of the picture. So when you want to search for a radio that is not on Ebay, good luck.

gregates · #45 (**permalink**) 03-11-2004, 01:07 PM

Thanks Mel...

We now have personal experience with the new service, and not sure what is happening.

On 030304 we began a series of entering URLs into the new service. The first entry on 030304 was about $800 worth. We checked off all the services to get Express. We added a significant number of additional URLs later in the week. therefore our initial spend was significant (not just one URL).

We got an e-mail immediately 030304 saying our URLs would be reviewed and up within 72 hours.

To date, nothing has happened other than all our money was taken from our account almost immediately upon entering the URLs on 030304 and 030704.

so you can view, I added our account information via a screen capture on the following page. I also added their 030304 e-mail to show you.

the most frustrating thing is, I have written no less than 10 e-mails to the support e-mail options asking for assistance WITHOUT one reply (last one yesterday).

Two years ago, we had an ad spend with Yahoo! of about $30,000. Back then, their customer service was fantastic. I am sure they will work out the problem, but the initial experience is frustrating.

Some of you may remember our no response hassles with Google (who apparently are know for their lack response to questions), but our personal experience has always be absolutely fantastic with Yahoo! Sure hope this is like our past experiences? So far it is not.

We will keep you posted.

http://www.ringdesigner.com/yahoo-overture-uls.htm

Warmest Regards to all in the Forum,

Greg Gates

kodedjay · #46 (**permalink**) 03-11-2004, 01:28 PM

Quote:

the most frustrating thing is, I have written no less than 10 e-mails to the support e-mail options asking for assistance WITHOUT one reply (last one yesterday).

If no one had mentioned the search engine in question, i would i bet my house on this being yahoo

Over the years we've also had problems with yahoo, especially when we've needed help. It seems to be a common occurence that yahoo takes your money and forgets all about you.

shall we laugh or cry?

ChiefTechnovelgist · #47 (**permalink**) 03-11-2004, 01:43 PM

Here are the two bits that get me:

"Q. Will Yahoo! Search results sacrifice quality by favoring sites that pay for the Site Match program?
A. Absolutely not."

and

"Yahoo! believes that Site Match delivers:
1. Higher quality search results for users..."

This provides them with all the weasel room they need. Clearly, they believe that "quality search results" will be those that include lots of sites who have paid to be there. Why? Because Site Match will put them there, ahead of anyone who sticks with organic listings.

And frankly, this doesn't fit my model at all. Here's what I would pay for: I do a regular feature called "Science Fiction in the News." It doesn't do me any good for them to just spider the index page every day; I need them to find the new item for that day, and then spider that page for immediate inclusion. But I can't afford to pay them $$ per new page - not by several orders of magnitude, and neither can any other news site or content provider.

Kenai Alaska · #48 (**permalink**) 03-11-2004, 02:20 PM

When will it all settle down so we can return to adding new content to our sites? We run a few sites for small businesses in Alaska and the Yukon Territory of Canada. But recently were finding it hard to keep up with all the changes within the search results. Seem as though we spend most of our time trying to get found and lately no time in increasing or completeing the data for our readers. When we read about Alaska on the net, we all laugh at the hype and total outright garbage being written. These people have obviously never been here.
As there is no charge for inclusion for locally owned small businesses, we are having to pay all expences out of our own pockets. As a small business owner ourself, we encourage all like businesses to work together, United We Stand, Divided We, well, you know the rest. If you look at our Alaska camping site [http://www.campgrounds-alaska.com]you can see that it is solely dedicated to small businesses.
When we moved here 22 years ago, Alaska was all small businesses, but now as the giant outside corporations quickly take over, small businesses are struggling to make ends meet. As a resident of Alaska I can tell you that if you visit this fantastic State and exclude them, all you see is a fairy tale world built for tourists. Alaska, "The Last Frontier", is starting to disappear into a massive jungle of gift shops selling products from China and the likes. We do not have the resources to combat corporate America and feel as though we are being evicted from our home.
The recent changes at the search engines have all but eliminated many family businesses that lack the deep pockets of large corporate businesses. It's no wonder tourists leave here discouraged. Is Alaska overpriced? Not if you know where to go. The problem is many businesses are so discouraged they have dropped their web sites completely. This trend is growing fast. If you want to visit the REAL Alaska, contact someone here before you arrive.
Weather we stay on the net much longer depends on the results. If the only traffic we see is from people looking for links, We will go back to the bleached white paper and consumables to survive.
Thank you for this forum.
Bob

theo · #49 (**permalink**) 03-11-2004, 02:20 PM

Sorry for what may be a dumb question, but where can I find information on Site Match at Yahoo!. I have read this discussion about it but I must have missed something. Our site is not listed in Yahoo directly but instead listed through Google Adwords and Overture. I know how to submit a site through the traditional Yahoo site submission method but I don't see anythign about Site Match. Am I missing something?

scticket · #50 (**permalink**) 03-11-2004, 02:24 PM

Ok my question is how does someone get there site spidered by Yahoo without paying? I have read about this free spidering by Yahoo in the posts but I have yet to see it. Is there a place to submit your url to these sites. I just launched a 1200 page site and will be adding another 1500-2000 pages. The idea of paying to submit these url's really blows not to mention paying 15 to 30 cents for ppc. The whole goal of building this site was to get away from cpc and a annual budget of $750 000 per year in cpc advertising. Any ideas or advice would be appreciated.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode