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

texas4qld

15-04-2002, 07:16/07:16AM

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, 07:20/07:20AM

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, 07:24/07:24AM

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, 07:27/07:27AM

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, 07:29/07:29AM

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, 07:34/07:34AM

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, 07:38/07:38AM

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, 07:47/07:47AM

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, 13:15/01:15PM

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, 14:20/02:20PM

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, 14:25/02:25PM

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, 17:27/05:27PM

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, 18:44/06:44PM

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, 18:57/06:57PM

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

texas4qld

15-04-2002, 19:20/07:20PM

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, 19:26/07:26PM

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, 19:39/07:39PM

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, 20:06/08:06PM

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, 20:16/08:16PM

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, 20:22/08:22PM

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, 21:32/09:32PM

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, 21:41/09:41PM

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, 21:45/09:45PM

"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, 00:08/12:08AM

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, 00:21/12:21AM

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, 01:28/01:28AM

Scum....hmmmm charming comment.

I was expecting a more mature comment then that ??

:eek:

Advisor

16-04-2002, 01:48/01:48AM

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

J

Mel

16-04-2002, 01:58/01:58AM

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, 02:08/02:08AM

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, 03:24/03:24AM

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, 03:31/03:31AM

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, 03:45/03:45AM

Mel

16-04-2002, 03:55/03:55AM

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, 04:13/04:13AM

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, 04:14/04:14AM

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, 04:25/04:25AM

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, 04:36/04:36AM

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, 05:18/05:18AM

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, 05:42/05:42AM

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, 06:39/06:39AM

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, 06:54/06:54AM

>$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, 07:01/07:01AM

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, 07:05/07:05AM

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, 07:06/07:06AM

LOL.

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

UPGRADED

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 07:30/07:30AM

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, 07:41/07:41AM

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, 07:44/07:44AM

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, 07:48/07:48AM

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, 07:53/07:53AM

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, 08:07/08:07AM

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, 08:16/08:16AM

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, 08:46/08:46AM

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, 09:43/09:43AM

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, 10:02/10:02AM

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, 17:54/05:54PM

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, 18:10/06:10PM

texas4qld

16-04-2002, 18:38/06:38PM

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, 18:47/06:47PM

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, 19:20/07:20PM

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, 19:35/07:35PM

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, 20:01/08:01PM

ET is Evan Thornley, Looksmart's CEO.

texas4qld

16-04-2002, 20:44/08:44PM

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, 21:03/09:03PM

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, 21:45/09:45PM

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, 21:47/09:47PM

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, 21:57/09:57PM

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, 22:03/10:03PM

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, 22:17/10:17PM

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, 22:27/10:27PM

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, 22:41/10:41PM

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, 22:49/10:49PM

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, 22:53/10:53PM

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, 22:55/10:55PM

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, 22:58/10:58PM

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

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

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

16-04-2002, 23:06/11:06PM

What Kal said! :cheers:

Jill

MazY

16-04-2002, 23:06/11:06PM

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

16-04-2002, 23:09/11:09PM

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

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

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

16-04-2002, 23:19/11:19PM

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

16-04-2002, 23:21/11:21PM

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

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

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

16-04-2002, 23:25/11:25PM

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

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

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

angelina

16-04-2002, 23:28/11:28PM

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

16-04-2002, 23:28/11:28PM

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

16-04-2002, 23:30/11:30PM

k great ! :cheers:

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 23:32/11:32PM

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

16-04-2002, 23:34/11:34PM

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

16-04-2002, 23:37/11:37PM

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

ihelpyou

16-04-2002, 23:37/11:37PM

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

16-04-2002, 23:37/11:37PM

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

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

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

MazY

16-04-2002, 23:42/11:42PM

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

16-04-2002, 23:47/11:47PM

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

16-04-2002, 23:52/11:52PM

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

16-04-2002, 23:52/11:52PM

shhhh

kneelsit

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

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

16-04-2002, 23:59/11:59PM

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

16-04-2002, 23:59/11:59PM

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, 00:00/12:00AM

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

J

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 00:02/12:02AM

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, 00:02/12:02AM

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

ihelpyou

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

Could be Blue. Could be. LOL

MazY

17-04-2002, 00:07/12:07AM

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, 00:13/12:13AM

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, 00:38/12:38AM

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, 01:07/01:07AM

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, 01:23/01:23AM

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, 01:26/01:26AM

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, 01:33/01:33AM

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, 01:38/01:38AM

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, 03:20/03:20AM

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, 07:48/07:48AM

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, 11:17/11:17AM

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, 11:38/11:38AM

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, 12:08/12:08PM

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, 12:18/12:18PM

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

J

nuzelonde

17-04-2002, 15:56/03:56PM

Let's see if Angelina answers it

:cheers:

newriver

17-04-2002, 16:24/04:24PM

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 long until the cows come home.

I am sure a lot of people here are going to be upset at somebody supporting LS, I don't like the way they did it, but I can't afford not to take advantage of it. Their new system probably had people like me in mind for it. This post is not to say that anybody else here is wrong at all, I do feel the utter anguish coming off these boards over this, and I understand how slighted you must feel. Maybe LS will fall because of this, but only time will tell. Until such day as MSN drops LS, they will get my money, because I need the MSN traffic to stay in business.

Reality is reality for me.

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 17:28/05:28PM

You are exactly right. LS was thinking of You when they did this. You only have YOUR sites in Your account to manage.

Many of us have almost 100 SITES in the SAME account!

Let's say you have 100 clients/sites in your account. Your account receives a lump sum of 10,000 free clicks per month.

Let's say a few of those sites, 10 of them, ring up 9000 of those clicks in one week. The remaining 1000 clicks are used by the remaining 90 sites in your account.

Does anyone see the screw-job here? This is what is happening as we speak in MY account with Many sites in it. A very few sites are getting the vast majority of ALL free clicks so as to use them all up quickly. Then, the rest of the sites hardly get any clicks. One week is up and NOTHING is left in the account unless I cough up a few thousand dollars to Looksmart per month.

