It's happened. LS AU charges are about to become annual.

[sanity]

Check it out:

https://www.webcity.com.au/secure/looksmart/looksmart/index.cgi?ordertype=multi

Sophie

[manwah]

Thanks for the heads up Sophie.

Regional Looksmarts have always appeared to be more of a franchise, what with BT Looksmart here in the uk, and the way they all seem to use different backfills. Still, it seems a bit odd that only the Australian directory has announced this and not the others...

Then again, after Yahoo, I guess this was always on the cards. Interesting to see that they are actually giving people notice, as opposed to telling everyone about the change after the fact.

I assume they saw what happened with the yahoo case and have decided that they want to encourage a last minute run on sales.

M

[Advisor]

Very interesting that they're doing it with the AU one first! No signs of it yet on the US one. I'm sure it won't be long.

Thanks for the info!

Jill

[MakeMeTop]

Maybe it is just that they are all doing it at the same time and Australia has spilt the beans ;)

Even if that is not the case - I'm not taking any risks and have banged in 8 today :)

[Advisor]

Yeah, I agree. They may be trying to keep it quiet so as not to create a riot...

Jill

[MsSearch]

Thanx for the info and the link, sanity....

as for keeping this quiet....it will be a bit chaotic if they unleash this the way yahoo did - with all the confusion and unclear terms of the renewal fee. I hope LS is a bit more organized...

...will be keeping my eyes on this one...

[sanity]

Glad to be of help :D

Did you notice it's also going up $AU110.00?

Sophie

[MsSearch]

What is that equivalent to in US dollars?

[sanity]

About $220. Our dollar is usually around US 50 cents. A couple of years ago it was always around 75!! :mad:

[Kal]

Holy Moley! Nice find Sanity. Time to submit a few and fast.

I gotta admit - I never use Looksmart AU. Do you know if submissions to LS AU automatically appear in LS.com? Would be a cheaper option that way.

[kneelsit]

Sanity,

Don't give em all a heart attack If your figure of $110 AU is correct then that's about $60USD.:D

[sanity]

Hi Kal, as far as I am aware (and I am known to be wrong at times ;) ) submissions to LS AU don't end up in LS.com. However, if you submit a regional site to LS.com it does end up in the appropriate regional LS.

I guess we better get submitting.

Sophie

[sanity]

Thanks Greg, maths has never been my strong point :rolleyes: So to the US people out there it is an increase of US$60. not US$110. Still cheaper than Yahoo down under.

Sophie

[kneelsit]

Sophie,

That's O.K.

Regarding Yahoo I must say I am glad I submitted back in 97 before all the money-grabbing infected the SEs.

What I think is really over the top is their ANNUAL fee on top of the $600AU submission. - Sheesh.:(

[sanity]

I totally agree Greg. Especially as with Yahoo! it's still no guarantee you will be listed :rolleyes:

I got a commercial site in Yahoo AU last year for free but this was before the fees went annual. Somehow I don't think it would be so easy these days.

Sophie

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by MakeMeTop
Even if that is not the case - I'm not taking any risks and have banged in 8 today :)Bet you're not :)ing any more, MMT.

[ihelpyou]

From the Looksmart AU guy:
LookSmart chief executive Damian Smith said: "There used to be a religious debate about search engines, but we now think users are less concerned about who has paid for the listing than about its relevance to their search.

"There's no such thing as a non-commercial search engine," he added.

According to Mr Smith, about 30 per cent of all searches carried out are commercial in nature, yet "users have never exhibited any willingness to pay for search results". That leaves it up to the search developers to come up with a viable model, he claims.
Use to be? Is his head in the sand? I believe users are very much concerned about if a listing is simply an "advertisement". Once they know exactly what it is, they stop clicking. Looksmart is clearly dillusional.
According to Mr Smith, about 30 per cent of all searches carried out are commercial in nature, yet "users have never exhibited any willingness to pay for search results". That leaves it up to the search developers to come up with a viable model, he claims.
Back when search engines were free to everyone, when was it that a site WANTED to pay to be listed?? I know users have not wanted to pay, so why the heck would a web site? I wish execs would tell it like it is and quit the spinning. Just simply say "we had to start charging, so the web site HAD to be charged to be listed."

What these .com's do NOT understand is that the more they go to a "paid advertisement" type thing, the more GREAT web sites that are informational in nature are going to be left out. This opens the door for many new search engines and directories to fill in the gaps. That does this do to that .com? It makes them LESS relevant with much fewer good, quality, high in content web sites who cannot afford to pay a penny or very little.

What gets me is that the net was built by the small businesses out there. It now is looking like a giant billboard and the only ones noticed are the ones who can pay the big bucks. A very sorry scene.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/05/1017206252889.html

$75 a click? Are you kidding me?? sheesh.

[kneelsit]

Looksmart is clearly dillusional.

Yeah I agree Doug they are "dills" and "usionall" of us to swell their profits. :D

Couldn't resist that one - particularly after I was picked up over "ducks and dicks" in another forum.

8)

[sanity]

Thanks for the link to the article Doug.

Funnily enough The Age (my hometown newspaper) only has stories on it's site for a day or two. Then you have to pay to read it :rolleyes:

Sophie