22 replies to this topic

[t49]

Your opinion/feelings on paid listings shown above,as opposed to off to the side and clearly marked as ads, regular search results?
don't care?
use them yourself?
ticks you off?
appreciate that many quality sites pay for top listing,so you don't have to wade through pages of spammy links?
different opinion when just surfing,as apposed to promoting your own site?
prefer a search engine that didn't 'blend' paid with unpaid listings.

personally,ads on side don't bother me,as I find it easy to tune them out.
sometimes paid listings above search results bug me,because it isn't always clear that they are paid listings.

all,or at least some,comments appreciated.

[DianeV]

Personally, I don't particularly care. In my case, of course, it's pretty easy to tell which are ads and which aren't.

The other reason is that search engines are sending loads of traffic to my site and my clients' sites for free, so I don't mind at all that they use their own popularity to fund their companies.

Unless and until they charge *surfers* for searching their databases, someone's got to pay for the building, the servers, the staff salaries, etc. I look at it kind of like (in the U.S.) the difference between regular TV (which is free but "serves" lots of commercial advertisements) and cable TV, for which one pays a monthly fee but (generally) is without ads.

[Scottie]

I agree with Diane... I have no problem with search engines paying the bills, and I have no problems with companies with deep pockets picking up the check as long as they are clearly marked. Too many of them are not, IMO.

[t49]

Have you ever just watched someone while they where doing a search?
Don't ask questions,or make suggestions,while they are searching.
Ask your questions afterwards.

Clearly marked paid listings don't bother me,and I often click on the top paid,and non-paid,listings.


And,yes,I do know how much it costs to run a search engine,but I'm not telling.
You would be surprised,at how much it costs,just to weed out the bait and switch sites.
Say you're looking for "Jill Whalen Exposed',and instead you get ... oh,sorry! got carried away ... where was I? ... oh,yah ... meanwhile,back at the forum ...

The costs of developing new weapons to fight the enemy,can easily drain all but the deepest of pockets. ... guess who has been watching war stories on the History Channel?

All the surfer wants,is the information that they are looking for.
If it's a paid listing,it should be CLEARLY marked as a paid listing. ... that's my complaint.
I don't like to be tricked,and a lot of people that I've asked,feel the same way.Even when they find what they are looking for,they don't like to be tricked ... you lose peoples trust when you trick them.

[Randy]

I agree totally with the concept that paid listings should be clearly marked. That won't keep people from clicking on them if the ad copy is good from my experience. Both as a user and and advertiser. As t49 suggests, to do otherwise is slight of hand, something which can and usually does come back to bite the hand feeding the ads to everybody.

Frankly, it's my opinion that if all of search engines (many do already) don't want to take care of this oversight, then perhaps the government regulatory bodies need to step in and apply the same type of guidelines newspapers adhere to.

It would be much easier for the search engines to apply a similar standard themselves. And consderably better in the long run for them. I can't imagine that any search engine would want everything they do to start coming under the purview of various government regulations.

[AussieWebmaster]

Paid inclusion to me is another way to get a quick spike in links and thus get pages listed quicker on Google.

[SearchRank]

I don't mind if they are above regular non paid listings but they should be clearly marked. So I would pick:

prefer a search engine that didn't 'blend' paid with unpaid listings

from your list.

[Alan Perkins]

Your opinion/feelings on paid listings shown above,as opposed to off to the side and clearly marked as ads, regular search results?

I've no problem with commercial search results, but I am against deceptive advertising in search results.

Some links of interest:

Being Frank about Search Engine Rank
CommercialAlert Complaint to the FTC

[compar]

I don't like to be tricked,and a lot of people that I've asked,feel the same way.Even when they find what they are looking for,they don't like to be tricked ... you lose peoples trust when you trick them.

I don't get the concept of being tricked. That to me implies that if you inadvertently clicked on a paid listing that some harm would necessarily follow. What is the perceived danger of paid for listings that one must be careful not to be tricked into becoming involved?