This is also what is happening with many accounts all over right now.

But yes newriver, you are very much the type of client that LS wanted to keep.

nuzelonde

17-04-2002, 17:31/05:31PM

For me, 15 cents a click is profit, I'll pay it all day long until the cows come home.

That's fine. The sites left on L$ will be those who can turn .15 per click into profit. Low content, high advertising.

The problem is that L$ is a search engine. As Google illustrates, people use search engines to obtain relevant search results, not advertisments. PPC works for a while but it's quickly subject to the law of diminishing returns - most people will not stay on an "advertising only" channel for long. And no users = no search engine.

Also, how long do you think the charge will remain at only .15 per click when Overture can pass on substantially higher rates per click to partners?

newriver

17-04-2002, 17:45/05:45PM

Please don't get me wrong, many of the users here no me fairly well. I am not debating that LS has really stuck it to the SEO professionals like Doug, Jill, and the others here. I don't envy their position at all.

I just wanted to say my thoughts from a slightly different viewpoint.

Again, I have no doubt this *****, especially when you are managing the accounts of several clients. All I am saying is it may not suck for everybody, I have not seen the results of my investment with them yet under the new system, but I will share them here.

For whatever it's worth, my sites have no advertising. Simply a sales site.

Can something like this forum compete on looksmart with the amount of traffic they get, i would guess the answer is no. Just recognize it for what it is, make the conscious decision to do something about it, share your thoughts with others, or move on it.

I view Doug as a friend of mine, as well as the other mod's and frequent posters here. This is not an attempt to slap anybody in the face (i think LS already did that to all of you), just wanted to say from my viewpoint it appears to be an obvious move to save a company, and it is a company that needed to make a drastic move. Whether or not it works out for them is the only question remaining to be answered.

Will it remain 15 cents? Probably not...but I don't see them raising it inside of the next three to six months. During that time, i choose to use it to my advantage.

Advisor

17-04-2002, 17:48/05:48PM

Let's say a few of those sites, 10 of them, ring up 9000 of those clicks in one week. The remaining 1000 clicks are used by the remaining 90 sites in your account. That's why they give you the opportunity to set limits to each URL.

Did anyone read Danny's article about this in the paid SEW newsletter that just came out. It was very good. He does a good job of giving all sides of an issue without getting too emotional, like we usually do! He's not blanketly recommending the program in it's current state for every site. Says it may work for some and not others. Also, it sounded like LS may definitely be tweaking things in the near future. Nothing definitive there, but I've seen them change things fairly quickly after Danny gives a thumbs down! His article sure sounded thumbs-downish to me.

Jill

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 17:52/05:52PM

Yep. I agree with you. There sure are some sites out there that can benefit by this change.

That gets me to really wondering just how many of each kind of site is in the directory? What I mean is, how many sites are in the directory that got there via a 3rd party? How many are individual companies that got it by themselves?

The answer to that would tell us what kind of slim chance LS has of pulling this off. We know the sites in LS via a 3rd party are pretty much screwed from the start. At least the sites in there all by themself have a fighting chance to make it work, that is saying that the ROI is there based on .15 per click.

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 17:55/05:55PM

Yes Jill, but I am referring to the initial 100 free clicks that are used up quickly with the trafficed sites getting most all of them and the other sites getting none.

Advisor

17-04-2002, 18:06/06:06PM

But every site gets 100 if you set them that way. That way one couldn't take the clicks of another. Or, you could give one 200, if you knew you had a couple of others that wouldn't use theirs, etc.

Jill

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 18:09/06:09PM

Oh, I see. Does that happen when you activate your account? I have not activated yet so that's probably why my account is still going right now. :)

nuzelonde

17-04-2002, 18:46/06:46PM

(Received this ad in an iconocast newsletter. Note to self: unsubscribe iconocast newsletter)

Some may say the wording is a little deceptive. Not me of course. Oh no. See what you think....

Stop paying for keywords.

Introducing Small Business Listings, from LookSmart. Get your company into the lucrative core layer of search results on MSN, Netscape, AltaVista, Prodigy and CNN.com. Suggest up to 10 keywords or phrases for better targeting and more conversions at no extra cost. Reach 77%, or nearly 4 out of 5 Internet users with the leader in search inclusion. Introductory offer: Get listed for just $29! (Reg. $49)

Click here for more....

Stop paying for keywords? They missed out "...and start paying for clicks".

Advisor

17-04-2002, 19:14/07:14PM

At no extra cost? When I looked at my account, suggesting keywords cost $49 didn't it? Core results at AltaVista? Since when? Yeah, possibly their directory, but who searches AV's directory? Is it even easily accessible? I sure don't see it.

Keep it coming...

J

ihelpyou

17-04-2002, 19:20/07:20PM

Wow, ... very deceptive advertising.

nuzelonde

17-04-2002, 21:28/09:28PM

Perhaps Angelina can sort it out for us. Where did she go?

Kal

17-04-2002, 21:54/09:54PM

Originally posted by Advisor
Did anyone read Danny's article about this in the paid SEW newsletter that just came out. It was very good.
Just finished it and it was excellent. I am absolutely dumbfounded by some of the revelations in there - particularly that sites who previously were listed for free (either by using the old free submission or were added by chookfart editors as relevant sites) are now being asked to PAY or be dropped - absolutely outrageous. Of course, if you are a major big business, it is unlikely you will be dropped - according to chookfart.

Also, did you know that the relevancy keywords do NOT actually give your listing more relevancy weight? I quote from Danny's article:

"The reality is that these are simply additional words with no greater weighting value than that of terms already in your title or description, when it comes to LookSmart's main editorial results. Relevancy keywords do get more heavy weighting when it comes to determining what sites appear in the Featured Listings area, LookSmart says. In addition, they are more likely to help you come up on some metacrawlers that use LookSmart, such as Dogpile and Mamma, LookSmart added. However, they are not used by MSN Search at all."

