32 replies to this topic

[kpdelvalle]

An SEO firm, a big one I think, told me yesterday that some of Yahoo's organic listings are pay-per-click listings. That the SEO firm sends a list of sites to Yahoo and Yahoo will incorporate the list into their organic listings -- but the site owner has to pay .39 if someone clicks that link.

So I asked if someone hires them to do that, how would the client know if their site was #5 on Yahoo naturally or #5 because of this list they submitted. They said they have reports that would show whether the #5 was "natural" or not. And that the client could even make their "natural" description different than their "paid" description so they could tell.

Is that true that some of the non-sponsored, organic listings are really pay-per-click? I've never heard of that.

[kpdelvalle]

Oh I just found the info on this in your Search Engine Marketing section.

[SearchRank]

Yes Yahoo has a paid inclusion program called Search Submit Express. You pay inclusion fees as well as PPC fees.

I personally do not see any use for it unless you have content you want included in index that cannot be crawled regularly. Another incentive is that possibly you do want to feed them your own written descriptions as opposed to letting the algo write them. Paid inclusion is not supposed to have any effect on ranking although I have seen questionable situations in the past. Finally, I believe Yahoo claims that less then 1% of its index is paid inclusion - the rest is all crawled for free.

[lyn]

Paid inclusion is not supposed to have any effect on ranking although I have seen questionable situations in the past.

So you could pay for the inclusion and end up on page 999 in the SERPs?
Is that right?

I suppose if it's straight PPC, then you don't actually pay for a poor ranking but... I'm not seeing much value for the effort here.

L.

[Jill]

So you could pay for the inclusion and end up on page 999 in the SERPs?
Is that right?

Yes.

[Trellian]

So you could pay for the inclusion and end up on page 999 in the SERPs?
Is that right?

Still YES, but in the case of the Yahoo XML (Search Submit Pro) service where you only pay per click, you would not be paying anything, so technically a free service

The benefit of the XML trusted feeds is that they can be optimized better than a "real" page especially as you can "include other relevant terms" into the feed for a page, even if that term is not on that page. hence why it is sometimes referred to as legal cloaking.

Cheers
David

[ihelpyou]

hence why it is sometimes referred to as legal cloaking.

Legal cloaking?

Why confuse the issue?

Cloaking is always search engine spam.

The Yahoo XML search submit definition is called "content delivery", just like any other form of content delivery, right? If you are detecting an agent based on region or country, that's "content delivery", right? Content delivery is exactly that. Cloaking is spam. There is no such thing as "legal or illegal cloaking".

I dislike readers being confused so I had to clear things up.

The "only" advantage of the PPC inclusion thing with Yahoo is that you can get pages indexed that might not be found by the spider otherwise. And yes; supposedly you can "optimize" those pages better, but that's only if you know how to optimize in the first place. The site owner should understand that if his/her pages cannot be crawled easily, then he should really think about redoing his navigation structure so he does not "have" to pay to play. There are no rank boosts just because you pay to play with Yahoo. If that in fact did happen, and we could prove that happens, what do you think the FTC would have to say about that?

Edited by ihelpyou, 08 February 2006 - 11:43 AM.

[Jill]

Legal cloaking?

Why confuse the issue?

Because, that's basically exactly what it is. You have whatever you want on the page for your site visitors, and you provide Yahoo with a spreadsheet of info on the page that may or may not match what's on the page.

This is why it would be silly for anyone to cloak for Yahoo over the past few years, since you can do something similar without fear of penalization since the search engines not only sanction, but beg you to do it so they can take your money.

[Trellian]

Cloaking is always search engine spam.

The Yahoo XML search submit definition is called "content delivery", just like any other form of content delivery, right? If you are detecting an agent based on region or country, that's "content delivery", right? Content delivery is exactly that. Cloaking is spam. There is no such thing as "legal or illegal cloaking".

