22 replies to this topic

[Scottie]

It's not meant to be a direct correlation- just an analogy. As you point out, it is a tool to draw comparisons. I do believe it is deceptive when a listing exists in the results page because the search engine was paid. Regardless of whether or not that listing would have been there anyway in 6 weeks time.

It's the same way I would feel about any other supposedly unbiased source giving me results that were paid without telling me. If a financial advisor tells me about a great mutual fund, and it really is a great mutual fund, I still want to know that he was paid to tell me that. It doesn't mean I wouldn't buy it, but it allows me to make an informed decision.

I think you actually helped to make my point... if Trusted Feed has an advantage over regular listings, the user should be made aware of that.

Affiliate sites exist only for advertising. IMO, it is up to the owner of the brand/company to handle their affiliates and what they allow. I don't see that as the job of the SE.

[projectphp]

if Trusted Feed has an advantage over regular listings, the user should be made aware of that.

But so does a site that hired an SEO. A Huge advantage. The advantage from Trusted Feed is directly proportional to the skill of those producing the feed in exactly the same way as an SEO campaign's effectiveness in achieving rankings is directly proportional to the skill of the SEO. It is not an advantage inherent to Trusted Feed, or at least shouldn't be. The same content on a page that is indexed should rank just as well.

I do believe it is deceptive when a listing exists in the results page because the search engine was paid

That is a very strong argument, and one I agree with that in the most part. Where I disagree is in regards to what defines the because, and also worry that labelling any paid listing will potentially have massive repercussions, many of which are bad. Unless we know that labelling listings is an improvement, in to whatever the problem is, then we shouldn't leap. Also, what will this form take? Ads in MSN are labelled "Sponsored Sites", and Inktomi results "Web Pages". However, each individual Overture listing doesn't have any label, just the section. So what form would the labelling have? Whether to label or not is one issue, what form such a labelling takes is another.

People should able to read where the results come from, that much I agree entirely with. However, what form that takes is extremely important and needs to be discussed as well. If "Web Pages" were renamed "Sponsored Web Pages and Results" would that be enough?

On a related note, how would a user find out exactly where each type of result came from? Although the colours are clearly marked, wouldn't having easily clicked explainations, ala MSN be a good idea??

[Scottie]

But so does a site that hired an SEO.

But how can that possibly be the responsibility of the search engine? Maybe we can all sign pledges to voluntarily tag the listings of the sites we work on...

To me, SEO is not deceptive, it's a business edge. Back to the newspaper analogy, (sorry!) the company who hires a public relations team is likely to get a lot more press than one that sits around and hopes a reporter will call. It's about putting your best foot forward, polishing your image. Making an effort to be noticed.

Most SEO's do things that should have been done when the site was first set up anyway! If more designers were on the ball, many of us would be out of a job.

If the designer knows to build a crawlable site and use good descriptive titles; if the site owner has excellent copy written that naturally emphasizes industry keyphrases; if the company is so popular that people are dying to link to it; well, has the site been SEO'd? Should it be tagged as "unfair SEO advantage"?

IMO, most of us are consultants fixing things that were done without thought in the first place.

As to how the listings would show, a small icon with a legend would probably be enough. Those that were interested could click for more details while those who really don't care wouldn't notice it. But I do think people have the right to know how that listing arrived there, if they choose.

[MakeMeTop]

But I do think people have the right to know how that listing arrived there, if they choose.

Agreed. This information is already in place on all engines, they state that some listings may be included through paid inclusion or via a CPC method - the moot point here is how does the surfer know which are which?

My suggestion is via a big red "thumbs up" sign. If you click on the icon, it says "This web site has paid us to ensure that we have the latest site information by indexing this page every few hours. They also are subject to, and may have had, a review by a human editor to ensure accuracy - other results may be totally innaccurate and months out of date".

[BrianR]

Barry (MakeMeTop) makes a good point!

The main reason I use PFI (not trusted feeds - just ordinary fee-based PFI) is to get in the SE's index quickly. Sure, you can use the frequency of spider visits to help you tune the site's ranking, but first, it has to be in the index!

So, to use Scottie's analogy, it would be like a newspaper saying to me: 'Thank you for your press release. I can probably run it in about 6 weeks time. But if you stump up $39, I'll get it in tomorrow's edition'.

BrianR

[Randy]

This type of thread is one of the reasons I love Jill's forums. So many thoughtful, sincere responses, each supported by sound reasoning.

If I had to commit to a decision, I think I would fall on the side of everything that's paid should include some type of disclaimer/icon placed next to the listing so that the searching public at least has the opportunity to know all of the facts.

MMT's suggestion, well cept for that very last bit , would work well for PFI's. Also for all of the Yahoo Directory listings which are paid. Basically anything where paying doesn't have any effect on the final positioning in the SERPs.

For the Overture/Adwords type of ads where the price paid does have at least some effect on the position, this should be clearly stated IMHO. Maybe a green Thumbs Up to signify the money the search engine gets from each click.

It would certainly be easy enough to do, and if the search industry were thinking ahead they might want to consider implementing something like what has been outlined in this entire thread. The SE's certainly don't want to leave it up to the politicians, or they'll likely end up having to include 10 pages of legalese right next to each paid ad.

[Jill]

This type of thread is one of the reasons I love Jill's forums. So many thoughtful, sincere responses, each supported by sound reasoning.

And we love you too, Randy!

[projectphp]

So, to use Scottie's analogy, it would be like a newspaper saying to me: 'Thank you for your press release. I can probably run it in about 6 weeks time. But if you stump up $39, I'll get it in tomorrow's edition'.

Actually, its more like paying to be on a list of press releases that Newspapers promise to read, but only a limitted number of press releases per month. Either that, or you can release your press statements and hope they stumble accross the relevant journos desk.

The newspaper analogy falls down a little bit because Jornos and editors get paid, rather than the newspaper many times. "Hi Maxine, can I take you too lunch this week?" That is a form of payment, and one that is so much harder to track.

With URSearh Submit on Inktomi, you aren't paying to be listed on any results page, the equivilant of a newspaper story, but rather are being listed in a database that may be returned. The quality of the release / page is the key determining factor in both cases.