Now I would agree that if you are searching for something that you want to get for free you probably don't want to click on a paid ad. In turn there is less and less free stuff these days.

But I would argue that if you are really searching for relevant information the paid ads may be more relevant than the free listings. After all if someone is going to pay to have you come to their web site they had better be relevant or their ROI is going to go all to hell.

[Alan Perkins]

I don't get the concept of being tricked. That to me implies that if you inadvertently clicked on a paid listing that some harm would necessarily follow.  What is the perceived danger of paid for listings that one must be careful not to be tricked into becoming involved?

It's the whole concept of deceptive advertising in the search results - something which the FTC has already investigated, found against and will be revisiting.

Have a read of the two links I posted above, and the key documents referred to on the CommercialAlert page

Key documents
* Commercial Alert’s deceptive advertising complaint to the FTC, July 16, 2001 ( html/pdf)

* FTC response to Commercial Alert, June 27, 2002 (html/pdf)

* FTC letter to search engine companies (html/pdf)

* New York Times article, July 2, 2002

* Search Engine Watch analysis of Commercial Alert’s complaint and the FTC response

[OldWelshGuy]

IMO search engines can't have it both ways, if they expect submissions to them to be free od spam, then the results they serve up must also be free of spam.

A paid for listing must be clearly marked as such or else it is possible to click on it, costing the advertiser money for a link that you are not really interested in. This is especially true in poorly worded ads, where there is a cross over in word meanings.

Clear submissions, Clear results, paid clearly marked.

[compar]

* Search Engine Watch analysis of Commercial Alert’s complaint and the FTC response

Quotation from the article you site.

"Claims about being in compliance with FTC's guidance don't hold up in a Search Engine Watch survey of paid content conducted last Friday, when the FTC letter was released. Only Google, among all the major search engines, was found to be providing the "clear and conspicuous" disclosure that the FTC recommends."

So who the hell is searching anywhere other than Google? The article confirms that Google is fine so where is the problem, and why all the hand wringing?

And besides that the article is 18 months old. Are you really suggesting that nothing has been done in all that time. What is the advantage of whining and moaning and constantly attacking our own industry.

Suggestions for positive change should always be welcome. But all this complaint and mudslinging only detracts from the industry that most of us are making our living in and feeds into the hands of the alarmists and naysayers.

Come on guys this is an amazing, revolutionary, evolutionary, industry and phenomenon we are involved in. Lets get onboard and support this sucker. Lets stop trying to eat our own children.

[Alan Perkins]

So who the hell is searching anywhere other than Google? The article confirms that Google is fine so where is the problem, and why all the hand wringing?

Compar this thread, this whole forum, is about paid inclusion. Google doesn't offer paid inclusion. Google is not part of this discussion.

And besides that the article is 18 months old. Are you really suggesting that nothing has been done in all that time.

No. The question is "Has enough been done?" I didn't ask the question. I'm just helping to answer it. What are you doing?

[compar]

Compar this thread, this whole forum, is about paid inclusion.  Google doesn't offer paid inclusion.   Google is not part of this discussion.

No.  The question is "Has enough been done?"  I didn't ask the question.  I'm just helping to answer it.  What are you doing?

That's not true. What are AdWord ads?

And show me where the question has been stated as "has enough been done". Your mention of this is the first on the thread. You can't just make stuff up to try and refute my points.

And what I'm doing is pretty obvious. I'm saying the entire thread is non productive.

[Alan Perkins]

What are AdWord ads?

Adwords ads are paid placement, not paid inclusion.

And show me where the question has been stated as "has enough been done".

As you said, the FTC case was some time ago. The questioner still has an issue with the way paid inclusion is handled. So the question is "Has enough been done?"

I'm saying the entire thread is non productive

If that's your opinion then don't post to it. You don't have to take part in every thread.