I mean huh??? Why would anyone buy these keywords unless it's going to improve their ranking FOR these keywords? Ridiculous. And the last straw for me was the affiliate link stuff. Did you know that if you run an affiliate program on your site, chookfart is likely to join up as an affiliate, change your listed URL to an affiliate link and then expect you to pay THEM for clicks to your site? Although this is only expected to affect free listed sites and/or non CPC commercial listings, according to chookfart's TOS there is nothing stopping them from introducing this for regular paid advertisers - meaning they will double dip - ask you to pay $0.15 for your click and then ask you to pay them as an affiliate!

I am completely astounded :eek: at their attempts to solicit money anywhere they can. Sounds a little like desperation to me - I wonder how much trouble they're really in?

angelina

18-04-2002, 05:27/05:27AM

Nuzelonde,

If you look back through these posts, you'll find that YOU attacked me first, I was simply posting the information I'm aware of, and that's that. I have asked you not to personally insult me, or try to sabotage my opinions by accusing me of being a "plant." I've told you I'm not, so please respect that. You can of course go on believing whatever you want, but I have asked you to please comment on what I've said - AGAIN - if you review my posts, do you have any problems with my views on the new LS account, and budgets, etc.? I don't know all, but posted what I do understand, based on my knowledge so far.

Regarding your other question, it was not initially directed at me, so why should I have been responsible for answering it? I had no idea that LS was accepting submissions for $299 right before the change. If it had happened to me I would've been very angry, just like you. But I don't have the answers for you. Had I been in charge, I wouldn't have made that decision. Why am I responsible for answering YOUR questions? I had no idea who you were (nor did I care) until YOU decided to attack me, making accusations & snide remarks. As neither Doug nor anyone else (except Maz) even backed me up, I've lost respect for most on this board. Again, I thought this was an open forum for everyone to express themselves.

Doug - if you look back through these posts, tell me why Nuzelonde's accusations & attacks on me (note, not mine on him) are "good" and "helpful?" He has never (nor have you) refuted or remarked on the topics at hand, and that's all I'm interested in.

As for dDuval's questions, they look to be excellent questions, but why on earth do you expect me to answer them??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
ridiculous. Why don't you attempt to answer them? Why doesn't Doug or one of the other "experts?" lol. I hope he gets his questions answered, and I'm as interested as anyone else in finding out his answers, but why the attacks on me?

In visiting some of the other boards, it seems like the site administrators take an active role in minimizing such accusatory & rude behavior, but not here. All of the "experts" and regular contributors seem to buy into this crazy and defamatory behavior, instead of using their senior roles to set an example, and try to rid the board of this BS.

I don't have time to hang out on this board or any other all day, like you all seem to, because as I've said, I am not anyone's plant, nor am I an SEO, and don't have internet access at work. So I have to take the time to read & post from home. You have made a point in the last day to continually insult me and go on with your accusatory behavior, and then chide me for not having all day to respond to your BS. When I have some answers or comments to make, I will gladly do so, but that's all I can do.

Please - I ask other members of this board to review the entire thread, to see that Nuzelonde began this whole ugly mess by attempting to insult and accuse me, NOT the other way around. By saying nothing, you are simply encouraging more of this behavior. Don't seem too "professional" to me.

Doug - you're quick to "welcome" new members, but don't set a positive tone by nipping these accusations in the bud.

ihelpyou

18-04-2002, 05:54/05:54AM

Perhaps Angelina can sort it out for us. Where did she go?
I don't see that as an attack at all. Nor do I see either of you flaming or attacking. I am not going to stifle anyone from saying what they wish. As long as there are no personal attacks, all is fine with me. I love debate from both sides. I think you are over doing it a little angelina. Just relax and have fun. :)

Please remember we are not like 'other' boards and nor do we wish to be like 'other' boards. If members wanted to hang out other places, they would do so, and they do.

nuzelonde

18-04-2002, 06:38/06:38AM

Angelina,

Methinks thou doust protest too much.

You were intimately aware of Looksmarts policy a few days ago - you set yourself up as an expert. Now you seem more interested in maintaining a sustained personal attack on me, even after I've tried to be constructive towards you. .

Not that I mind the attacks. I'm quite used to them and most people round here know to take me with a large grain of salt. As Doug rightly says, we enjoy a good debate.

We're not happy with Looksmart or the way they have handled this change. You are a supporter and advocate of their service, so can you answer one simple question:

Why should we continue to endorse Looksmart to our customers?

PS: My opinion of you hasn't changed, but I'm sticking to the debate, as you requested. Now, lets see if you too can stick to the debate. The ball is in your court.

Mel

18-04-2002, 09:45/09:45AM

Hi Kal:

I am completely astounded at their attempts to solicit money anywhere they can. Sounds a little like desperation to me - I wonder how much trouble they're really in?

For a good answer to that youcan find on L$ site their last years results and their projections for this year.

In order to avoid all the howling that may occur if I happen to quote their figures wrong I will leave it to your own judgment, but in a nutshell in the year 2001 their losses were nearly half the value of the company and they are projecting further losses this year.

Advisor

18-04-2002, 09:51/09:51AM

Although I haven't read back through this whole thread, I don't remember any personal attacks towards Angelina. Although I suppose these days accusing someone of being affiliated with LookSmart could be considered attacking. Like being called a communist or something perhaps? I know I wouldn't want to be associated with them and their sneaky ways. The only attacks I've seen here have been toward LookSmart. If that feels personal to anyone, well then I wonder why that would be. You're not going to see most of us stop attacking LookSmart any time soon until they change things and apologize for being twits. And maybe not even then. If you don't like to read bad things about LS, then you may not want to be reading things that I write, that's for sure!

Jill

nuzelonde

18-04-2002, 17:24/05:24PM

As fun as this contoversy is, I thought I might move forward and make suggestions on what we, as Looksmarts unofficial salesforce, would LIKE to see happen.

