Doug, Did you post this on Yahoo [Archive] - SEO Best Practices Search Engine Forums

texas4qld

15-04-2002, 08:16/08:16AM

Thanks for the welcome Doug.

I am surprised that you have chosen our stock forum to vent your anger on the model change.

Whist it is an open forum and I can understand your need to speak out.
I would be careful just what you say.
I dont mean this as a vailed threat, I'm just saying that you may find yourself with a slander charge slapped on you.

We are individuals with no real profile for looksmarts lawyers to persue, However they may view a post from an organisation in a different light.

Anyway I'm no lawyer, so it's possible I'm way off.

with some luck Looksmart will put all of your concerns to rest and prove to be a model with even more value to it's advertisers, however distant that may seem to you at the moment.

It would also be appreciated if the rest of your members, would leave us in piece, as I believe that they have had a fair say, and it is now becoming a little over done.

Please keep this site going it's a great source of information.

ihelpyou

15-04-2002, 08:20/08:20AM

Thank you for your comments.

A member from your finance board posted in Here first and then proceeded to ridicule me and these forums in YOUR board at Yahoo. He posted a link to these forums as well.

How do you think I started posting there? I saw the referrals from there first. I will defend myself and these boards everytime. If you or anyone starts attacking me or these forums, I WILL speak out.

Please read the history on YOUR board first before making accusations about slander.

Furthermore, my post in there was a very good one as you can see.

ihelpyou

15-04-2002, 08:24/08:24AM

There is no way you can 'win' back the trust of a customer who trusted you at one time. Once you lose that trust, it's gone forever. A big mistake.
That is part of my post on your board. Please read it carefully,........ and then read it again.

texas4qld

15-04-2002, 08:27/08:27AM

Cheers Doug

I was not aware of one of our members posting on your board, can you tell me who it was ??

Be aware of one thing, they could have been a short.....baiting you for a reply to help their own cause.

Further I did not accuse you of slander, I simply said that looksmart may see it that way, and that I am no lawyer.

You have every right to defend yourself, just be sure of who you are replying to.

ihelpyou

15-04-2002, 08:29/08:29AM

No names in here will be mentioned.

He/she also Personally attacked me along with MY daughter on your board. Not good.

If you would read the entire history on your board you will quickly see I was very polite in there. You will also see your buddies were NOT so polite.

texas4qld

15-04-2002, 08:34/08:34AM

Clearly Doug there is little I can do about that.

But I can assure you that like your board, the majority are good people, and the ones I know would never stoop to such lows.

Please accept my apologies on behalf of the good folk.

ihelpyou

15-04-2002, 08:38/08:38AM

Thank you Tex. I know every board has the few bad ones. I also know that personal flames should not happen. It is one thing to have a debate/discussion with opinions being posted, but quite another when your family is thrown into the mix.

You have no need to apologize to me as you do seem like one of the 'good' ones. :)

You have to understand that I was a vocal supporter of LS for a few years. Do a search on these boards in the LOOK forum for the history of my posts and Looksmart. I was one of their biggest supporters as the many members in here can testify to.

texas4qld

15-04-2002, 08:47/08:47AM

Thanks Doug

Lets leave it there, I have read your previous posts and agree you have been a backer of looksmart.

Whilst it may appear that they have let you down, I feel Confident that ET has made the right decision, however unpopular it may seem at the moment.

For all you know I might be Him....lol.

When I decide to set up on the web, I'll come and see you guys first !!

JuniorHarris

15-04-2002, 14:15/02:15PM

Gadzooks!~ That thread is one interesting read!

Funny how those that stand to benefit from the change support it so viperously, whilst those that are adversely affected seem to have a different opinion. Reminds me way too much of that other PPC (ad engine) whose name (which changed) I won't mention!~;)

Amazing how finically troubled companies always seem to focus on short term gains without much (if any) consideration for long term impact to profitability and customer service!~ :eyes:

Bottom line: If you like the changes, then continue to use them and/or buy their stock. If you don't like the changes, discontinue use and/or sell their stock!~

Advisor

15-04-2002, 15:20/03:20PM

Those boards kinda show how dumb people who continue to recommend buying LookSmart stock really are. They sound like they're all in Kindergarten. It's quite an amusing little show they're putting on.

Jill

ihelpyou

15-04-2002, 15:25/03:25PM

Yes. I made a couple of posts and saw it was futile. To discount the 'customers' of LOOK is a mistake. Then to think it is only a few of us who are upset is a bigger mistake. A few? Try thousands of us.

I do see that a couple of them are starting to see that just maybe the customers of LOOK are a little important afterall.

texas4qld

15-04-2002, 18:27/06:27PM

Hi guys

The primary difference with your forum and ours, is we have some nasty shorts that want to bash the stock down.

I believe that they appear on your board from time to time, but have only just discovered the value of this technique.

Just for the record, we (as investors) follow the financial side of Looksmart very closley, and I'm happy to say that looksmart in the U.S. turned cash positive last quater, so thats not what I call "financially troubled", if you compare them to Yahoo and many others.

Like I said Looksmarts decision may not be popular at this stage, but if you acheive better results then before, the benifiets are great for all concerned.

I dont think it's fair to call the true believers of our board "dumb" I can assure you that the share price will be even higher come the Q1 results.
So lets stick to what we are good at, half the time I can't understand a word that you lot are saying (syber jargon) and I would not expect you to understand the cash flow side or the share trading side of Looksmart.

Take my advice, if you have sold your shares in Looksmart, buy them back while you can at these levels, I'm not ramping the stock, just offering sound advice based on the research we have done in the stock.
In time this will all blow over and the new changes will be seen as a great move in the right direction.

:cheers:

ihelpyou

15-04-2002, 19:44/07:44PM

Like I said Looksmarts decision may not be popular at this stage, but if you acheive better results then before, the benifiets are great for all concerned.
Okay Tex, how does one achieve 'better' results if they were listed in the directory for as little as $49 up to $299 for unlimited 'clicks' per month and per year, and now are 'upgraded' to receiving 'clicks' depending on how much money they cough up per month?

potjack

15-04-2002, 19:57/07:57PM

Great point Doug,
Relevancy is gone and the highest bidder is in.

texas4qld

15-04-2002, 20:20/08:20PM

O.K. Doug, I'll take a shot at it.
This is how I see it, now before you all get your machine guns out, just keep in mind that I am an investor, and my understanding of the advertising ins and outs is very limited.

With looksmart, when your budget runs out, traffic is paused until the start of the new month/billing cycle.
This has two effects:
(1) the advertiser has total control of their allowable budget.
(2) When your site is paused, another competitor will take your position (the same as one of those rotating billboards), when that competitor is paused and your site is listed again on the new cycle, you take their position.
For someone that has a limited budget, the model creates rotation, for the smaller guy this is a great beniefit.

On Overtures model, you can do the same thing, only in a different way, if you want to stay on the top then you have to bid the highest amount per click.
Most of the small guys are never going to be towards the top because, they simply don't have the budget to compete with the big boys.

Looksmarts model offers rotation, so everyone gets a piece of the pie, If you want a bigger slice (the same as the yellow pages) then you pay more to be more prominent.
This is the way of advertising, in any form the more you pay the more you sell !!

As you know Looksmart still offer free listings through Zeal for non commercial sites, wich is a lot more than others offer.
Add to that the new technology of Wisenut and you are starting to see a vast improvement in the strength of the model.

If exposer is what your after, then depending on what your site sells and what results you are after looksmart still offers more options then the rest.
The word is that some more interesting news will be announced this coming Friday or Monday ??

In closing, I can see your point in relation to extra costs, but the model offers the small guy some sort of chance of being close to the top.

:D

Alan Perkins

15-04-2002, 20:26/08:26PM

Hi Tex

Nice reply, although the truly relevant small business is the one losing out to the less relevant businesses they are rotated with! Anyway, enough of that. Earlier you saidjust offering sound advice based on the research we have done in the stockThe research you do in the stock now has to include research into the algorithm. Since they have gone PPC, the Looksmart algorithm (the new one that takes account of how much credit is in your account) now has to deliver a demonstrable Return On Investment (ROI).

Before, ROI was easy for Looksmart because the time to achieve it was unlimited. Now, the CPC means that regular, ongoing conversions need to be achieved in order to justify the investment. And note that the real CPC is far higher than $.15 since you have to take into account both management time and cost overheads in setting up accounts and modifying titles, descriptions and (especially) keywords.

So, is the new algorithm actually capable of delivering the goods? If not, no repeat customers and no business. What has your research into the new algorithm shown, Tex? How good IS its relevancy?

texas4qld

15-04-2002, 20:39/08:39PM

Need some time to answer that one Doug, I have to pop out of the office for awhile.

Stay tuned, I'll get back to you.

P.s. I love these little guys that you can attach !! 8)

aps

15-04-2002, 21:06/09:06PM

I do not personally use any of the PPC engines so I cannot speak as a paying customer. I can say that most "users" of search engines that I have explained the results they are getting are based upon paid positioning they are amazed. Most users have never heard of this and thought "all" search engines were based upon relevancy of their query. I have converted many users of other search engines to start using Google. At least Googles promotional advertising model is easy to spot and you know exactly who is paying and who is not. With all the PPC engines and directories serving up their completely irrelevant results based upon a bidding process and not “relevancy” to the topic – I fear quality results are soon becoming a thing of the past. I really do not believe most/any of the PPC models that are being used today will be here 5-years down the road. It is getting ridiculous to even find the “most” relevant content on these engines. Under the current systems the man/woman with the deepest pockets will win, and the users will lose – it can’t go on like this forever.

My 2-cents,

Dave S.

ihelpyou

15-04-2002, 21:16/09:16PM

Well Tex, that was Alan. :)

Also, before I can even get into what you are talking about, I first have to get over and through and beyond the "blanking" that I and my clients have received from Looksmart.

No one has bothered to tell me, either stockholders or Looksmart, how I am suppose to tell my clients who PAID a ONE-TIME directory fee, that the fee they paid for inclusion, is really NOT the fee they paid for inclusion?

NO one has told me or the many sites out there what and why Looksmart has done to them.

