Read this Article

[ihelpyou]

"What's important is that there is honest disclosure and ensuring that (search engines) don't take ad money without informing consumers that they are doing so," Gluck said. "What it probably will do is favor the advertisers with the bigger budgets."

Here is the link:

http://money.iwon.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt.jsp?cat=USMARKET&src=201&feed=reu&section=news&news_id=reu-n29313915&date=20010729&alias=/alias/money/cm/nw

You are darn right all of this FAVORS the advertisers with the bigger budgets! Is this what the net was about back when? Is this what the net is about now?

BUNCH of bull****.

[JuniorHarris]

The Internet market research firm noted that paid search engine GoTo.com Inc. (GOTO) has seen nearly 30 percent revenue growth between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2001 while many ad-supported Internet companies have seen double-digit declines. - (Reuters (http://money.iwon.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt.jsp?cat=USMARKET&src=201&feed=reu&section=news&news_id=reu-n29313915&date=20010729&alias=/alias/money/cm/nw))

Bunch of hooey...they quote goto as having a 30 percent revenue growth, which apparently was/is not enough to be profitable as the increase in their minimum bids will shortly be in effect. Everyone chats about reviewing their ROI on Goto, well maybe goto needs to evaluate some ROIs as well.

[ihelpyou]

YEP.

Also JH, that guy over at the other place is getting lively in that thread. You make good points in there. Keep it up.

He absolutely has NO clue as to what he is talking about.

ha, he just made another stupid post.

[JuniorHarris]

I see said the blind man!~ :cool:

[bigDugan]

The paid placement models, however, have raised some ethical and bias issues

I think this will be the undoing of most PPCs.

Users will soon come to understand that PPC listings really have no "quantifiable quality" to them, with some of them barely matching the search terms!

It's not the "best" or "most popular" product that's listed first, instead-- it's whoever willing to spend more ad money.

Consumers will soon realize that it's not who spends the most on Goto that has the best product. And come to find out, with some products-- the opposite seems to be true.

Why would I use a site to look up anything, knowing that the only thing "driving" their results is cash money and not content?

Consumers want content, revelvency, and information.

The only reason I think Goto is still alive, is because they "mask" their results on their partner sites.

Without their partner sites, they would be DOA.

[ihelpyou]

Yep. And they happened onto the scene at a time when the major search engines were looking for different ways to make money.

Once the engines find other ways, PPC's will probably be a thing of the past.

[jimi_l]

NO KIDDIN HUH-WHAT A GYP!!
I cant even find a place to submit my URL to Yahoo, unless I want to pay that is. Skunked by the big$ outfits once again and the shame of it is the small guy may well be better suited to handle the job AND provide better service/support but will never have the chance.

[ihelpyou]

The bucks will go so far, until the public becomes very aware of what a GoTo listing at the top truly means.

[Mel]

HI All - Please wait a Moment while I buckle on my flak jacket securely as I don't want to get hurt by the fallout of the following:

Yes I agree with you that the PPC engines are providing results in return for money and that the content may or may not be there (depending on how smart the advertiser is)...

BUT in a way the same thing is true of SEO. The guys with the most knowledge and/or money get the best optimization and so the best ranks, not necessarily the guys with the best products or value proposition.

Its true that the (traditional) search engines are constantly trying to fiddle their algotithms so that everyone gets a shot at the brass ring, but there are a bunch of us out here working hard to keep aheaad of the engines.


Bottom line - no matter whether PPC or traditional the best product/value proposition will eventually win out. It's up to us, the SEO community, to ensure that we don't help promote worthless sites just to earn abuck.

[markymark]

Well said, Mel. Agree 100%.

[MazY]

Originally posted by Mel
It's up to us, the SEO community, to ensure that we don't help promote worthless sites just to earn abuck.

Hi, Mel.

When you say that "the guys with the most knowledge and/or money get the best optimization and so the best ranks" I'm not entirely sure what you mean there.

Are you saying the client with the most funds available or the SEO company with the most funds available? Either way, it seems like a somewhat sweeping statement. It would be a bizarre world where "most money" equated to "best results".

I could see that it may give a client more opportunities to keep trying but I struggle to see how it automatically means best results. That, surely, is down to many factors, other than just money?

I'm also not convinced that the reason why the search engines change their algorithms is so that "everyone gets a shot at the brass ring." I would rather hope they do it so that they maintain quality and relevant results, at least to the best of their abilities.

Again, I struggle to believe that any search engine developers sit back and decide to change their algorithm so that "this month we'll give those that have a keyword density of 5% a go at number one." It just wouldn't make sense. Rather, if they maintain a focused goal towards acutely relevant results then they are catering for what the user ultimately expects to find in a search engine - relevant results.

Then my confusion really begins to take a hold. Your end line seems to contradict what your earlier statement implied. Your end line intimating that ultimately the best product/value proposition wins out, whilst your earlier statement said that the most money gets the best optimization. Could you perhaps clear that up for me?

[Mel]

HI MazY;

Glad to MazY

Well... My basic premise here is that... well, just what I said -that site which has EITHER the best knowledge or can hire the best SEO will get the best ranks. Note that I did not say wins I said ranks.

I am not saying that the most money wins - but I am saying that the ranking a site gets from a search engine has very little to do with the value proposition of the site. By value proposition again I do not mean money, but what the site offers its viewers, be that great bargains, convenience, entertainment, hard to find items or a great philopsophy. The site is ranked solely according to how well it confroms to the search engines rules.