Not in Yahoo's case it is not. As Jill clarified, it is the method of "content delivery" and how you can deliver the content to Yahoo that differs.

Since you can submit to Yahoo via an XML feed per URL:
- Title
- Description
- Keywords
- Content
- Tracking URL (which can be a redirect)

For all of the above fields the XML feed that you provide to Yahoo do not need to match exactly what is on that specific URL. Which by any definition is cloaking. Yahoo ranks on one set of content and users see a different set of content on the actual page.

Just in this case, it is sanctioned by Yahoo. Granted you can not place any random keywords in the XML feeds, the keywords need to relate to that page... but this still allows you to add many more keyword terms that are not on a live page... aka "Legal Cloaking".

supposedly you can "optimize" those pages better, but that's only if you know how to optimize in the first place

That is why companies such as Trellian, PositionTech, MarketLeap etc... provide XML feed building service and optimize feeds so that have the best chance of ranking better.

Cheers
David

[ihelpyou]

Because, that's basically exactly what it is.

That is not "basically" what it is at all Jill. You should know better.

Cloaking is "search engine spam". You are attempting to "deceive" a search engine spider by sending them a page "other than" what a browser would see. That's cloaking and that is always spam.

Cloaking means ..... deception. Read the definition of dictionary.com.

There are many forms of "content delivery" that do "not" detect a search engine spider at all. None are cloaking, including the Yahoo thing. It's simply a form of content delivery. Yahoo knows about it as Yahoo is soliciting it, right? How can it be cloaking if the search engine knows about it?

This all seems to be common sense stuff. I must be missing something.

Just in this case, it is sanctioned by Yahoo.

Exactly.

But you still say it's "cloaking". Cloaking is search engine spam. Yahoo knows about it, so it is not cloaking, right? Isn't cloaking "deception"? When I went to school, the dictionary said it's "to cover or hide" something. What are you hiding from Yahoo? If you are not hiding anything, it's not spam or cloaking, right?

That is why companies such as Trellian, PositionTech, MarketLeap etc... provide XML feed building service and optimize feeds so that have the best chance of ranking better.

Yes, if you are assuming those companies you list are somehow good and that there are "many" more reasons why a page may have a good rank, and none of them have to do with what you happen to "feed" to Yahoo, right?

But you have to understand that you "pay per click". In my mind, that same website who is paying those companies to "feed" Yahoo and are paying per click would be "much" better off paying to have their website built right, right? They make a one-time payment to build a good site and they then have NO need to pay per click at all, .... right?

[Michael Martinez]

Doug, I'm sure that David feels Trellian (his company) is one of the good ones.

I'm not sure the paid inclusion service justifies itself as much as it did when Inktomi only allowed 100,000,000 sites into the primary index. People were dropping out like flies back in those days, and for many link-poor business sites the paid inclusion at least guaranteed they didn't stay out of the index for more than a few weeks at worst.

What is the point of the service today, from a business operator's perspective? A third-party submission firm can certainly optimize the XML feeds, but I'm not aware of any independent analysis of those results.

Regardless of which company is hired to do the submission, how does a Web site operator get the accountability they need to determine return on investment?

[Trellian]

Cloaking means ..... deception. Read the definition of dictionary.com.

I believe if a user performs a search for a keyword and the SERPS include a page that does not have that keyword on that page... is that then deception from the users perspective? Most users would not know that the Yahoo XML program exists or how it works... so this could be argued that at least one party is subject to deception.... which I believe would fall under the definition of "deception".

would be "much" better off paying to have their website built right, right

Not sure if you have dealt with large companies that are the common clients for the feed program.... but getting them to change their sites is far too often a hurdle that will not cleared. But yes I agree with you, sites should be built right the first time round as that reduced the reliance on the XML feeds to some extent.