So, until the thousands of sites out there who have been "blanked" by LOOK, are given some kind of explanation, or at least some kind of Honest answer by LOOK, and not some SPIN coming from a PR department, these thousands of sites are pretty much done with Looksmart. That is, I should say, the Old LOOK customers.

Alan Perkins

15-04-2002, 21:22/09:22PM

Yes, Doug, but that is being discussed in other threads. In this thread, I thought "Suppose there was a big enough (non-alienated) potential user base. Can the Looksmart algo service it?"

kneelsit

15-04-2002, 22:32/10:32PM

Doug,

It is interesting to hear the viewpoint of an investor in L$. From their perspective on paper this latest move would APPEAR to be the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Continual funds rolling in year after year as long as the association with MSN holds good, since that is the only reason that I and thousands of others paid the L$ fee in the first place.

IMHO if L$ had any sense they would reconsider their approach and set up all future transactions with website owners along the lines proposed, (or some other arrangement) leaving those who had already paid in place under a "grandfather" clause as Yahoo did when they changed to paid listings.

It is their underhand and outrageous rip-off of changing the terms AFTER the event that has everyone up in arms. In short it is no different to a shonky builder signing a contract with you to build your home for a fixed price and then half-way through telling you that there will be an extra 500% added to that price
if you want a roof on your home.:mad:

Has anyone any knowledge of how close the association IS between M$ and L$. ?

Maybe its time we all started looking at Linux and opensource.

G.

nuzelonde

15-04-2002, 22:41/10:41PM

I'd be the last person to defend L$, but remember the share value has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with perceived financial performance.

L$ could well make a ton of money out of this - it's too early to say. We don't know what partnerships they are putting together to make this work. Droves could buy L$ shares simply because their broker told them to do so, or they liked the color of the logo. Investors are a fickle bunch.

The L$ model MAY work with 1/1000th of their present customer base, especially if auxillary results are supplied by a pure SE a la Yahoo. L$ then downscale their expensive directory operations to a cost effective PPC model while still providing relevancy.

L$ can have erm...."unusual" business practices and still be a profitable business. History shows that the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive positions.

ihelpyou

15-04-2002, 22:45/10:45PM

"Suppose there was a big enough (non-alienated) potential user base. Can the Looksmart algo service it?"
My answer to that would be,... oh sure it can.

LS picked up Wisenut for some reasons not entirely known at this point. My guess is that they will use Wisenut in calculating the relevancy of those sites "paying" for clicks. Somehow the title, description, etc, will be calibrated along with those sites who are paid up at any time of the month. The 'best' will fill in the positions from 1 thru 10 and so on. The Zeal sites will be thrown in for good measure but you can almost bet they will be given a tad bit less of importance in the scheme of things. LOOK will have to be very careful with any new clients they get from this. If they even make it seem like they are favoring the big spenders even a little, watch for the new clients to "buy one time" and leave.

Another PR problem this has shown for LOOK is that those large companies looking in from the sidelines also see how badly LOOK pissed off their current customers, and are now very hesitant to even try them.

OH yes, there are honest, trusting, and ethical large companies out there with heaps of money to spend on advertising. They just don't know yet where to spend it. Seeing how LS did their current customers does not set in well with them. They could easily give their bucks to Overture or Google instead.

texas4qld

16-04-2002, 01:08/01:08AM

Sorry Alan, not Doug, still getting use to the layout !!
Don't have an answer for you yet, please be patient with me, like I said I'm not a model specialist, like you
guys.

I look at things, from a business point of view, What I mean by that is I look at a companies strengths and
weaknesses, and to understand the full picture I need to know how you guys think.
To me It's like doing a crash course in cyber mechanics 101 !!

One thing I identified from Dougs previous comments was that Looksmarts association with MSN was one of
the reasons he has recommended them to his clients, I believe he said something to the effect of "msn's search
engine is on every new computer" or words to that effect.
Now heres how an investor views that comment, It is not a plus for looksmarts model to be so dependent on
MSN infact it's a bad thing.
You only have to look at the responce to Overture's share price when they lost Earthlink as a client, and the
possible effect of losing AOL (for the record I dont think that will happen on the 24th of this month).
To see that dependence on a larger company is a bad thing.

Now here comes the interesting part, Looksmart have announced that your inclusion to MSN is not guranteed ??
Wow thats a big call !!
To me this means ET as a responsible manager has identified the potential danger of being so dependent on MSN, it also means that making a statement like that would be suicide if you didn't have a back up plan ???
Maybe Doug, we are just seeing the first part of an emerging plan ??
That could be the only possible explaination.
Now dont start screaming about the MSN thing, lets just see whats around the corner ??

At the moment Looksmarts deal with MSN is until the end of 2004 (thats just going off memory), however either party can cancel the deal with six months notice, see !! we investors can some times answer your questions ...lol.

Anyway I agree that the models will keep evolving, over the next five years, as one of the posters said, so it's going to be difficult to tell your clients the true picture about any engine for some time to come.
If one thing can be learn't from this, it's that you will be telling your clients in the future, that models can, and will change.
And who know maybe they will be thanking you for putting them onto looksmart !!

We live in interesting times.;)

Advisor

16-04-2002, 01:21/01:21AM

Let's hope you're right and LS and MSN are no longer partners. Then we won't have to deal with LS ever again! Hooray!!! Hooray!!! They can partner with more scum like ezula, etc. and live happily ever after where ever it is that scum live these days. (Bottom of shoes?)

texas4qld

16-04-2002, 02:28/02:28AM

Scum....hmmmm charming comment.

I was expecting a more mature comment then that ??

:eek:

Advisor

16-04-2002, 02:48/02:48AM

Yes, scum. I was referring to the type of software such as Ezula..."scumware."

J

Mel

16-04-2002, 02:58/02:58AM

Originally posted by nuzelonde

..... L$ then downscale their expensive directory operations to a cost effective PPC model while still providing relevancy.
[/B]

I would be very interested in how you think they are going to do that as the two seem to me to be mutually exclusive.

This L$ "upgrade " is already a downgrade to their relevancy since very relevant sites will not be listed in the results once their clicks run out and less relevant sites paid for sites are put into their place.

It may be that investors will like the perceived (upgrade) but I have dumped all L$ shares that I had, since this stink is only going to get worse.

L$ have been clever enough to keep the existing listings just ticking over for the next 20 months, but at the end of that period I venture to predict that they will suffer a great decrease in the number of listings, and certainly in the relevancy of the listings.

My advice to L$ investors it to watch the signs from M$N, who are currently the only justification for L$ existance. If M$N decide that L$ relevancy is going down the drain and dump L$ then you might as well put your L$ shares alongside the toilet as that is all they'll be good for.

Mel

16-04-2002, 03:08/03:08AM

Originally posted by texas4qld
It would also be appreciated if the rest of your members, would leave us in piece, as I believe that they have had a fair say, and it is now becoming a little over done.

Please keep this site going it's a great source of information.

HI Tex:

Sorry, but the world needs to know just what a scurrilous thing L$ have done. I intend to let the investers know what the paying customers think of this violation of their contract and common ethics, and I can't think of a better place than "your" forum. I seriously doubt if a dose of truth and reality will hurt you guys that much.

I am aware that this may have an effect on the value of your holdings,and if so, you should do what you think best, given that it is those who hold L$ purse strings who are speaking out against this.

markco

16-04-2002, 04:24/04:24AM

Hi MEL,

I posted this on Yahoo and felt it was appropriate to put it here.

On the contrary,most people do look for things that are free or of value if they are prudent.

When you sign a contract it is "Binding" unless you can prove otherwise. Companies are not stupid when it comes to covering themselves in case of changes and circumstances within a business model.
They are covered. Whether the customers who are effected by the changes like it or not they have a choice.

1) Grim and bare it, anticipating that maybe for the company it is the best way forward and that perhaps there is a lot more to there decision making process than meets the eye.

2) Express your greaviences to Looksmart and explain why you will no longer be a customer of thiers. If you believe you paid for one thing and didn't get what you paid for.

Really, it cannot be much more simpler than that.
As you are very upset and feel you have been cheated, did you have the same compassion for the employees that were laid of last year due to the change in Looksmarts business model?

If not, then why expect shareholders here to sympathise with you. I would say alot here feel the same as I do. Caveat Emptor!!!
It is your choices you make. Therefore you are accountable for your choices, good or bad.

What Bank do you bank with?? Have they made massive changes and restructuring including shutting down branches, reducing staff.
What usually takes place?

You guessed it!! The shareprice goes up by cutting costs and increasing revenue.

Case Closed.

Looksmart are in the "Winners Circle".

Either Lump it or Like It.

More importantly, get over it.

Tomorrows a new day!!!

Cheers markco

Mel

16-04-2002, 04:31/04:31AM

HI All and especially Tex:

After reviewing both the posts in this thread and in the Looksmart thread on Yahoo there are two things that stand out to me:

1. If you want to make a difference in the investors thinking re Looksmart (and why not since you will be doing both them and us a favor) it is necessary that you post intelligently and use common sense and stay cool.

2. The vast majority of the posters on the Yahoo forum are treading on dangerous ground if they think they can survive by analyzing the L$ charts. I can only point to those who lost all in the dotcom bombout as an example.

In order to intelligently invest in a cyber stock you have to have an understanding of the business that stock is involved in, as well as the perceptions of the customers regarding that company.

Simplistic analysis like saying "PPC is the wave of the future" or "the charts point to continued growth" are likely to get your fingers burned.

Looksmart, like any business, depends on its customers to survive. If the customers stop buying, the funds dry up and the company dies. Economics 101 to be sure, but who are Looksmarts customers?

Unlike many businesses L$ have two major classes of customers one paying and one not:

1. The buyers of their services, many of whom are SEOs like those of us on this site, and companies and individuals who sell things on the web. Investors should clearly understand that these are now L$ ONLY paying customers as with their switch to PPC L$ will no longer be getting paid by the search engines for supplying their results to them, but now will have to PAY the search engines in order to supply their results.

These customers are only interested in results and ROI. This is dependant on what it costs to get their results before customers and how many click through and buy. Its not exactly rocket science to understand that a big part of this equation is the number of searchers using the service. These searchers are the second class of customers that we need to talk about.