Again I am not saying that search engines change their algos to give everyone a shot at the brass ring, but it does have that effect, at least temporarily.

When you rank a site do you say to yourself "This is a great site which offers the best value propostion to its prospective viewers that I have ever seen so I'll do a bang up job on optimizing it"?; do you say "This is really a lousy site so I'll just do a mediocre job on it" I dare say you do the best you can for both of them. And the guy who knows nothing or does nothing about SEO is not very likely to get great rankings.

The last next to last para may not be as clearly worded as it should have been but you do need to differentiate between rankings and winning they are NOT necessarily the same. You normally don't build a web site just to rank high, but rather to sell something or entertain someone, or just to express your views.

So what I am saying is that regardless of your SE rankings a good site with a good value propsition will in the long run (assuming it can survive) win out over poor site even if it does have great rankings.
And the same thing is true of the PPC engines - you can buy yur ranking but if you don't offer your customers value you won't survive.

[MazY]

LOL Mel...

I thought you said you were going to clarify things for me? Now, apparently, I need to learn to differentiate between "winning" and "ranking"? Why is that? I do not recall using the word "winning" at all and I am certainly acutely aware of the differences. Very confused over that one. Unless, of course, you didn't mean "you" as such but rather "one"?

I still have to disagree with the notion that the ranking a site gets from the search engines has very little to do with the "value proposition" of the site. Surely, the SEO adds this value to the site?

Much the same way as if you unearthed a diamond and plonked it into the shop window, it may not appear as valuable as it does once it has been buffed and cleaned, etc. However, the core value is still there. It just needs bringing to the forefront.

Ah - your final paragraph makes more sense to me now! Yes, a good quality "value" web site will excel, assuming that is, it can get people to see the value. It's a vicious curcle. Whilst, in theory, one could sit and wait for all the top ranking sites to fall, this may take an awful long time.

It seems akin to planning to win a race by waiting for the others to run out of petrol before you even start your own car. A risky chance for sure.

[Mel]

Ah kind sir I beg to disagree with you;

People make web pages for some useful purpose, not just to get rankings.

Other people view the sites for some useful purpose also, such as getting information or perhaps buying something.

So while I agree that good seo and rankings adds value to the site from the perspective of the owner, it adds nothing when viewed from the perspective of the viewer, who is after all paramount since you are making the site for the viewer.

I have not said don't optimize your site; I have said by all means optimize it but give the viewer some value if you want to survive.

I would view you race analogy more like "which car is going to win, the one with the money spent on the engine or the one with the money spent on the paint Job?"

[MazY]

A big bag of respect to you Mel, for making me think. I like people who can do that!

How can optimisation not add to the user experience and perceived value however? Almost all sites that I have optimised, for example, have been much easier to read, far easier to navigate, contain only relevant information and have optimised graphics to boot!

So, I would argue that the viewer does in fact gain a great advantage from the optimisation process. Whilst it is true that he or she may gain nothing from the high ranking, he or she will certainly gain from a much improved site that becomes far easier to read, in many cases.

To bash an already well-bludgeoned analogy to its final resting place, I would quiz, "which one will people notice? The one with the expensive engine that they never see or the one with the brand new paint job that stands out a mile?" :D

[Mel]

Thank you MazY you have just proven my point.

Almost all sites that I have optimised, for example, have been much easier to read, far easier to navigate, contain only relevant information and have optimised graphics to boot!

You go beyond the bounds of SEO as perceived by many practioners of the art and add value to the site even though those improvements may not increase the rankings - which is my premise exactly.

To assist with the tombstone over the final resting place of our poor bludgeoned-to-death race analogy, may I offer an epitaph: :balling:

Here lie the remains of car double O seven
Hopefully now resting safely in heaven
He attracted the gaze of the admiring throng
But was greatly embarrassed is all I can say
When at the start he went the wrong way
Since his gearbox had been put in all wrong:cry: :balling: :balling:

[MazY]

Originally posted by Mel
You go beyond the bounds of SEO as perceived by many practioners of the art and add value to the site even though those improvements may not increase the rankings - which is my premise exactly.


Eh? LOL So exactly what do you perceive SEO as? Please don't tell me a few meta tag changes? It's optimisation remember, not modification!

[Mel]

Right on MazY

I perceive SEO in much the same way you do, but I am afraid not all our brethern will optomise the Graphics, make sure the content is relevant, make it easier to read or improve the site navigation. They will do what it takes to get ranking and leave those areas above to the site designers.

Many of them as a matter of fact will only allow the pages they optimize to reside on their own servers so if you stop paying they can pull your optimised pages.

[MazY]

Originally posted by Mel
Many of them as a matter of fact will only allow the pages they optimize to reside on their own servers so if you stop paying they can pull your optimised pages.

A practise which I find particularly distasteful. Though I confess to not fully understanding how this works. Anyone care to educate me? I do hate not knowing something!

[ihelpyou]

I agree. I actually find it kind of immoral. What happens is that the SEO is buying different domains and hosting them on their own server. They build "doorway" pages for the client and the page leads to the client site.

GREAT short-term traffic for the client I am sure. BIG problem is that if the client decides to quit the SEO at anytime, ALL traffic would stop on a dime, with the client left with NO optimized site and NO more traffic at all.

This does the client NO good at all except for the VERY short-term.