There are still a few other pros for this service:
- daily refresh rates
- guaranteed indexation of all the URLs you need indexed
- traffic reporting
- and don't forget the ranking boost which is common with well optimized feeds, even if a site is well optimized.
- as you can use tracking links, very easy to provide ROI tracking

Cheers
David

[ihelpyou]

Yes Michael, I agree with you completely.

I believe if a user performs a search for a keyword and the SERPS include a page that does not have that keyword on that page... is that then deception from the users perspective?

Why would it be? Isn't the feed page relevant to the page a browser sees? In the context of search engine spam, which is deceiving a spider, the yahoo xml cannot be cloaking as cloaking is always search engine spam. I'm not sure how many more ways I can write the same thing.

Not sure if you have dealt with large companies that are the common clients for the feed program.

We sure have. Giving them the full knowledge about what they need done to fix what they have will solve any site structure problems so every page is indexed anyway. No need for that site to ever pay per click. Common sense serves people real well when it's layed out in simple terms.

daily refresh rates

The yahoo spider is very good at refresh anyhoo. No need to pay for it.

guaranteed indexation of all the URLs you need indexed

Well sure, but how does that benefit a site exactly? Anyone with a good website can get all pages in fairly easily without paying per click. It's one thing to be simply "indexed", but quite another to have good positions.

traffic reporting

Yes, and that's fine,.. but you are paying for the Yahoo reporting, right?

and don't forget the ranking boost which is common with well optimized feeds, even if a site is well optimized.

Well optimized? I'm not a SEO. My firm is full service. Rarely do we try to fix an existing site as that won't be the norm in a few years. There is a difference between "optimized" site and an "optimized" page of that site. Give me an optimized site any day of which I don't have to pay per click. And how is there a "rank boost" just because you paid Yahoo? And yes, but you are paying for that ROI tracking as well as you are paying for "each" url you submit, and you are "paying per click" on that same url.

Edited by ihelpyou, 08 February 2006 - 06:31 PM.

[Jill]

How can it be cloaking if the search engine knows about it?

That is true that you are certainly not cloaking the information to the search engine. It's the user that you are cloaking information from, which is why it can certainly be accurately called cloaking (or if you prefer, hiding).

You are most definitely hiding stuff from a user if you use trusted feed in this manner. Please note that many who use trusted feed are indeed showing the same basic info to the engine as to the user, but they don't have to.

One could have an all-graphical site, for instance, and instead of fixing it to be search engine friendly, they could instead use Yahoo's trusted feed and provide information about the pages that didn't necessarily exist on those pages. The pages would then have a good shot at ranking highly for those phrases the feed was optimized for, and the user would have been somewhat deceived.

And yes, I do think the FTC should look into this because I don't personally think it's right. I feel it is akin to deceptive advertising in some cases.

But the fact is that it does exist, and it is sanctioned by the Yahoo, and it is cloaking, and possibly deceptive to search engine visitors. But it won't get you banned or penalized, because you are essentially paying your bribe money to Yahoo in order to be allowed to cloak and get away with it.

[ihelpyou]

Wow. I'm surprised you are using the same argument as every cloaker on the planet Jill.

Why do you have to make this issue confusing to readers?

Yahoo's trusted feed and provide information about the pages that didn't necessarily exist on those pages. The pages would then have a good shot at ranking highly for those phrases the feed was optimized for, and the user would have been somewhat deceived.

Tell us "exactly how" a user is being deceived? Isn't the feed relevant to the query? Isn't the page that Yahoo is fed relevant to the corresponding page a browser sees? So tell us exactly how a user is being deceived then? Cloaking is spam as the server is detecting the search engine bot and showing that bot different content than a user would see, and doing so to deceive the search engine.

What you are describing, and what this thread is describing is simply another form of content delivery. It's certainly not cloaking as the search engine is "not" being deceived in any way, shape, or form.

If we cannot call cloaking search engine spam, then aren't you allowing all "real" cloakers an "out"? and a very big loophole? You can choose that way to educate, but I refuse to be an associate of that kind of confusion.