2. The seachers. They are not dumb and, despite some claims to the contrary do not have a great allegiance to any particular search engine, they are looking for results, which in our parlace is relevancy. Look back a year or two and see the great shift from AltaVista to Google, only because they gave better results to the searchers (better relevancy).

What those on the Yahoo forum are failing to see, is that the first group of customers are by and large antagonized, and as a result may well decrease their spending with L$, and the validity of L$ scheme has yet to be tested on the second group of customers in the real world. In particular it will be VERY much more expensive to maintain a L$ listing, and I personally felt that previously the only justification for buying a LS listing was that is placed well on MSN, but was somewhat on the expensive side. Yahoo costs the same amount but I do not recommend that my customer list there until they have done so elsewhere.

IMO it is cheaper and gives a superior listing to pay for an Overture listing, which appears on MSN (the only place that counts) above the L$ listing. Both are now PPC listings and so the top location is preferrable, so here is one customers view of how to rank L$ stock, strong sell recommendation and buy Overture

Secondly, there can be no question that the relevancy of the L$ algorithm is greatly decreased by this new scheme, both because relevant listings will be dropped when their limits are reached, and replaced by less relevant listings, and because you can now BUY RANKINGS, (thus decreasing the relevancy) in the form of additional "relevancy" keywords to enhance your listing.

If the users perceive that the new results are not as relevant as before look to them to move to places like Google for better relevancy. This shift will not go un-noticed by customer group #1 who will react by spending less on L$ results, with inevitable consequences.

markco

16-04-2002, 04:45/04:45AM

Mel

16-04-2002, 04:55/04:55AM

Hi Marco,

This is the kind of thinking that I would guess will get lots of fingers burned, i.e.

"I do not understand the business model of the company or what the possible effects of thier actions are, but I don't want to discuss it"
Perhaps you would care to respond to/rebut my last post.

Sorry but I do not have to get over it, I just simply stop giving L$ my business, simple as that, and if enough people agree with me then goodby Looksmart and those who invested in them. You can get you first clues on July 11, when (IF) L$ reveal how many of their existing customer chose to stay with them.

markco

16-04-2002, 05:13/05:13AM

This is a further continuation....................................

Just another point about comparing banks to search engines.

Banks have been around for alot longer than the internet.

They are an evolutionary model that has existed with continueing changes being implimented.

The internet is still in the Infancy stage.
The original pioneers of search engines are either extinct or battling through the rapidly changing environment on how we do business.

Before the Tech crash, it was nearly impossible to value a search engine. Have a look at the over inflated shareprices. Originally Brokers could only put a value on a search engine by the amount of webpages that were being viewed. Why because when you had companies that were showing P/E 's with a rating of 400,500, 600 etc.... it was hard to justify when comparing other sectors and industries. No one really new at the time the true value of the internet.

Thankfully, we have come along way since then.
Looksmart are one of the pioneers (survivors) that has emerged relatively unscathed when comparing a company like Yahoo etc...
They are here to stay and in fact grow as the internet grows. The internet will grow. Why?Because of the Telecomunication giants and media around the globe that are bringing it all together under one umbrella.
This is an evolutionary event. Pricing is also subject to change depending on the supply and demand of the service. Am I wrong???

Do Governments introduce policies knowing that they will get some negative feedback? Of course they do. Are not the gov'ts voted in?
Directors of companies are also voted in and to make changes for the betterment of the company and its shareholders. The decisions they make will not always please the customer.

==============================================

There are certain companies that I won't invest in as I believe they are immoral. However, not every investor shares my view and it is not up to me to judge or criticise them for that.

I make my own decisions just as you do.

Heralding the investors forums is not the way to go if you are wanting to vent anger and frustration towards LOOKSMART.

When a Bank implement decisions that may have adverse effect in the short term on customers and businesses, Business Organisations target: 1) The Media 2) The Board

You are venting your anger and frustrations at the wrong people.
Whats more it will fall on deaf ears. Investors, generally know alot more than what you give them credit for.

Tex mentioned about possible new deals.
Looksmart are not cashstrapped as some here would believe.

There is a high probability, that Wisenut will be used in the Asia region with you guessed it. PPC. Others will follow suit.

I have already mentioned this once before. If you want to cut down your costs by a large amount , Buy Looksmart shares.

Unless of course, you believe that what they did was immoral.

The choice is yours.

To Doug, I apologise if I have offended you.
We will agree to disagree.

But really, coming over to a forum that is very biased, and expressing your views in a "know it all manner" and putting investors down even though many of them read yours and other Webmaster Forums is like throwing the Christians to the Lions or committing internet suicide.
Hope it does become sorted out so that we can all go about our daily business.

Cheers markco

MakeMeTop

16-04-2002, 05:14/05:14AM

There is a third alternative, markco - which is we take our business elsewhere. I couldn't care less if L$ want to charge $1K for a listing or charge $1 per click. All I care about is what return I can get for my/my client's $. If it made economic sense to continue with L$, I would do it. It doesn't, I can get better positions on a greater coverage for less money, so I won't. If it becomes a viable option again, I will - end of story.

I deliberately haven't posted on the Yahoo board as I don't see the relevance of discussing what we (the L$ customers) do with L$ shareholders - although we are both interested in the same thing - a return on our investment. Shareholders think they are going to get a return through this move which is fine. Many customers don't think the investment is worth it. The hard reality of the business world will show who is right.

Maybe this new L$ package is a great deal and we've all missed the plot somewhere - but most of us deal with all the search engines every day. I spent just over $1K on paid inclusion yesterday alone - I would have spent a further $598 with L$ but haven't. Not because I'm angry with them - but because I just can't see the benefit. I know that I'm not alone in this.

L$ have just suggested I spend $3.3K per month to maintain my current listings. Why, when I can get 5 times the coverage for one third of the price? I certainly don't expect a free ride from any search facility, I'm one of the few who actually LIKE paid inclusion plans - but only if it makes financial sense. I'm sorry, but this just doesn't. We are the primary L$ sales force - now I'll choose to sell an alternative service because it gives me and my clients a better return. Personally, I think that is a shame.

Mel

16-04-2002, 05:25/05:25AM

Originally posted by markco

I posted this on Yahoo and felt it was appropriate to put it here.

On the contrary,most people do look for things that are free or of value if they are prudent.

When you sign a contract it is "Binding" unless you can prove otherwise. Companies are not stupid when it comes to covering themselves in case of changes and circumstances within a business model.
They are covered. Whether the customers who are effected by the changes like it or not they have a choice.

1) Grim and bare it, anticipating that maybe for the company it is the best way forward and that perhaps there is a lot more to there decision making process than meets the eye.

2) Express your greaviences to Looksmart and explain why you will no longer be a customer of thiers. If you believe you paid for one thing and didn't get what you paid for.

Really, it cannot be much more simpler than that.
As you are very upset and feel you have been cheated, did you have the same compassion for the employees that were laid of last year due to the change in Looksmarts business model?

If not, then why expect shareholders here to sympathise with you. I would say alot here feel the same as I do. Caveat Emptor!!!
It is your choices you make. Therefore you are accountable for your choices, good or bad.

What Bank do you bank with?? Have they made massive changes and restructuring including shutting down branches, reducing staff.
What usually takes place?

You guessed it!! The shareprice goes up by cutting costs and increasing revenue.

Case Closed.

Looksmart are in the "Winners Circle".

Either Lump it or Like It.

More importantly, get over it.

Tomorrows a new day!!!

Cheers markco

I would like to repond to this interesting bit of non sequiter.

"Companies are not stupid when it comes to covering themselves in case of changes and circumstances within a business model."

The question is not whether L$ have good lawyers, but whether they have any moral or ethics. Customers (and I am one) do care.

We customers do not only have the two choice you do kindly gave us we also have one other choice that you conveniently forgot - we simply stop doing business with them, which if you take the trouble to read is what most of us advocate.

"WE" are that group that both L$ and its investors seem to have forgotten - the customers.

Do I have any compassion for the LS employees who were laid off when L$ failed to generate enough revenue to keep them on? Why are you asking me that question when you say that is the way to profits and making money for the investors ( at least for banks)?

As to whether LS are in the winners circle is far from determined, but I am not sure that you relaize that the previous LS revenue stream derived from two main sources - their customers and the search engines who paid them for suppling results to them. The second stream is now gone and L$ now have PAY the SEARCH ENGINES in order to get their results shown. Have you thought about how that is going effect the next quarters figures?

Surely you know that the number of people who use LS directly to search is so small that most of us totally ignore it? Sorry Marco but your lack of knowledge is showing.

Mel

16-04-2002, 05:36/05:36AM

HI Marco

There is a high probability, that Wisenut will be used in the Asia region with you guessed it. PPC

This is a real jewel. PPC is dead as the dodo in Asia, so if this is true it will be just one more nail in L$ coffin.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", especially in the hands of an investor

angelina

16-04-2002, 06:18/06:18AM

I hope I won't be flamed again for honestly stating my own opinion, but given my past experience on this board, I'm sure I will be. But I can take it:)

Doug - why should LS be responsible for what you tell your own customers? They have trusted you to submit their site to LS for them (when they could have easily done so themselves) and as a professional, it was your job to review the Terms of Service, FAQ, etc. with them, so that they could make an informed decision about their purchases. The simple truth was - the TOS stated that the $299 was an expedited review fee only, and was NOT a payment for placement, or for clicks, or anything else. I don't have a copy of the old LS TOS right now, unfortunately, but I know it was similar to Yahoo's. I'm not sure what you told your customers they were paying for, but I don't think it's LS's job to advise you on what to tell them now.

Yahoo's Submit Terms of Service

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/suggest/terms.html

Read it - it's very clear to me. Of course, customers may continue to think they are paying for yearly placement, but this is not the case. Perhaps their professional SEOs told them so?

I've noticed lately that almost all the Terms of Service I agree to state that they may change at any time, and it is my responsibility as a customer to revisit them regularly and review for updates. Of course, I rarely take the time to do so, but that is my choice (and perhaps mistake.)

From Google's AdWords Terms & Conditions, #2:

Agreement. By enrolling as an Advertiser with Google using the Online Signup Form, you agree to be bound by the Terms set forth below, the Google Advertising Policy (which may be updated from time to time and which is incorporated herein by this reference) and the AdWords Select Program Frequently Asked Questions ("FAQ") referenced below (which may be updated from time to time and which is incorporated herein by this reference), and the terms and conditions of any advertising campaign that you submit or modify (collectively the "Agreement"). In the event of a conflict between these Terms, the FAQ and the Google Advertising Policy, the Terms will take precedence, then the Advertising Policy and then the FAQ. You acknowledge and represent that all information you provide for the purpose of enrolling as an Advertiser will be accurate, complete and current.

Sound familiar? Their TOS takes precedence over their Advertising Policy, so customers had best read the TOS as thoroughly as they do the marketing speak.

From Microsoft's Term of Use section:

Fees; Payment

Microsoft reserves the right to charge listing fees for certain listings, as well as transaction fees based on certain completed transactions using the Services. Microsoft further reserves the right to alter any and all fees from time to time, without notice. Click here to see the current Fee Schedule; and check the Fee Schedule for any updated fee information each time you use the Services.

You shall be completely responsible for all charges, fees, duties, taxes, and assessments arising out of the use of the Services.

I could find many more, but you get the picture. Almost all TOS's these days contain a clause stating that the current TOS may change at any time, without notice.

Doug - what will you do if one of your clients wants to use his/her free clicks for the full 20 months? Or check out his/her click cap report? If you used your own email address to submit your clients' sites, this info will only be available from your account.

Let the flamers begin! But I wish this forum would allow for differences in opinion, without all of the hostility and insults. If you don't agree with me, fine. If my opinions aren't welcome here, fine. Just be honest about that and let all forum users know that dissenting opinions aren't always welcome. (maybe in your TOS?)

Mel

16-04-2002, 06:42/06:42AM

HI Angelina:

No problem you opinions are welcome, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with them does it?

Yes legally Look$mart are within their legal rights to change anything they like at any time they like, as is any site on the web if you look at the TOS.

The question here is that Looksmart has for several years practiced a business model as a directory, and succeeded in attracting a large amount of customers to their directory because the customers liked their business model and felt that the ROI was worth it. IMO the customers had a reasonable right to expect that this was what they were paying for - certainly there was nothing on the site to indicate otherwise.

Now with no advance notice they have said that sorry we no longer offer that business model you will have to pay more if you want to be included in our results. How much more? - look at MMTs case where his costs have gone from $299 for a perpetual inclusion to $39,900 per year for the same listing.

To most of us it appears to be a grab out our pocketbooks, and we are not happy (when you buy that new car at a special discount and find out afterwards that it is going to cost you another $5000 if you want an engine included (yes its in the fine print so its legal) are you happy?

What you may not be seeing in these posts is that there is not only anger at this bait and switch tactic, but sorrow at the passing of what used to be a relevant directory.

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 07:39/07:39AM

hey angelina, yep, your opinion is just dandy, but no, I don't agree with it. :)

Never in a gazillion years did anyone think LOOK would make a change that included sites who had already paid and who were under the impression that it was a one-time fee. As Jill said earlier, the LS pages had all over them:

ONE-TIME FEE

That was virtually on every page leading to the order to submit your site to them. This whole thing could have been avoided if they would have grandfathered the old listings as YAHOO did when they went to a yearly fee.

Can you tell me the last major company to make a change and also pull a bait and switch on their current customers?

Trust me, I tell every client that the fee is/was a "Review" only. That is not the point. The point is that the perceived value, and a value/benefit that Looksmart Promoted ALL OVER their site was that you would be included in their directory and throughout their partner network with the ONE-TIME payment.

Those are the facts. I could care less what the heck the TOS said. This will go to court, you can bet on that.

MakeMeTop

16-04-2002, 07:54/07:54AM

>$299 for a perpetual inclusion to $39,900 per year

Hmm, just logged in again and it has gone up to $43,200 :D

Alan Perkins

16-04-2002, 08:01/08:01AM

Originally posted by MakeMeTop
Hmm, just logged in again and it has gone up to $43,200 :D<spin>Congratulations!</spin>

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 08:05/08:05AM

To Markco and Tex:

How many sites are currently in the LOOK directory? I don't know the answer to that right off. You all should know if you are investors, I would think.

Now, how many of those sites got in via their owner/inhouse webmaster? I don't know that either.

How many of those sites got in via a 3rd party, either a SEO or webmaster? I don't know that either.

How many sites got in absolutely free? I don't know that either.

You will have to figure that the majority of sites got in via a SEO or via inhouse means. Now, how many of those sites feel that a 'bait and switch' was pulled on them? When all of these sites realize what happened, I think it's safe to say that ALL of them will feel that way. Right?

How does a company such as Looksmart survive? Do you think they can survive by continually pulling stunts like this with customers? Are customers the one thing that brings in profits?

I know of a few large companies I have Already talked to who have stated that they are NOT in LOOK right now, but have already heard about what happened, and they flat out Refuse to spend any money with Looksmart now. They had to make a choice as to how they wanted to spend their dollars and will not/do not spend advertising dollars on companies they feel are extremely immoral and unethical.

Think about that a minute as you are thinking about all those sites that are in the directory and are also very displeased/amazed/pissed/astounded/you name it, at having been taken for a ride by LOOK.

Think about that further when you also think about the fact that many sites are listed with LOOK via a SEO such as many in here and many at ALL the other SE forums out there, who are also truly shocked/amazed/astounded and PISSed at this bait and switch that LOOK as pulled off. They are the ones who have promoted LOOK all these years and have submitted thousands of sites to them.

Add all that up. Do customers of companies feed companies like Looksmart their revenue? I think so.

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 08:06/08:06AM

LOL.

Yes, congrats MMT, you have just been ....

UPGRADED

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 08:30/08:30AM

OH MY GAWD.

I logged in to the account with the mostest sites in it to see since Jill said your card would not be activated.

Oh my. I am totally confused. You mean they lump all your sites into one big pile and you only get 100 clicks times the number of sites you have?

So if I have half my sites that have reached the 100 clicks already and the other half have not, they are all sharing the clicks?

I am confused.

Barry, your couple of dollars per year looks good to me right now. Okay, without looking at my other accounts, I am guessing that my monthly budget would be around $8000 or $96,000 per year. Oh my.

I have only looked at one account. I have two more accounts with LOOK with more sites in them. These people are absolutely lunatic if they believe I will let them use my card to charge up these outragious fees on it monthly.

I cannot believe it. I guess it really did not sink in until I saw the dollar figures. $$$$$$$$

Oh my.

THis has got to be the biggest "bait and switch" per your dollar in world history. I cannot think of a company anywhere who went from a one-time fee of revenue to trying to get HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars per month from their existing clients.

Oh my.

oh geez, I am waaaay off. That should read,

hundreds of millions of dollars PER MONTH from their existing clients.

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 08:41/08:41AM

Now Markco and Tex,

Are you starting to see what the heck we are trying to tell you and your friends?

SEO's are very much in control of MANY MANY sites in LOOOK right now. WE can spend the money or NOT spend the money.

What do you think?

markco

16-04-2002, 08:44/08:44AM

Mel not only do you talk ****, but you can't even read properly.

2) Express your greaviences to Looksmart and explain why you will no longer be a customer of thiers. If you believe you paid for one thing and didn't get what you paid for.

Here we have a star pupil.

Mel, Seriously get your eyes tested.

EXPLAIN WHY YOU WILL NO LONGER BE A CUSTOMER.

Did you get it MEL ?

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IT SAYS???

Thats right MEL 2nd choice. You and your customers can leave.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Anotherthing, Mr F@@@in Know it all,

You live in Malaysia. Correct!!!! Have a look around you.
Japan. China. China a quarter of the Worlds population.
Japan PPC is not DEAD !! That is a LIE !!! or you are talking through your arse. Look at what is happening behind closed doors.

You have already expressed that you know little about Investing.

For a so called business person You know Sweet F@@k ALL ???

Final point. The Analogy I used re: Looksmart employees stood down. If investors were not particularly concerned that employees were shredded from Looksmart last year to pave way for a different direction, why on earth would they care about you.

I don't. Bottom line buddy.

If anyone wants to come over and hurl insults around the Yahoo board, then you are more than welcome, but be warned !!!

I will not be back so you can insult me as much as you like here.

But don't try it on the Yahoo board.

Oh Yes Mel,

I am laughing all the way to the bank !!!! 600% shareprice increase in less than 6 mths and increasing.

You see Mel. Talks Cheap!!! Bottom Line !!!!

I Win. Are your businesses doing as well???

Cheers markco

:D

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 08:48/08:48AM

I did not see Mel insulting you in here nor did I see him use that language in here with you.

STOP NOW or you are banned markco. Period.

You have been warned and you only get one warning. Your stuff don't fly here like you get away with on YAHOO.

Stop now. Play nice or simply don't play. Your stuff ain't wanted here if you act like that.

Tex is welcome as he is very cool and makes good posts.

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 08:53/08:53AM

Thats right MEL 2nd choice. You and your customers can leave.
LOL.

Markco, are you seeing the dollar amounts that have been posted above? Do you understand what you are saying with that kind of statement? Do you really wish that as a stockholder?

Are you kidding me?

Do you realize that Mel, Barry, Myself, and others on here are SMALL SEO's and that there are MANY more of us out there that have MANY more clients listed in their accounts? Do you realize what you are saying by telling us that we and our customers can leave?

Some stockholder you are. Oh my.

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 09:07/09:07AM

BTW Jill and Kal and others, I have sites who have already reached the 100 click limit and still going. If I would "activate" my account, they say I will be extended for 20 months the 100 free clicks. Obviously, by NOT activating now and waiting until July, I will continue to receive clicks as normal. It's only when I "activate" does the 100 click thing start.

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 09:16/09:16AM

To LOOK stockholders:

You know, I am a stockholder as well but of course, not one of LOOK. I have always felt like I was part of the company I hold shares with. I have also felt that I have a say in things, whether a big say or not.

I would think that current stockholders of LOOK would wish to flock to this board in droves to curtail the bad PR that Looksmart is getting in here and elsewhere? I would think that stockholders would do everything they could to explain the benefits of spending money at LOOK to the very people who are upset and who control a heck of a lot of current sites in Looksmart? I would think all these things.

Instead, I have heard ZERO from stockholders in here or at the Yahoo board of any benefits I would have to keeping all my sites spending money with Looksmart. It boggles the mind to think that you of all people would rather rant and rave about how great LOOK is, and not want to tell us WHY we should stick with LOOK?

Please help me understand why you would not wish to change my thoughts and feelings about this 'bait and switch'. Please tell me why you would not wish to keep your current customers spending money in LOOK? Please tell me why you do not seem to want ME and others to understand your side of things and understand why we would benefit continuing to use the LOOK directory.

Knowing the dollars that we control as a group, and the 'group' is a heck of a lot bigger than you seem to realize, why would you not want to change our feelings about things?

Explain all of this to me. Thanks.

Mel

16-04-2002, 09:46/09:46AM

Marco:

The truth hurts doesn't it?

FYI yes I live in Malaysia, and I am a search engine pro, one who is going to be laughing all the way to the bank when your obviously uniformed investments bankrupt you.

Since you have no knowledge to impart and seem incapable of carrying on a civilized discussion I will not be replying to your stupidity any further.

Hope

16-04-2002, 10:43/10:43AM

Hi Folks,

I have a question. I did not recieve an email from LookSmart because I don't have any clients that I have submitted to LookSmart yet.

I understand that L$ has changed to a PPC. What happens to all the Non-Profits and the sites that were submitted before the "One Time Fee of $299"?

Are they all going to lose their listings? Are they expected to start paying now? Has L$ even thought about these listings?

Ok, I guess I have more than one question. I never claimed I could count. :rolleyes:

Advisor

16-04-2002, 11:02/11:02AM

Heidi, it appears that non-profit sites that got in before the pay-day or in through Zeal should remain there. Doug, believes they will bury those listings, but I think we'll have to wait and see. Nobody really knows anything other than the propaganda we have been fed by LookSmart, through their site, their emails, and our LS accounts.

Things look so bad right now that I wouldn't be surprised if LS backs down at some point (before July) and grandfathers people, or changes the rules a bit. When you look at the numbers, it just doesn't make sense that they actually believe people will pay that amount. What they will eventually do is anyone's guess. If they are stubborn and keep things as they are, we can all kiss them goodbye, I'm sure. But I doubt they're that stupid. Who knows?

Jill

nuzelonde

16-04-2002, 18:54/06:54PM

Mel said...

This L$ "upgrade " is already a downgrade to their relevancy since very relevant sites will not be listed in the results once their clicks run out and less relevant sites paid for sites are put into their place.

If I were L$, I would do this:

a) Look to cut costs on the directory business. I would go PPC on the directory stuff and serve the top three results to partners a la Overture. You'll lose a high percentage of your existing customers, but you'd gain and keep the type of customers L$ want: those who will pay on an on-going basis.

Aside: A leading international advertising firm recently dumped 80% of their customers in order to concentrate on the top 20% of their customers. These top 20% customers generate most of the income, but cost relatively little to service.

b) Leverage the Looksmart brand - introduce Wisenut (renamed Looksmart) to supply results 4 onwards. Gives you credibility so long as the top three results are clearly labelled.

Result: this model would cut costs and position L$ for growth.

Whether they are smart enough to do this remains to be seen.

Advisor

16-04-2002, 19:10/07:10PM

texas4qld

16-04-2002, 19:38/07:38PM

Hi Barry, Mel, Jill, Doug, Heidi, and anyone else if forgot...sorry.

Yes!!!
As an investor I do care about you guys.
Thats why I have monitored this board in the past.
And like of have said, it's hard to understand a lot of what you say, simply because my time is limited, I run a business as well as trade stock, and spend as much time with my family as I can.

I hear what you guys are saying, and intend to follow it up with Looksmart.
I have also heard, words like Confused, not sure, and maybe.
And there lies the problem.
I have said to you guys that there is some news coming and that I'm not a ramper, so trust me o.k.
Now I know that you guys are not investors and you feel that you should only hold stock in a company that you believe in.

So it's a waste of time trying to convince you otherwise, you don't know me from a bar of soap, and like is said...I could be ET.

One thing I ask of you, is give this thing time to develope, all will be revealed soon.
I see doug posting some big figure$ and it doesn't make logical sense that Looksmart would expect you all to come up with that sort of Do$h on such short notice, there has got to be more to the picture.

Jill has suggested that if this uprise continues Looksmart will have to look at it, and I agree.
If what you guys are saying is correct, there is no sense in Looksmart going up this path.
So from an investors point of view, there must be some logical reason for the changes.

So I ask you again, lets see where this is going....and make sure you are in on this stock for the mean time...thats just a freindly tip.

In realation to the question, about looksmarts customer based (sorry I forget who asked it) that information is not made available, except for total customers which is 80k on last report, I do know that Wisenut boast 1 billion url's but can not confirm that.
I'll try and find out how many url's Looksmart claim to have, I'm reasonably sure I can find that without looking too hard.

I'll do you all a favor, and stop posting for awhile, I'll get back to you when I get a reply from ET or when the news I speak off hits the street.

In the mean time, be happy !!!

:D

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 19:47/07:47PM

Very good Tex. I'm a patient guy. If we are not seeing all that is in store, then I will wait until I do anything. If LS has 80K in the directory right now, the vast majority of that is only because of people like Mel, Jill, Barry, Markymark, MazY, MsSearch, savvy, highman, juniorharris, nuzelonde, Hope, angelina, MMT, alan, myself, and other members in here and elsewhere just like us.

Sorry if I missed someone... I'm sure I did. :)

Wisenut's urls don't figure into this equation as they got into WiseNut for free to begin with. It will be interesting how LOOK might use WiseNut, although I do believe it will be just for the technology.

Come back as soon as you got the scoop. PM me if necessary.

Kal

16-04-2002, 20:20/08:20PM

Two of my client sites have already reached their 100 click maximum in 4 days!! Here's how I found out - Looksmart sent an email to me:

----------------
Your Small Business Listing http://www___________ has already received the click limit of 100 you have set for this listing.
This means that all traffic from our network to this listing has been temporarily interrupted.

In order to continue receiving traffic from our network to this listing, we recommend removing your click limit.

LookSmart Notice: Based on your listings' performance, your budget may be reached within your current billing cycle. Reaching your budget will cause traffic to your listings to be temporarily paused. Increase your monthly budget to $1,200 to ensure that your sites continue to receive valuable traffic from the LookSmart Network.
------------------

For one account, I am now receiving $120 worth of free clicks per month whereas by their own admission, the value of this L$ account under the old system was $1,200. So according to their own figures, they have clearly reduced the value of my investment by 1000%. And they expect me to happily increase my monthly payments by 1000% just to get what I was already getting for nothing? Are they kidding? :eek: :eek: OK LOOK shareholders - let's see you explain the positive side of this one?

Advisor

16-04-2002, 20:35/08:35PM

Maddening, no, Kal? Simply maddening! No matter what ET (is he an extraterrestrial or something?) has in store, it will be very, very hard to gain back any good will or trust with users who have had to see this happen over the past two weeks. Very hard, indeed. LS will have to send a real letter, such as the one ActDumb posted in another thread, say that they screwed up bigtime, apologize and offer something great in return. I have a hard time believing this will happen. Even if it does, many may not return.

Jill

Alan Perkins

16-04-2002, 21:01/09:01PM

ET is Evan Thornley, Looksmart's CEO.

texas4qld

16-04-2002, 21:44/09:44PM

From the OZ board

Past customers of Express Submit or Basic Submit were automatically transitioned to a Small Business Listing and sent notification emails. For each Small Business Listing, your account has been credited with $15 worth of free clicks per month. If you have activated your account, you will receive the $15 worth of clicks each month for 20 months, for a total value of $300 worth of free clicks. You have the opportunity to add relevancy keywords to your listing by using the Update Listing product. You can also purchase additional clicks each month by increasing your monthly budget. For more information, please log in to your account and select the link 'More information about my past purchases' on the Account Summary page.

:cheers:

nuzelonde

16-04-2002, 22:03/10:03PM

Nuze, that sounds like a good plan! But to do that, wouldn't they have to do a whole bid thing, as opposed to the 15 cents click thing? I'm not sure they're set up for that, not to mention that Overture would probably sue them. Or did you plan have another method?

Like I said, it's what I'd do if I were running L$. Last time I looked, I wasn't ;) I suppose I'm suggesting they may have more up their sleeves than is first apparent. One certainly hopes so - on the face of it, they look like the've commited suicide.

Incidentily, I've just been screwed twice. L$ are reporting I've exceeded my click limit and my sites will be dropped, yet immediately below, their count shows the click limit hasn't been reached. They can't even get their own (sordid) story straight!

They have no credibility whatsoever. Their tracking stats have no credibility whatsoever. Where's the cross checking? The auditing?
Where's my #$%^ response to my numerous e-mails?

I'm going to have them for breakfast.

:mad: :mad::mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

nuzelonde

16-04-2002, 22:45/10:45PM

Look "angelina" or "bettyblue", I know you're a L$ plant. Suggest you slither back to whence you came with the message "they're not buying it"

Cause we ain't...

MazY

16-04-2002, 22:47/10:47PM

OK. I've stood back and watched this whole thread while the initial knee-jerks took place, then the worst-case scenarios, then the slating. All sounds rather familiar...

Now bear with me as I'm just typing here with no real agenda other than to ask a few questions and post a few comments that have come to me as I've been reading through this over the last day or two.

My first question is why do you bother to estimate and then post your worst case scenarios? If the situation is as bad as you claim then let the facts speak for you, don't rely on potential horror stories that are based on your best guesses.

Onto the "GrandFather" issue. Here's the bit I really don't understand - why moan about it? Feel like you have a legal case? Take it up with the legal authorities. If you are that confident that you can shout about being conned, duped, etc. in a public arena then you should be confident enough to do that. If not then you're just moaning with absolutely no effect whatsoever, other than to appease your own sense of retribution.

I'm a great believer in put-up or shut-up and saving the ears of those who have to listen to the interim big-guy talk while that decision is made.

It seems to me that a great many have assumed immediately that their clients will not like it, as though somehow displacing your own feelings of the subject will automatically be adopted by them.

Sure enough, if you sell it in a negative manner then you can bet your bottom dollar it will be received in a negative manner. But your client is surely the best person to decide if LookSmart's new policy is within their budget, plans, etc?

Surely your job is to give out the facts to your clients, without tainting it with your own possible dislike for the "new way" of Looksmart's business? Let them decide for themselves. By selling theory to your clients, not fact, you are doing them and yourselves a grave disservice.

From a personal perspective, on the face of it, I think LS have shot themselves in the foot a little with this one. But then one of the directories had to sooner or later. What is it they say, you don't know how much is enough until you know how much is too much? Something like that.

Clearly PPC is a good money-spinner and people are, like it or not, mostly inherantly greedy. Enough is rarely ever enough. (Whether that be in finance, rankings, or whatever.)

It is my opinion that this will, in the end, be a push too far from LookSmart on the wallets of those who keep it alive. But time will tell.

What I do know for sure is that not one word of your decrying them will have a single effect on LookSmart's policy. Only positive action can do that. Question is - are you just shouting again or are you actually going to do something about it this time? You have the lead in this case. I know which one my money is on...

nuzelonde

16-04-2002, 22:57/10:57PM

Mazy - legal action takes far too much time, is too expensive and, in this case, would be unproductive. What would you stand to gain?

The most effective protest is with our pocketbooks, en masse.

MazY

16-04-2002, 23:03/11:03PM

Originally posted by nuzelonde
Mazy - legal action takes far too much time, is too expensive and, in this case, would be unproductive.

As opposed to shouting and whinging? Sorry, I'm not being flippant. (Well, not intentionally.)

The most effective protest is with our pocketbooks, en masse.

Agreed. Let's see how many go for it though... Experience tells me that even the most ardent shouters are, more often than not, the ones who rarely take any action other than just that.

Kal

16-04-2002, 23:17/11:17PM

Originally posted by MazY
Onto the "GrandFather" issue. Here's the bit I really don't understand - why moan about it? Feel like you have a legal case? Take it up with the legal authorities. If you are that confident that you can shout about being conned, duped, etc. in a public arena then you should be confident enough to do that. If not then you're just moaning with absolutely no effect whatsoever, other than to appease your own sense of retribution.

Maz surely that's what these forums are for. To discuss changes in the search engine industry, good & bad, and share opinion. We are all sharing our opinion here and feel very confident that what Looksmart is doing is bad for us, for our clients and ultimately for Looksmart themselves. Re the legal case, yes some of us are looking in to it seriously - there has been plenty of "off forum" discussions on this.

Originally posted by MazY
Surely your job is to give out the facts to your clients, without tainting it with your own possible dislike for the "new way" of Looksmart's business? Let them decide for themselves. By selling theory to your clients, not fact, you are doing them and yourselves a grave disservice.

I don't know about you, but my clients look to me for advice and expect me to take a pro-active approach with their sites. They are paying me for my knowledge of the industry and respect my opinion on search engine matters as many of them don't have the time or experience to keep up with the industry. Besides, it's not their core business and they want it outsourced to someone whom they trust. So my job is to give them the best possible advice I can. That includes presenting the facts and my opinion on what the facts mean for their sites and their bottom line. In this instance, my opinion will be to take the free clicks and run like hell. :)

Originally posted by MazY
What I do know for sure is that not one word of your decrying them will have a single effect on LookSmart's policy. Only positive action can do that.

I think you're very wrong their Maz. Public opinion (especially when it comes from actual customers) can have a hugely damaging effect. Negative articles, forum debates, emails to customer service etc etc are very powerful when combined. As a result of this debate, some LOOK shareholders have already dumped their stock, according to the Yahoo board - how will this not have a long term effect on Looksmart policy? I will be doing my absolute best to spread my opinion far and wide on this issue and I have every right to do so. That's positive action in my book.

MazY

16-04-2002, 23:27/11:27PM

Kal

I was going to respond to you in full but as you may tell, my interest in the forum of late has dwindled. (Mainly because of the constant griping and whining, the sheer number of unsubstantiated theories and more importantly the policy of "if it moves it's spam!")

Yes, I know, practise what you preach - do something about it, Maz. I am. All will be revealed soon.

All I can say with certainty is that time will tell on the LS issue. Until then, if it makes you feel better to shout about it, go for it I say.

Anyway, code to go look at and scratch my head over...

nuzelonde

16-04-2002, 23:41/11:41PM

As opposed to shouting and whinging?

Yes. Legal action takes much longer. You are being flippant ;)

Experience tells me that even the most ardent shouters are, more often than not, the ones who rarely take any action other than just that.

People can do what they like. Jump up and down, shout, refuse to do business etc etc. Nothing wrong with that. IMHO Legal action is the least effective option as there is nothing to be gained. What action do you propose?

Mainly because of the constant griping and whining, the sheer number of unsubstantiated theories and more importantly the policy of "if it moves it's spam!")

Hehe...like it. And true.

I'm especially amused by people who place google-link-pop-inflating keywords in their sig files. Not a lot of credibility, guys....

MazY

16-04-2002, 23:49/11:49PM

Originally posted by nuzelonde
Yes. Legal action takes much longer. You are being flippant ;)

lol. OK.

People can do what they like. Jump up and down, shout, refuse to do business etc etc. Nothing wrong with that. IMHO Legal action is the least effective option as there is nothing to be gained. What action do you propose?

Absolutely, they can. But my point is, how effective is it? Let us assume for a second that everyone in the forum agrees and the Looksmart policy is wrong. So? What now then? Keep shouting about how wrong it is? Hardly productive in my book; constantly confirming the same thing over and over.

I propose what has already been proposed by some. If you don't like it, don't use it. It really is that simple. There, you've done your bit - the only bit you can do, given that you don't have the confidence (sorry, time) to take legal action.

Hehe...like it. And true.

Just my feeling.

<Return to code again and scratches head more...>

MazY

16-04-2002, 23:53/11:53PM

Originally posted by nuzelonde
I'm especially amused by people who place google-link-pop-inflating keywords in their sig files. Not a lot of credibility, guys.... [/B]

I have to confess that I did that for some time up until recently.

All I can say is that I didn't remove it because I felt it incredible, rather being more careful about where and with whom I associate our company name. :)

<Really returning to code now and scratching head all the more, wondering why that bald spot is developing...>

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 23:55/11:55PM

Well Maz, these are discussion forums and like it or not, things are debated and discussed. That's simply the way these types of forums go.

Nuze and Kal are very right. Not much to do but what we are doing. kal is also very right in that public outcries and opinion are heard far and wide. Believe me, LS hears us in a big way. That's their job whether a good one or not. If they listen to us, that's a different story. It's forums like this one and webmasterworld that can make quite a stir and ring a few ears. If one little thing comes out of this, it's a good thing. Members posting their thoughts and feelings are what it's all about.

MazY

16-04-2002, 23:58/11:58PM

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Well Maz, these are discussion forums and like it or not, things are debated and discussed. That's simply the way these types of forums go.

Yes, I've heard that speech before, several times.

Believe me, LS hears us in a big way.

You offer me one bit of proof that they hear you (let alone in a big way, whatever that means) and I'll believe you. Until that time you're just assuming and giving a speech of confidence.

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 00:03/12:03AM

You won't hear many facts on a search engine board Maz, so I'm sorry to disappoint you there.

I can offer you some real good opinions though. :)

My opinion is YES, LOOK does hear us. Of course they do.

Advisor

17-04-2002, 00:06/12:06AM

What Kal said! :cheers:

Jill

MazY

17-04-2002, 00:06/12:06AM

Originally posted by ihelpyou
You won't hear many facts on a search engine board Maz, so I'm sorry to disappoint you there.

I can offer you some real good opinions though. :)

My opinion is YES, LOOK does hear us. Of course they do.

OK, Doug. If experience of this forum has taught me one thing at all, it is that there is nothing in this earth that makes you see logic or reason and that debates are only good so long as they go along with your mode of thinking. (Refer to the now extremely edited OneUpWeb debate for a timely reminder.) The problem with that, as I have discovered of late, is that we, as Mods and users, get tarred with the same brush.

My time will be better spent scratching my head some more...

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 00:09/12:09AM

All is fine with me and the world Maz. You won't get me into this. I like you and I like every member I have in here. Nothing you can say will make me mad at you.

Anything that happens is from your very own choosing. You choose which way you wish to go. I am happy no matter what you decide to do or say. :)

MazY

17-04-2002, 00:17/12:17AM

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Anything that happens is from your very own choosing. You choose which way you wish to go. I am happy no matter what you decide to do or say. :)

That's comforting.

Go or stay? Who said anything about that? You should be more prudent in who you speak to, or try making fewer assumptions.

As for making you mad, my efforts to make you mad could never rival those of your own.

Now I'm done...

angelina

17-04-2002, 00:19/12:19AM

nuzelonde,

No, I am not a LookSmart "plant." I am a customer, just like you. However, you may believe whatever you want, it's really irrelevant. If you take issue with any of my comments or opinions, that's fine with me, that's what these boards are for, right?

However, if you don't want to take the time to comment specifically on a statement I have made, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from attempting to insult me, or lessen my credibility as a legitimate user of this board.

If you'll go back over my recent posts, you'll find that I was trying to honestly instruct Doug about the way the new LS accounts work, as least as I currently understand the system. I feel it's important that he knows (and everyone else) that simply logging into and/or activating their accounts will not result in a charge, unless he decides to change his account budget. Any problem with that? Am I wrong, in your opinion? Then say so, but I don't appreciate your attempts to undermine my personal statements, for no reason. If you all want a message board full of others who agree with you, great. But you'll miss out on dissenting opinions, or maybe even factual information, if you simply attempt to undermine other users & chase them away. Looking back further in these threads it appears that many have posted ridiculous numbers, trying to do the math. If Doug's customers or anyone else's read that stuff, they may take it to heart, without further looking into it, and that would be a shame.

Please give me the same respect I have given you, and stick to responding to WHAT I may say, not trying to undermine me by calling me a "plant" and whatever else you may come up with.

Thank you.

Alex Pickering

17-04-2002, 00:21/12:21AM

hey mazy im here to let ya know that i registered my domain name, I sent you an email, I don't know if you got it but anyways email me back at auto_cash@hotmail.com or reply here if you want.

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 00:23/12:23AM

Now, now, now, we are all buddies in here, right? All is great, right? I also really like Nuzelonde and Angelina so you two best get along, .... okay? :)

As far as any numbers I have posted? Well, they are very right for my accounts as I did log in today. Boy was I shocked. :eek:

MazY

17-04-2002, 00:25/12:25AM

Originally posted by angelina
Please give me the same respect I have given you, and stick to responding to WHAT I may say, not trying to undermine me by calling me a "plant" and whatever else you may come up with.
Thank you. [/B]

Sorry to use your post, angelina but it does rather punctuate my above posts rather nicely. :D

We (this forum) have to be one of the biggest mockerys in the search engine forum world!

I for one think that Angelina's post was the one that I needed!

Doug, please remove my Moderatorship. (Is it a Moderatorship? I'll have to look it up.) I have no further need for it. Time for positive action, as I say...

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 00:27/12:27AM

You are removed as fast as I can click the button.

angelina

17-04-2002, 00:28/12:28AM

Hi everyone,

Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but that's the way I am:) I spoke to someone from LS recently, and their "one-time fee" statement has always referred to a "one-time fee" for evaluation and "review" of a submitted site, not a fee for inclusion, as their TOS always said. MIsleading, definitely. But they are not charging sites who have already paid to be "reviewed" again - that's why they don't have to pay the set-up fee (review fee) ever again. The initial site evaluation was done whenever that site was first submitted.

I'm with you in not thinking all this was clear to most customers, but I can also see where they're coming from. Would still be good to get a copy of the old TOS, to look at. I'm still amazed that with so many professional SEOs on this boards that no one can come up with them. No one printed it out even once?

Don't be offended, please.

MazY

17-04-2002, 00:28/12:28AM

Originally posted by Alex Pickering
hey mazy im here to let ya know that i registered my domain name, I sent you an email, I don't know if you got it but anyways email me back at auto_cash@hotmail.com or reply here if you want.

Sorry Alex, we only discovered today that Norton AntiVirus has been holding on to some of our e-mails, but not bothering to tell our e-mail client which reports them all as sent fine and dandy.

Consequently, more than a large handful have gone astray. I'll resend it.

Alex Pickering

17-04-2002, 00:30/12:30AM

k great ! :cheers:

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 00:32/12:32AM

hey angelina, yes, we do have an old one. No biggie there.

We (this forum) have to be one of the biggest mockerys in the search engine forum world!

As for you Maz? If you feel that way, why the heck are you still here?

I have been extremely good and nice to you, yet you continue on and on and on. Let it be Maz, or simply leave. Again, it's your choice.

MazY

17-04-2002, 00:34/12:34AM

Originally posted by ihelpyou
hey angelina, yes, we do have an old one. No biggie there.

As for you Maz? If you feel that way, why the heck are you still here?

I have been extremely good and nice to you, yet you continue on and on and on. Let it be Maz, or simply leave. Again, it's your choice.

Doug, do calm down and please do save me that "I love everyone" speech. It gets very tiresome very quickly and we both know that it isn't true, dont we.

Anyway, enough of that. Patience, young man, patience. As I said, your thorn shall be removed in good time...

Alex Pickering

17-04-2002, 00:37/12:37AM

:debate: fights are stupid, real men don't fight, they drink beer!:cheers: (no offense to any woman!)

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 00:37/12:37AM

The truth is Maz, I do like everyone in here. If they choose to be a good and helpful member, then yes, I do like them. And believe it or not, I like people even after I meet them. Yep, sure do.

All is fine with the world right now Maz. Nothing can put me down at all. Yep, even you. :)

MazY

17-04-2002, 00:37/12:37AM

Originally posted by Alex Pickering
:debate: fights are stupid, real men don't fight, they drink beer!:cheers: (no offense to any woman!)

LOL I don't drink!

Alex Pickering

17-04-2002, 00:41/12:41AM

it's never too late to start! har har!:cheers:

MazY

17-04-2002, 00:42/12:42AM

Originally posted by ihelpyou
The truth is Maz, I do like everyone in here. If they choose to be a good and helpful member, then yes, I do like them.

I won't even grace that with an answer. Whoops, just did.

All is fine with the world right now Maz. Nothing can put me down at all. Yep, even you. :)

Oh, Dougie.. how you wish that were true and how you wish we all believed it. Unfortunately I'm not the half-wit you need me to be. Think about it - if all is fine with the world then why are you ranting on about something as insignificant as LookSmart prices?

Please, spare me the pseudo-psychology, or at least learn how to use it properly.

Now I really am going to return to my code... <He says...> Try not to draw me in with any more funny messages... :D

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 00:47/12:47AM

then why are you ranting on about something as insignificant as LookSmart prices?

Because we have to. People have to stand up and shout out loud about the wrong-doings.

Just because I shout out loud does not mean I am not happy now does it? I know that by expressing my displeasure of LS in here, something could possibly be done about it. If no one says a word, LS and others could get away with anything they wished with no repercussions.

Oh yes, I am a very happy guy right now. :cool:

sheesh, do I spell much?

kneelsit

17-04-2002, 00:52/12:52AM

Maz,
I have to disagree with your cynicism about L$ not hearing anyone in these forums.

A few months ago I made some adverse comments about them having spelt a word wrongly in the title which was coming up in MSN. Within 24 hours an editor had emailed me to apologise and went in to correct it.

So they might not be posting but I am darn sure they are lurking.
:D

G

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 00:52/12:52AM

shhhh

kneelsit

17-04-2002, 00:55/12:55AM

sheesh, do I spell much?

Was that spell? or smell? Doug ? - from getting into a sweat by jumping up and down and shouting ? :confused:

Kal

17-04-2002, 00:59/12:59AM

Originally posted by angelina
Would still be good to get a copy of the old TOS, to look at. I'm still amazed that with so many professional SEOs on this boards that no one can come up with them. No one printed it out even once?
angelina what made you assume that "no one" can come up with the TOS? Quite a few of us SEO's saved copies of them and have now located them. Discussion about them has occurred off the forums as it is a legal discussion and not really relevant to these boards. If you want a copy, PM me - assuming of course that you didn't take your own advice and save a copy yourself? :)

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 00:59/12:59AM

spell,... as I had to edit about 10 words in that one little post. Well, mayb not ten, but sure seemed like it. :)

Advisor

17-04-2002, 01:00/01:00AM

How come so happy, Doug? Is there a new woman (or two or three!) in your life???

J

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 01:02/01:02AM

oh, there are always two or three of them. No big thang there. :)

Nope, that's not it. Just that things are really, really good and actually will even get better. Oh happy days.

Blue

17-04-2002, 01:02/01:02AM

I think he's just happy because he's laughing so hard! :D

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 01:04/01:04AM

Could be Blue. Could be. LOL

MazY

17-04-2002, 01:07/01:07AM

Oh Doug, you're funny. You try first-grade phsychology on me now? lol...

Amazingly, you never mentioned how ultimately happy you were until I started biting. lol.

Keep at it. Who knows, you may even convince yourself in time...

Advisor

17-04-2002, 01:13/01:13AM

I'm not happy. My email is down. That makes me cranky. :1:

Perhaps Doug knows something about LookSmart that we don't know. Maybe they slid off the face of the earth in a mudslide or something? Is that it, Doug? Did a mudslide get 'em???

I'm looking forward to the London conference. I wonder if a rep. from LS will dare to show his/her face! Is anyone gonna be there, Angelina??

Getting happier just thinking about it...

Jill

nuzelonde

17-04-2002, 01:38/01:38AM

No, I am not a LookSmart "plant." I am a customer, just like you. However, you may believe whatever you want, it's really irrelevant. If you take issue with any of my comments or opinions, that's fine with me, that's what these boards are for, right?

However, if you don't want to take the time to comment specifically on a statement I have made, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from attempting to insult me, or lessen my credibility as a legitimate user of this board.

Oh really? A new user shows up at the same time L$ makes a contentious change and defends the change, at length and in great detail. The exact same thing happens on another SEO board. People can draw their own conclusions however you're not fooling me. Give it up.

I'll address your comments: Quite right. L$ TOS has a get out clause. Most contracts do. My contract does. However, one must be VERY cautious how one uses that get out clause if one does not wish to alienate ones customers.

L$, it is fair to say from the reaction on these boards, have alienated customers (putting it lightly).

Tell me, why were Looksmart accepting $299 review submissions right up until the change without telling anyone that a major operational change was imminent? Would you call that an ethical business practice?

As I'm clearly wrong, you aren't a plant, I look forward to your continuing posts on all other aspects of SEO, and other engines, for some considerable time to come. You obviously have a lot to say. Welcome aboard :)

angelina

17-04-2002, 02:07/02:07AM

Doug,

As the administrator and owner of this board, I wish you would address contributors like Nuzelonde. He is rude & speaks down to many of us, and this is not appreciated. If you'd like the rest of us to leave, you can keep him & end up with a community made up of insulting know-it-alls.

I have chosen to contribute now because of the big changes in LS - truthfully, I didn't have a lot to say before. I was happy with the service I bought from them, and didn't have much time to hang out on any messages boards. Again, I'd appreciate it if you would restrain yourself from making ANY comments about my supposed identify, and my supposed intent (as YOU see it) in posting here.

Earlier, I posted with my understanding of LS's new policy, at least regarding how to manage your own account. Doug responded:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I really feel you're doing visitors to this board a disservice if you continue to give false information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your words of wisdom angelina. I appreciate your help. Reading back thru all 5 prior posts you have made, it seems you always wish to confront me in one way or another. Thank you

For someone who continues to claim his undying devotion and love for all of us here, the note of sarcasm isn't lost on anyone, I don't think. I was just suggesting that Doug take a closer look at the new system, as LS would not be making any unsolicited charges to anyone's account, and I think this is an important fact for all to note. As Doug has (by his own statements) said that he has many customers of his own, some of them may well be reading these posts, and I don't think his ignorance regarding the accounts will give them much continued confidence in him. Again Doug - no offense meant, but a little knowledge can't hurt, you know? Making informed decisions is important to me - you're right, using LS may not be the right choice for some customers right now, but how can they make that decision if they are fed only a bunch of speculative comments?

Maz - I really appreciate your backing of me. No one else has done so, even in the midst of these crazy accusations and sarcastic comments aimed at me. I don't mind anyone not agreeing with me, in fact, I enjoy the heated discourse.

Doug - what is a "good" and "helpful" member anyway?

MazY

17-04-2002, 02:23/02:23AM

Originally posted by angelina
Maz - I really appreciate your backing of me. No one else has done so, even in the midst of these crazy accusations and sarcastic comments aimed at me. I don't mind anyone not agreeing with me, in fact, I enjoy the heated discourse.

Doug - what is a "good" and "helpful" member anyway? [/B]

Angelina. As much as I would like to think it helps, it won't. I promise you that whatever efforts you make will be wasted. Ergo, my decision to depart the sinking ship.

Truly, if you want my advice, you won't waste your time trying. Your head will bleed from the number of bashes you make to it.

I'll give you the rundown if you like to save you the time and trouble:

1. Make post.

2. Receive some positive feedback, but mostly negative if you are not willing to reveal all about yourself, where you work, etc.

3. Get poked at by the forum "owner".

4. Have forum owner deny he poked at you.

5. Try to reason.

6. Receive message stating that the forum owner loves everyone and didn't mean to offend but rather he was educating people for then greater good of mankind.

7. Disagree with forum owner.

8. Have it implied that you must be a spammer or just plain stupid. Have one or two forum-owner die-hards agree with owner.

9. Feel compelled to argue just because you wanted some fact not someone's opinion!

10. Rinse and repeat.

Bonus awards if you get the "My forum" or the "Play nicely" speech. (If you haven't already.)

Sorry if that all seems rather negative but I've just seen it happen way too many times. We should have a script that does it for us when new users arrive.

Don't waste your time.

angelina

17-04-2002, 02:26/02:26AM

You said:

I'm looking forward to the London conference. I wonder if a rep. from LS will dare to show his/her face! Is anyone gonna be there, Angelina??

Yes, thanks so much for going right along with Nuzelonde's speculation instead of commenting directly on what I had to say. Was I wrong about how the LS account system is currently working? Wrong about the TOS? Then say so. I wanted to think the "professionals" on this board would think a bit before posting BS like this, but no, seems to be what you're all about.

I have no f*** clue who will be at the London conference (don't even know about it - I'm not an SEO).

angelina

17-04-2002, 02:33/02:33AM

LOL - Maz, I think you & I were posting at the same time (isn't it awfully early in the UK?). But looks as if you're right on the mark, in every way. I don't give a rat's ass if anyone here "likes" me, they don't know me, for god's sake. I was just contributing my thoughts on the LS changes - please forgive me everyone if that's not what this forum was for. Now I've been sucked into posting these inane messages defending myself. Grow up people, and support honest debate, if you'd like to continue to get new members in here, as opposed to the same 4 or 5 people.

If I needed an SEO right now, I would be hard pressed to hire anyone who's posted here recently. According to Doug's past posts, he doesn't use Yahoo, refuses to use PPC/Overture, and is now refusing to use LS. Thanks - think I can submit to Google all on my own.

MazY

17-04-2002, 02:38/02:38AM

Originally posted by angelina
Thanks - think I can submit to Google all on my own.

LOL is all I can say to that! It's 06:38 here. Not been to bed yet. Sleep is for wusses. :)

It'll all come out in the wash, as they say. Those who shy away from something because they insist on reactive response as opposed to proactive response are the ones who ultimately fall by the wayside. Regardless of how ultimately happy with life they claim to be.

Time just needs a little bit of help sometimes methinks.. :)

nuzelonde

17-04-2002, 04:20/04:20AM

This is "obviously" rude:

As I'm clearly wrong, you aren't a plant, I look forward to your continuing posts on all other aspects of SEO, and other engines, for some considerable time to come. You obviously have a lot to say. Welcome aboard

Angelina, I look forward to your continuing posts on all things search engine related. Your frequent future postings will be very enlightening to us all.

As for this:

As the administrator and owner of this board, I wish you would address contributors like Nuzelonde. He is rude & speaks down to many of us, and this is not appreciated. If you'd like the rest of us to leave, you can keep him & end up with a community made up of insulting know-it-alls.

You're now attacking me and not my argument. How about addressing my question which was:

Tell me, why were Looksmart accepting $299 review submissions right up until the change without telling anyone that a major operational change was imminent? Would you call that an ethical business practice?

Well, would you? Would you sell for a supplier that did that?

L$ are getting no more money from me or my customers. The product is not something I can sell (too expensive - too little return) and I don't like the way L$ do business.

Give me one good reason why I should use L$? That's a serious question. I want to know. Everyone here would like to know. You're obviously a Looksmart expert and seem to be enamoured with the product, so tell us. Why should we continue to recommend Looksmart services to clients?

If you choose to attack me again I will assume you are trying to evade my question and are simply being provocative. I've come to the party - your turn.

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 08:48/08:48AM

Well, to answer the question of

what makes a good and helpful member?

Actually, I feel that both you and nuzelonde are 'good and helpful'. Oh sure, I may disagree with posts, but that does not mean you are not good or helpful. :)

dvduval

17-04-2002, 12:17/12:17PM

Angelina,

Never have I seen people unite against a company as I have seen it here. IMHO people are usually more friendly in these forums. You have chosen to enter into a discussion in support of LookSmart, but there are many people here who are shocked, upset, and digging in to fight LookSmart, or given up in hopes of finding greener pastures.

I think I'm ready to stop being as involved in these discussions about LookSmart. I've done what I can--Written at least 10 emails to LookSmart--Called them 3 times--complained to a couple of other sources. So I leave you with these questions. If I see some good answers maybe I'll discuss it more.

A. How does this fit into Microsoft's new 'trustworthy' computing campaign?

B. Who could we email at Microsoft to register our complaint?

C. Which federal, state or private agencies could register complaints or seek arbitration for those who deem this step necessary?

D. Is the use of the word UPGRADE false advertising?

E. Now that the benefits of the Category Listings have changed,
how has LookSmart worked to help customers transition to the new program?

F. How do the customers feel about this transition?

G. Seeing that LookSmart has lost money every year since 1998, is it possible that this company tends to make poor business decisions? Could this be one of them?

H. My grandfather told me that they were 35 million in debt on recent anual sales of 85 million. Could this be a sign that they aren't very good at designing business systems that work?

I. According to one person, they collected the money for several Category Listings two days before switching programs. What kind of insight does this show that LookSmart has when implementing new programs?

J. In light of the widespread expression of disatisfaction, what has LookSmart done to remedy the situation?

K. What is more important...enforcing Terms of Service or satisfied customers?

L. Where's the beef??? What makes this an upgrade?

M. There are at least three different methods of being listed in the MSN results. Which one is better and why? Which one gives the best position? Which one costs the least?

N. Who at LookSmart would answer these questions openly so that we can all feel like our opinions count?

O. If LookSmart will not answer these questions openly, would it be appropriate to email each of these question plus others on a per person basis?

Angelina, I am not trying to attack you in any way. I just ask these questions in hopes that the answers can become clearer.

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 12:38/12:38PM

Nice post dvd! Those all are questions that are very pertinent to all the issues involved. I too would like answers to these.

The 'upgrade' question and if it could be looked at as 'false advertising' is a very good thought.

JuniorHarris

17-04-2002, 13:08/01:08PM

Great Gatsby, what a thread!~:eek:

Regardless of which side of the fence you're grazing, it's obvious the Looksmart changes have created quite a debate!~ Not just here, but across many forums...so at least we have to agree on the magnitude of the issue!~;)

Not quite sure this was the impact that Looksmart intended!~;) The true litmus test will be in how L$ responds to customer feedback (and I don't mean offering another upgrade). Until Looksmart provides more details, we are only left with speculation and supposition...but without facts, it's all customers have.

The longer questions go unanswered, the harder it may be for damage control.

Hmmm...I wonder what happens if I pull this loose string?

Advisor

17-04-2002, 13:18/01:18PM

Exactly, JH! They seem to be waiting to see if the furor dies down. Only time will tell!

J

nuzelonde

17-04-2002, 16:56/04:56PM

Let's see if Angelina answers it

:cheers:

newriver

17-04-2002, 17:24/05:24PM

wow,i just read my first seven page thread (most of which was a collasal waste of time seeing all the bickering)...

My one predominant thought as a business owner, and not an SEO.

If I can improve my MSN ranking under the new LS system at only 15 cents a click, I'll be the happiest person on this earth. I'm in business, and have always expected to have to pay for advertising, and have always done so happily as it brings a return. $299 for a permanent listing for me was chump change, as I am sure it was for many business owners. I feel bad for a lot of website owners, and especially for my friends here doing SEO, who are out a lot of money for what they had basically for free, but this is a USA company, in a capitalist economy people. It takes money to make money, and like somebody posted recently in WMW about lions and gazelles..."...when you wake up in the morning you had better be running."

The internet is still brand new, yes LS put this out in a horrible fashion, but I don't fault them one bit. They are losing money hand over fist, and I credit their leadership to make the necessary drastic moves to try to keep the company running. I would not approve of their leadership if they did the same thing, and expected different results (I believe that is the definition of insanity).

People's feelings are hurt, and so are many pocketbooks. But business is business. You can either hem and haw, or move on and find a way to make it work for you.

I have already made the changes to every site I own on looksmart, and submitted a new one. I would love to see my competitors not take advantage of this, and let me be the only one left. For me, 15 cents a click is profit, I'll pay it all day