1) Looksmart to grandfather all previous registrations
2) Reduce the cost of the pay per click model to a level sustainable by the current state of the internet industry.
3) Apopt significantly better communication policies and consult widely with the industry prior to implementing major changes.

It's questionable wether L$ can claw back from this train wreck PR disaster, but lets at least allow them the opportunity. I, like many others on this board, have got a few registrations on hold that, in all probability, will be going to Ink within a week. Once that happens, it's very unlikely my business model will ever incorporate Looksmart again unless a client demands it (incidentily, thats never happened before. Most of my clients have never heard of Looksmart)

Agree/disagree?

Cheers

The Nuze

LookDummy

18-04-2002, 17:45/05:45PM

I'm really confused about LooK's stock, everyone on their board is sure there is GOOD news coming out Apr 29 when they report one Q1. I'm wondering if this change in LooK's business model will be the smoke and mirrors they need to hide a huge loss.
Apr. 29 PRESS LOOKSMART (cyrstal Ball news wire)
"If our current customer base transfers (all indication they will) to are New exciting updated product Q2 earnings will exceed a TRILLION dollars."
I'm calling the physic hotline to be sure:D

Advisor

18-04-2002, 17:49/05:49PM

Easy to see where they think the trillions of dollars will come from. Every SEOs account would add up to thousands and thousands per month. Hopefully, most SEOs and others have more sense than to give them any more money. Will be interesting to see.

Jill

ihelpyou

18-04-2002, 17:56/05:56PM

$9,000 per month and climbing. I DON'T THINK SO!!

Advisor

18-04-2002, 18:24/06:24PM

LOL...yep, easy to see where those trillion numbers are coming from! What's that you say, Doug? You don't have an extra $9,000 a month lieing around you'd like to give to L$? Stingy bastard!

Jill

ihelpyou

18-04-2002, 23:19/11:19PM

hey nuz, yep. That is what they should do but I seriously doubt they do squat about things.

pageoneresults

21-04-2002, 02:46/02:46AM

It's the 80/20 rule! LookSmart is looking at the bulk of its business which comes from companies who definitely make a gain in the new scheme of things. Unfortunately, most of us with smaller and medium sized clients, cannot afford the new PPC model. It's a doggy dog world and LookSmart just became a Pit Bull!

Think about it. LookSmart is effectively targeting those businesses that stand to make a profit and in turn increase theirs. You can be assured that the accountants have fully reviewed the fallout from this and it definitely weighs in LookSmarts' favor. They stand to make a very large gain in all of this, but only if it works. The fallout seems to be pretty intense right now and bad press may just end up being good press for LookSmart. We'll see in the next few months.

Think about all those companies who are paying $.16 and above for Overture listings. This is an excellent deal for them. If its not, they can choose not to participate.

Over the next 9-12 months, our roles as SEO's will change considerably. PPC whether we like it or not, is here to stay. I now recommend Overture campaigns to my clients and have been since they started dominating the results. You'd be crazy not to take advantage of that type of exposure.

I have a few clients who will benefit from this change and a few who will opt out. Its just like Overture, if there is an ROI, then go for it. If not, look at other more cost effective methods of advertising. Heck, you could probably send out 10,000 printed postcards using traditional advertising means and get more ROI. It all depends on the product and the nature of your business.

P.S. My very own personal opinion is that I'm not real pleased with the way this was handled. Some form of grandfather clause may have minimized the fallout. If anything causes their demise, it will be the way this was forced upon their customers.

I've already received over 10 of the e-mails about my LookSmart accounts and all of those clients have opted out for now. They have taken my advice to wait and see what happens over the next 60-90 days. I'll give them that much time to sort things out and see what changes occur.

pageoneresults

21-04-2002, 03:05/03:05AM

There are many others who stand to gain from this change at LookSmart.

Overture
At $.05 for minimum bid, companies who cannot afford the flat $.15 per click rate will flock to Overture. If their terms are really competitive, then LookSmart is a steal at $.15 per click.

Google
Its AdWords Select program is likely to be a viable replacement for a LookSmart listing. Same applies with the cost per click. I've seen some really exorbitant cpc in the AdWords Select program.

All Other PPC
Smaller PPC's will most likely see a spike in new clients. More businesses will be forced to seek additional methods of online advertising and PPC is it.

Who's left that generates traffic and hasn't switched to a paid model of some sort? No one really (ODP excluded). The change is upon us, we will now be PPC Bid Managers in addition to traditional SEO.

My inside prediction? AOL is the next to make a move, you watch. With the recent changes it is going through, I think the ODP is the next directory to go either PPC or annual. Its in their best interest!

Kal

21-04-2002, 03:58/03:58AM

Originally posted by pageoneresults
P.S. My very own personal opinion is that I'm not real pleased with the way this was handled. Some form of grandfather clause may have minimized the fallout. If anything causes their demise, it will be the way this was forced upon their customers.
Oh yes indeedy! This is the main reason I have decided to completely boycott Chookfart products, never mind the fact that they no longer offer me or my clients value for money. I've done the math and all my clients are worse off with their new PPC structure.

kneelsit

21-04-2002, 04:34/04:34AM

Google's AdWords Select program is likely to be a viable replacement for a LookSmart listing.

P1. I don't quite follow your reasoning here - though in the next sentence you mention ( and what I have found personally) that Google's CPC charges are waayy over the top!! So HOW will Google benefit unless they bring their charges well down - to say 5 - 8c. per click i.e. in line with Overture.??

Mel

21-04-2002, 07:32/07:32AM

HI PR1:

Think about all those companies who are paying $.16 and above for Overture listings. This is an excellent deal for them. If its not, they can choose not to participate.

and

At $.05 for minimum bid, companies who cannot afford the flat $.15 per click rate will flock to Overture. If their terms are really competitive, then LookSmart is a steal at $.15 per click.

