RE: The State of Search Engines

At 12:45 PM 10/02/2000 -0400, Webmaster T wrote:
>This ones pretty easy if they expect a guarantee simply tell them ANYONE
>guaranteeing placement is using methods which are either unethical or
>they are cloaking and serving different pages to different engines. This
>in some cases results in a lifetime ban. Are they willing to take the risk?

And, I do explain all that and don't make guarantees.  However, when 
clients are bombarded with more information to the contrary this is an 
ongoing topic that I felt we could discuss here.

>I don't give a guarantee and my rates are much higher than those you
>quoted. I have been retained by some of the larger Canadian sites to do SEO
>and I refuse to work for anyone who expects guarantees.

Goody for you.  Well, I didn't quote any rates and I don't offer guarantees 
either. Didn't say that I did....


><snip>
>Now that the LookSmart Network (Excite,AltaVista,Webcrawler,MSN and others)
>and Yahoo! are charging for pay-for-review the landscape has changed quite
>a bit.
></snip>
>
>Yahoo is definitely not JUST pay as a matter of fact if you aren't
>selling something on the site you can't use the service.

That is not correct - if you want a listing in a "Business" category - even 
if you are selling a service and are not doing ecom on your site, you can 
use their Business Express service.

>LookSmart is not
>part of any network the sites mentioned use their results.

/They/ call themselves the LookSmart Network (see the URL below) - hence 
why I relayed them as such.  And, I understand about the relationship of 
the sites mentioned.

>  I don't believe
>it is pay only either but I'm not positive.

Pay for either a 48 hour or an 8-week review the choice is yours:

<http://submit.looksmart.com/info.jhtml?synd=US&chan=lshomeft>

The only no-pay is if you are a non-profit.

>  My thinking is if it is, it
>won't
>stay that way. The outcry from users in regards to pay to play is loud and
>persistent. The wording in regards to this on LookSmart is poor to say the
>least.

The ones screaming are the folks who want free listings as though they are 
a birthright.  Actually, I am a proponent of pay for listings - separates 
the men from the boys.  If you want quality indexes the bar has to be 
raised.  Every IP address just by virtue of its existence doesn't mean the 
site is of any value or level of quality.

>All you can really do is monitor and try to improve positions and keep the
>site listed. This is no different than any other part of site development
>the client either trusts your judgement and doesn't bother to learn or YOU
>educate them about it. Ignorance of clients in regards to this is one of the
>reasons I do less and less of this and charge more and more to discourage
>requests.

My post stated I do just that ......   However, I plan on keeping this part 
of my services because it is important and very effective.  I can just tell 
there is change in the winds and asked the opinions of the others on the 
list what they were seeing - not to state the obvious.  My clients are way 
educated on what they need to be aware of and what they need to do.  Some 
are more apt to pay attention or apply this information than others.

>The time, the skillset(intermediate programming knowledge,advanced
>html and time to learn the algorythms of engines) means no one can do this
>prperly for a XXXXXX. All of the gurus and marketers in the know charge
>at least that/hr. In my case it's at least double/hr. Managing client
>expectations from the get go is paramount.

Pricing is relative to how each person runs their business.  I have seen 
many folks with higher opinions of themselves than their work reflects 
demand outrageous prices.  Whatever works for you is fine, what works for 
my company and my target market is also fine.

><snip>
>  Quality sites will get
>better recognition because they deserve it not because they can manipulate
>the engines.

Seems we agree after all!  ;-)  But you and I both know that is not the 
case right now.  Anything, including charges, that move us into that 
direction are welcomed.


><snip>
>I am beginning to get a sinking feeling that we will be relegated to being
>listed by how each directory chooses (ala Yahoo) - leaving us without as
>much control or choice over where/how you are placed.  Ever try and get
>Yahoo to change the site description that is butchered or incorrect?  Even
>on the Business Express plan you can't get them to modify errors on their
>part.  Foe-ged-aboud-it!  ;-)
></snip>
>This is a real bugaboo with me! Why must Yahoo be dissed like this for
>protecting its index.

Protecting your index and offering poor service to those who follow your 
established policies are two different issues. My 4 years of experience 
working with them proves otherwise.  The comment I made was for a correctly 
submitted site that they did butcher the description - and refuse to 
respond to requests to correct.

>Yahoo DOES NOT arbitrarily butcher descriptionions
>that have FOLLOWED THE GUIDELINES!

I did, they do - no need to scream.

>You are lucky they even list you!

Really?  Where did that come from????

>SEARCH ENGINES AND DIRECTOIES AREN'T BILLBOARDS they provide a valued
>service (in many cases free) to users and sites alike and MUST BE TREATED
>WITH RESPECT. A description should not be an advertisement it should be a
>low key DESCRIPTION of what a user can expect to find on the site. If
>developers can't follow the informative and step by step guidelines
>or try to use advertising copy masked as a description than they get
>what they deserve.

The above goes without saying. <sheesh>

>My complaint about Yahoo is something that they should
>be concerned with and that is the inability to remove dead links and update
>links in the index. I have to maitain an old site just so I don't loose the
>traffic that Yahoo sends.

Agreed.


>It seems that this link would help you with problems getting
>listings listed properly.

I have no problem getting listings on Yahoo.  I have problems with their 
service.

Thanx for your comments.

/j

HTML: hwg-business mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA