264 replies to this topic

[Jill]

LOL...oh Peter, you're just too smart for me!

Maybe in two years though, the FTC will have clarified things. Or maybe not. Let's make a pact to all come back to this very spot in two years and we'll check on the status!

Jill

[Alan Perkins]

It doesn't matter what we define as advertising, it is what the FTC defines as advertising.

... in the US.

if they haven't defined freshly crawled pages as being advertising in the past, then what would cause a change in that stance now

What have they said? It was probably the most confusing part of their response to CommercialAlert. On the one hand they said this:

To the extent that paid inclusion does not distort the ranking of a Web site or URL, many of these programs provide benefits to consumers, by incorporating more Web sites - or content - into an individual search engine's database than might otherwise be the case. This can give consumers a greater number of choices in search results lists.

On the other hand they followed it with this:

In other instances, the intermingling of non-paid Web sites with paid-inclusion Web sites in the search database may cause consumer confusion and mislead consumers as to the reasons for a Web site's or URL's inclusion in the search results. If the program distorts rankings, the program or its impact on rankings should be prominently disclosed. And certainly, if all Web sites included in a search guide or a search engine's database have paid to be included, so that the search engine is essentially an advertising medium, that fact should be disclosed adequately to avoid deception.

Hmm, not much room for confusion there then! Maybe the next paragraph clears it up:

In short, through the use of clear and conspicuous disclosures, consumers should be able to easily locate a search engine's explanation of any paid inclusion program, and discern the impact of paid inclusion on search results lists. In this way, consumers will be in a better position to determine whether the practice of paid inclusion is important to them in their choice of the search engines they use.

That's fairly clear.

My argument is that paid inclusion (or unpaid exclusion) has to "distort rankings". Content that is not included (freshly/ever) cannot be ranked (now/ever). I agree the FTC did not seem to spot/concur with this the last time around. Maybe now with...

1) a more prominent PPC element to the paid inclusion programs
2) a ranking boost provided by a "quality review" as a result of the payment

...it will be a little more obvious.

[peter_d]

I agree the FTC did not seem to spot/concur with this the last time around.

Indeed.

Maybe now with...1) a more prominent PPC element to the paid inclusion programs 2) a ranking boost provided by a "quality review" as a result of the payment ...it will be a little more obvious.

It will be interesting to watch.

[Jill]

It will be interesting to watch.

2 years...same time...same place!

[projectphp]

2 years...same time...same place!

But I wanna have that debate now.... <skulks off>

Last question from me: Have the FTC made any indication they will revisist this "issue". I have looked, can't seem to find anything!!!

[peter_d]

2 years...same time...same place!

For what?

[Jill]

PHP, I haven't heard anything to indicate that they're revisiting it.

For what?

To discuss our findings after watching for 2 years. (You did say it would be interesting to watch.)

[medkraft]

To discuss our findings after watching for 2 years. (You did say it would be interesting to watch.)

I'll bring the guinness.

Nice to know a university education is good for something.

I always thought it was about drinking and all night cram sessions (not necessarily in that order).

[AussieWebmaster]

I have yet to put our pages up on the PFI. But I was wondering if anyone has done this and if they found themselves on the front page clocking Clicks at 30c a piece?????

[donger]

What I am trying to figure out is if I sign up for Overture Site Match will this have a detrimental effect on my existing "free" listing in Yahoo and others sites? i.e. if I sign up for site match will my existing free listing be deleted because it will be a duplicate?

Just wondering if it is worth coughing up the $49 plus the minimum $50 to be reviewed and on their system and when the $50 runs out not to top it up or just forget the whole Overture thing and keep my fingers crossed that we are not pushed out of the Yahoo results?

Bobby

[Alan Perkins]

Bobby, your questions have all been answered a couple of pages earlier in this thread.

See posts by Trellian.

[PVMAA]

One of those obvious things that I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly: Yahoo, still as of today, does allow a company or whoever to register their websites for free? Then what? You get reviewed and if the site is "worthy" you get listed in their index? But among the many concerns discussed in this this forum, there's the concern that free listings will sink below paid listings? Thanks -

[Jill]

No, they don't generally review sites that their crawlers find automatically for free. At least not human review. Their algorithm determines whether they should be in the index and where they should rank.

Yahoo claims that there is no extra boost for the paid listings, but I think only time will tell if that's true.

Jill

[Trellian]

Yahoo claims that there is no extra boost for the paid listings, but I think only time will tell if that's true

As it happens we are in the process of doing our own tests, for URLs that are already indexed for free and rank well, where we then use Site Match on those URLs to see exactly what happens to rankings. Will post an update on our findings as they come in.

Cheers
David

[Jill]

That's great, David, thanks!

Jill