First of all look at the way MSN (perhaps L$ and Overtures biggest partner) is now handling results - like a true PPC. MSN now appears to display which ever results bring them more money - LS results if the Overture results cost less than $0.15 and Overture results if they are over $0.15

This being the situation I don't see that either of the above situations are going to happen.

Who's left that generates traffic and hasn't switched to a paid model of some sort? No one really (ODP excluded).

There is this search engine called Google that has yet to switch, ( their adwords really don't count) A few others like Inktomi, AltaVista, Fast, etc, etc are offering PPI but not PPC. In fact these may well count Look$mart as one of their biggest benefactors after the fallout is over.

Regarding the 80/20 rule, they may be thinking that way, but I suspect that this will not affect those with real money to spend, as they are mostly paying $0.16 or more at Overture.

It is not a coincidence that this fast shaft occured two weeks before L$ were due to release their first quarter results. I look to see what L$ stock will be worth in four months time as the real barometer of the success or failure of this public relations debacle.

Mel

21-04-2002, 07:42/07:42AM

Hi All:

Just one more item to consider - Now MSN appears to be showing Overture results as "Sponsored Results" but L$ results as "Directory Listings" but which are now all paid or they don't appear. Perhaps the FTC will look into this.

Does anyone have any figures on traffic from Overture results at MSN? My gut feeling is that they are not searched on as much as the regular SERPs, but I have no way to confirm this as I have no major Overture campaigns running.

ihelpyou

21-04-2002, 07:46/07:46AM

Yes, and I'm not sure how anyone can compare the Looksmart scheme to what Overture does?

With Overture, you Bid on your keywords and don't pay for them ahead of time.

With Overture, YOu are ranked according to your bid. Period.

With LOOK, you can only make any changes to anything if you pay $49.

With LOOk, you don't bid on keywords.

With LOOK, it's true the ppc is a set .15 and with Overture, the minimum is .05.

With LOOK, you are not guaranteed anything but a listing if you pay.

With Overture, you can guarantee your own position by bidding high enough.

I don't think anyone can safely compare LOOK with Overture or with Adwords right now. Actually, the way Looksmart did this, I don't think you could ever compare it.

Bottom line?

The problem is NOT the how and why did Looksmart change their business model. They had to do something, so this is what you get. The problem is they PISSED off their existing customers sooo much that they could care less about any comparisons. They simply ain't gonna do business with Looksmart and mostly on moral grounds.

tlacaelel

21-04-2002, 14:32/02:32PM

The problem is they PISSED off their existing customers sooo much that they could care less about any comparisons. They simply ain't gonna do business with Looksmart and mostly on moral grounds.
You're so right, ihelpyou. And two posters commented (on WMW forum):
I am not going to participate because I don't like their customer service. They had a great idea and the money to make it work. Instead they choose to alienate the very people who were supporting them. Now they again want to force you to play their way or else. I don't understand companies that operate this way, but it's their company.
If they think that this is going to persuade my clients to start paying, they are a very poor judge of human nature. It has quite the opposite effect on most.
I think most reasonable LS customers would easily understand and accept LS launching a new product, and making a concerted effort to encourage existing customers to upgrade. But LookSmart chose to cancel the existing product, and force everyone to upgrade to an expensive new (and dissimilar) product, with ominous warnings about losing traffic and those who don't upgrade by July 11 will cease to receive traffic.

Way to go guys! You're an nth ranked player in the SE marketplace and you are principally known only to professionals, who make it their business to know all of the SE options. Those people are the same ones who have helped LS achieve some moderate success in Directory over these past 3 years or so, and they helped LS survive the dot-com crash.

Now LS, go tell all of those customers that you want them to pay you lots of money. Lots and lots. Don't grandfather any old listings. Don't launch a complementary and innovative CPC product, instead discontinue the Directory product and force everyone to upgrade. And tell everyone who doesn't upgrade that they will lose their listings and cease to receive traffic from the LookSmart network.

I think most people would have even agreed to start paying LS an annual fee, maybe $99 or somesuch, for Directory. (LS, you ain't Y! and there's no way you merit $299 per year for your limited network).

LookSmart has lost any customer loyalty or confidence it may have had. After this, who would dare trust LookSmart in the future? I can see that 15 months from now, LookSmart may just decide that clicks are no longer $0.15, they should be $0.25, and that the monthly minimum isn't $15, it's $25. What's to stop them? They've got their contract and now a clear track record for using it to shove unpleasant changes down their customer's throats.

LookSmart has proven that they don't care about the customer's point of view. They alone will decide the value proposition behind any of their new product launches or existing product changes. Then they will proceed to force the new model down your throat. And you will have no choice. Ask yourself, is LookSmart the kind of company you would do business with?

In my opinion, we should all cease to do business with LookSmart. This is what I am telling my customers. (I will find other ways, with other more reputable vendors in CPC or paid index inclusion, to replace any traffic lost from LS).

Don't activate your CPC account. (At the very least, you have until July 10 to decide what to do ... that's 10 weeks, plenty of time to watch what happens and carefully consider your options). Let LS see an incredibly low participation rate.

Don't cancel your listings. Why would you waste your time doing that? It would preclude any further options you might have, after all LS might decide to backtrack (I doubt it). And besides, LookSmart says they will gladly delete (or suppress) all of those listings you spent your time on and paid for after July 11. Isn't that nice of them?

Don't sign up any new LS listings. Let LS see their new listings rate drop to a 3 year low and stay there. Somehow they have to learn the lesson that like any company ...

LookSmart should earn their customer's continue business, not force it with compulsory, expensive, and incompatible product upgrades.

For a laugh, check out http://www.actdumb.com :D

tlacaelel

21-04-2002, 17:23/05:23PM

http://www.actdumb.com/img/looksmart-clickbucks.jpg (60Kb, 500 x 333)

This much!

They recommend only a sensible CPC budget for the small business owner. Given the typical monthly recommended budget numbers which many members have been posting on this and other forums, the average annual budget for a Small Business Listings customer should be:

http://www.bep.treas.gov/uploads/ACF1404.jpg (27Kb, 390 x 164)

Disclaimer: the L$ recommended budget for your site may vary. It could be much higher.

For a smile, visit http://www.actdumb.com

If you enjoyed the picture from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, you might want to spend a few minutes here: http://www.bep.treas.gov/document.cfm/5/42/1359

_______________________________
Welcome to VAX 11/780 VMS 2.1
Share and enjoy.

haystack

22-04-2002, 17:23/05:23PM

Doug, you make some great comparisons between OVER and LOOK. One thing I think many LOOK enthusiasts (not many on this board, eh?) are missing is the comparison between a $0.15 click on LOOK vs. a higher click on OVER.

With OVER you're only going to pay for those clicks for the exact search phrases you've chosen. Unfortunately, OVER won't let you bid on all relevant phrases due to insufficient search, but it's certainly superior to paying for traffic that's irrelevant or not sufficiently targeted.

You'll also end up paying WAY too much for targeted terms vs. OVER. A decent job or keyword research will find plenty of targeted terms for less than $0.15/click for even the most competitive industries.

For example, an SEO might be willing to pay for the term "search engine marketing" but they probably wouldn't want to pay for "free search engine marketing." If they happen to be highly ranked for the 2nd term they're going to end up paying quite a bit for some low ROI traffic.

Google offers some major advantages to LOOK since you can set negative search phrases and avoid paying for this junk traffic. AND you can set it up and make changes for free. We could also discuss reporting but are plenty of reasons to not use LOOK without going into that.

-ed

dvduval

22-04-2002, 22:24/10:24PM

Great job stating these points in a clear manner that is easy to understand, Haystack.

To make an example of one point you made:
If the Title and description LookSmart's editor gave someone was:
(BTW this is a near replica to an actual listing in LookSmart)

Robert Johnson's Baseball Cards - Homepage for this serious collector of baseball cards and memorabilia. Site has big list of cards and other goods for sale.

It is very likely that this site is going to be paying for hits on words and phrases like: big johnson, baseball list, serious collector, Johnson's homepage, etc. (you get the picture).

There is no way you are going to avoid getting untargeted hits. It is quite possible you will be paying anywhere from $0.25 to $2.00 per targeted keyword click. The return on investment on a keyword purchased at Overture for 15 cents is sure to offer a greater return than the average LookSmart click.

Your paying 15 cents per click on LookSmart but really you are paying much more.

nuzelonde

23-04-2002, 00:29/12:29AM

I love everyone! :)

Mel

23-04-2002, 00:39/12:39AM

Hi Nuzelonede:

Just what is your fixation on Angelina about???????

nuzelonde

23-04-2002, 17:17/05:17PM

exposing truth

haystack

23-04-2002, 21:06/09:06PM

It's sad to see a company make such poor business decisions as Looksmart has made over the past couple weeks. If only there was a way to help? Well, it's kind of late for that, but at least we can have some fun basking in their complete ignorance about the search engine industry.

So, I offer to you the Looksmart Relief Fund. (http://www.haystackinaneedle.com/contests/hello_look_20020423.htm)

http://www.haystackinaneedle.com/contests/hello_look_20020423.htm

:cheers:

-ed

romik

27-04-2002, 16:05/04:05PM

Hello all,

My first post here. Nice forum, very nice.

Anyway, a lot has been said and I do support all against this move by L$. I am not an SEO, all my work is aimed at my company site.

I came to believe that L$ really knew what they were doing. In the end of the day they are not that stupid. We just don't know what they are up to. There is no way they could not predict all this anger that would most certainly follow their change to the model. They are bastards for sure, but there should be something more coming out soon. I personally think that MSN is going to buy them out eventually and perform their own changes like grandfathering old listings and upgrading this s...y PPC current model. But again that is pure speculation, isn't it. There is no doubt that companies like mine could never in a million years justify the expence by using current L$. It simply does not make sence. We mainly sell offline, online sales probably generate around 25% of our turnover, mostly US customers. Over converts fine as profit margins are quite vast, but with L$ it would all be going into their pockets and not mine.

ihelpyou

27-04-2002, 16:17/04:17PM

Welcome to the forums romik! :hi:

Yes, it does seem that there is more coming. Hopefully L$ does get bought by someone. That would be sweet as the new owner would clean up the mess.

BTW, the signature uses vbcode for the Url. :)

ihelpyou

28-04-2002, 18:17/06:17PM

FYI,

In the middle of last week I had posted that my 100 click thing was done and my sites were also OFF of MSN.

Today, they have appeared once again in Looksmart and also in the MSN results. See here:

http://search.msn.com/results.asp?RS=CHECKED&FORM=MSNH&v=1&q=free%20search%20engines

#1 and #8, I believe.

I don't know what is going on as I have not even been to my account to do anything at all. I have not 'activated' it either.

Anyone have any ideas? Do you think L$ is reconsidering things?

FURTHER, oh my:

http://www.looksmart.com/r_search?look=&key=search+engine+forums

Featured?

Surely they would not have activated my account and card info would they?

MakeMeTop

28-04-2002, 18:41/06:41PM

No Doug,

They are not reconsidering, you still have the click-through code. Just that they have started your next monthly free click cycle. Same thing has happened with me, though my positions (which were good in the previous listings) tend to suck!

ihelpyou

28-04-2002, 18:48/06:48PM

Okay, well that is fine, but their email stated the next cycle would start May 20th or something like that. Also, why the 'featured' listing thing?

Something is not right here. My sites were just dropped the first of last week and now are started up again? hmm I receive 100 clicks in a span of 1 1/2 weeks month after month so I don't understand why my free clicks would start again this soon?

Kal

28-04-2002, 22:16/10:16PM

Doug - as far as I understand it, featured listings represent previous SitePromote customers, new customers who pay for relevancy keywords and Looksmart's larger sponsored listing customers. Unless you cancelled your $29.95 per month (by reducing your monthly budget by $29.95), you should continue to appear in Featured Listings. I might be wrong about this though.

Advisor

28-04-2002, 22:19/10:19PM

Kal, I believe I read somewhere that any site in the small biz listing "upgrade" can be put into the featured listings. One of my old client's sites keeps showing up there, and I've never done anything with it. I think it may have even been a free submit years ago, but perhaps it was a $199.

Jill

MakeMeTop

29-04-2002, 03:53/03:53AM

All sites have been put in as featured listings, regardless of if you have activated or not - as long as they were paid listings. Basically, activation seems to mean that you will continue to recieve your free clicks after July. apart from that, they are doing everything with your sites as if you had activated.

My sites disappeared after 72 hrs in the last cycle and are now back up again too. See how long it lasts. I assume everyone's cycle must begin and end at the same time.

ihelpyou

29-04-2002, 06:41/06:41AM

That Yahoo board is blatantly violating my copyrights. My pages of the site are being posted in their entirety on those boards.

And guess what? I cannot post anything to those boards at all. NO post will take and they get deleted. I am being censored. I was wondering why I could not see any posts I had made and now know why. My username is ihelpyous in there.

Hey lookdumb stockholders, ... I also do not appreciate you spamming me with your emails to me.

I want all LOOKDUMB stockholders to quit spamming. I have all of your IP addresses and will be reporting you to your respective ISP's if this continues.

Trust me kids, I can do this, and I will.

tlacaelel

29-04-2002, 11:05/11:05AM

And guess what? I cannot post anything to those boards at all. NO post will take and they get deleted. I am being censored. I was wondering why I could not see any posts I had made and now know why. My username is ihelpyous in there.You too Doug??!!

Congratulations! They did it to me also! Apparently the folks at LookSmart are truly paranoid and are afraid that a few intelligent, industry naysayers could injure them by sharing our critical opinions of LookSmart's recent actions. I love it! We're being honored by some pin-headed dweeb (probably the CFO or her direct report) who must be calling the double-secret phone number to reach the corporate relations trouble desk at Yahoo! operations (message boards). They probably have extra pull right now because of the quiet period surrounding their 10Q and conference call scheduled for Monday 29 April.

This is amazing. With all of the inane, profane, off-topic, promotional, cross-posted garbage that gets posted to that board all the time, somebody with priliviges at Yahoo! has determined to censor us (almost certainly at LookSmart's demand/request) and our intelligent posts. Absolutely amazing! I don't think Yahoo! has ever done anything like that for me before. I'm honored, Yahoo! did something just for me.

Has anybody else been censored on Yahoo! message boards, especially LOOK? We'll start a support group for Y! censorship victims.

And Doug, what the &^%$ could you have said to get censored? You so mild-mannered, it couldn't have been profanity, so what on earth did you do? Did you keep copies of your posts? (Right before I ever hit send on a board/forum post, I usually copy and paste into my emailer and send myself a copy for possible future reference.)

I'm wondering if this is an abuse by a Y! forums operator, or if forums policy gives 100% "benefit-of-the-doubt" to calls from corporate finance officials. In which case, those paranoids at LookSmart had ought seek proper psychiatric care as soon as possible.

The newest L$ (Actdumb) slogan: "We're not just extortionists, We're Also Paranoid. So Watch Out!"

(Everything stated here is nothing more, and nothing less, than my opinion.)

ihelpyou

29-04-2002, 11:09/11:09AM

Nope. No cussing from me at all. Nothing even bad or flaming at all. Who knows?

romik

29-04-2002, 11:29/11:29AM

kozlikha is still there :)

tlacaelel

29-04-2002, 11:54/11:54AM

Not for long, I'm sure! ;)

I'm still waiting for is an explanation about the censoring of my posts. I emailed Yahoo! message boards abuse department, and requested an explanation as to who was censoring me, at what level of authority, based upon what violation of their TOS, and at whose request.

No response. (Only autoack). I'm not holding my breath. I am disappointed that Y! would do this. There are clear TOS violations on nearly every board all the time. Yet somebody complains about a naysayer, and the critical opinion gets removed. Unbelievable. I'm no longer surprised about the depths to which those types at L$ will stoop.

New Actdumb slogan: "Don't Call The Cops, Pay Us The Ransom, And We Won't Harm Your Listing!"

romik

29-04-2002, 12:07/12:07PM

No company likes negativity, imagine if you were to show up at a shareholder meeting representing the short interest in that stock. :)

Advisor

29-04-2002, 12:16/12:16PM

tlacaelel, it's especially amusing when you read the other trash that still remains there. They allow people to post Doug's terms of service (which actually makes Doug look good!), and they allow people to call others all kinds of names, swear at them, etc. But they won't allow you or Doug to post. Go figure! They haven't figured out who I am yet so I think I'm safe for now. Of course, it's not like banning my nickname would stop me, there's plenty of nicks to choose from...

Jill

romik

29-04-2002, 12:24/12:24PM

true, so true. They called me a wan..r quite a few times now, though their posts are still there. I would love to see one of those pro LOOK traders/investors on Jerry Springer show. Go Jerry :)

ihelpyou

29-04-2002, 13:01/01:01PM

Yeah, and then they claim I am hiding them. lol. Any potential client has to read the damn thing first before I agree to help them. If they do not like what I wrote, I tell them to go elsewhere. LOL

I put them in an auto-responder because I do not wish every tom to see them and learn from them. lol

I agree though, they do look damn good, and for all to see. :)

A very blatant act of copyright violation though. I emailed Yahoo about it and do intend to pursue it so that poster better delete the couple of posts, and better do so ASAP!

Advisor

29-04-2002, 13:36/01:36PM

Wish they'd post some of my web site. Good free advertising if you ask me!

Jill

tlacaelel

29-04-2002, 13:59/01:59PM

That Yahoo board is blatantly violating my copyrights. My pages of the site are being posted in their entirety on those boards.Hi Doug, could you please summarize what you are talking about? I just glanced at the Y! LOOK board to find out for myself, but the offensive juvenile inanity I saw in just a few posts led me to promptly exit without investigating further.

I haven't looked in on the board for several days, so there's at least 120 posts I haven't seen, and I don't have my hip waders handy to start swimming through all that raw sewage spewing forth from the orifices of some of the strongbuys. It looks to me like they're all 10th graders who want to take their argument outside after school. (Sorry to any real 10th graders who might be offended).

Basically, whenever there is substantial (maybe even substantive) disagreement on a stock board, it quickly degenerates into ad hominem profanity and scares away anybody with a brain.

The other day on WMW there was this thread titled "LookSmart is right in what they are doing!" and it received dozens of posts, one guy saying "it's not nice but L$ had to ..." and everybody else saying "no ifs ands or buts, L$ is wrong, period." So I stuck my nose into at the 53rd post and said Never argue with a fool. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

A_C is entitled to his bizarre opinion, but he keeps reiterating the same baseless assertion "LookSmart had to do it", and never proves his point. Nor does he effectively discount the countless opposing viewpoints. Sounds like a broken record, this thread has unraveled. Immediately thereafter he StickyMail-ed me and said we live in the same city and he wants to meet to sort things out. So I posted his StickyMail to the thread and said:Ever heard of satire? Sarcasm? Don't spend much time in forums, do you? Try a stock message board sometime.People who post on stock boards are usually several bricks short of a full load.

Anyway back to the Y! LOOK board, it is a shame that (1) legitimate LOOK prospective investors are being denied a respectable forum in which to hear objective disagreement, and (2) the strongbuy ignoramuses are only interested in group masturbation sharing their unopposed strongbuy views.

Anyway, back to your situation ... would you please enlighten us what's happened on Y!LOOK respective to your copyrights? It will save us all the trouble of dirtying ourselves in the filth on that board.

Thanks!

Selected Actdumb slogan: The Market Leader In Perform-For-Payment Directory: "No Pay, No Perform."

ihelpyou

29-04-2002, 15:37/03:37PM

They posted my entire TOS word for word.

I guess they were trying to make a point, but I fail to see what that point was. :) As Jill said, it made me look quite good. LOL

Advisor

29-04-2002, 15:49/03:49PM

Same reason they posted the link to that article about guarantees in the SEO biz. (Who the heck knows???) They actually think they're helping their cause by posting that stuff, which shows what imbeciles they are! :green: It's not very surprising, actually. You gotta figure that anyone still hanging on to the sinking ship (and telling others to jump on with 'em!) can't be very bright, ya know?:load:

Jill

kneelsit

29-04-2002, 16:26/04:26PM

Don't know if there could be any truth in the rumour going around that some ex-members of the Enron board were taken on via the back-door a couple of months back as consultants to L$.

NaaH! couldn't be right. Could it??? :D

Advisor

29-04-2002, 16:37/04:37PM

LOL, Greg. That sure would explain a lot!

J

Kal

29-04-2002, 19:45/07:45PM

I've been tempted to post on the LOOK board, but figured there was really no benefit. It seems pretty obvious that very few people there are interested in intelligent debate about the issues, they are merely determined to protect the share price at all costs.

They also have a very strong bias against SEO's without fully understanding what we do - merely buying into the bad rep some SEO cowboys have created in the industry, so any posting is almost certainly doomed to flaming. :rolleyes: Aside from that, I really I don't think there's a point posting at a stock board if I don't own any of the stock in question. I certainly wouldn't think it was appropriate if they posted in here if they didn't own a web site.

I wouldn't bother getting worked up over it. Just protest with your most powerful weapon - your wallet.

tlacaelel

30-04-2002, 02:51/02:51AM

I really I don't think there's a point posting at a stock board if I don't own any of the stock in question.About one year ago I lost quite a bit of money on LOOK, so I think I'm entitled to share an experience-based opinion which might be worthwhile for some. Mind you, that loss didn't cause me to stop recommending and purchasing their Submit products (mostly Basic), but now that they have "upgraded" us all to this wacked new "product", I am compelled to comment. (Oh, so that's what it feels like to be "upgraded" without consent or anaesthesia).

Further, it doesn't help that in every single communication (pre-launch, announcement, activation, traffic interruption, customer service inquiries) LookSmart goes out of their way to repeatedly insult the intelligence of the customer. (They never talk about the money. And L$ wants lots and lots of it from you. They just talk about how great this is and how happy you should be.)

This scheme cannot work. Even for the customers who do activate and budget, those customers are surely not going to enjoy getting an email or two every month telling them "We've stopped your traffic (yet again)" and "Come pay us more money." I think that will drive the average Small Business Listings customer right up the wall. They'll be fed up with L$ in no time.

Latest Actdumb slogan: "If You Consult Your Contract, You Will See That We Can Take Your Child."

Mel

30-04-2002, 06:09/06:09AM

Times they are a changin'!
Just got a message for the MS money forum that now the Investors there are recommending selling Look$mart as they feel it will soon drop to to below $3.00. I can't wait to see what propaganda Look$mart are going to be dishing up on their conference call today, but it had better be something different than they have been dishing up for the past two weeks if they are to survive the summer.

I am going to take delight in going to the Yahoo board and asking those guys who just dropped a bundle if perhaps next time they might listen to those who know the market.

tlacaelel

30-04-2002, 11:26/11:26AM

I can't wait to see what propaganda Look$mart are going to be dishing up on their conference call todayI listened to the conference call, it began at 18.00E and lasted for just about 60 minutes.

(Here's my recollection of the call regarding just a few of the comments about listings and small business listings, which occupied probably 25% of the call. These are not to be taken as quotations or representations of LookSmart's position. My comments here represent only my understanding of what I heard. So this is nothing more than my opinion. You should contact LookSmart and ask for their 10Q, and direct all of your questions to their IR department).

ET said they had 5,000 customers activate in the three weeks since launch and that these results were well above our expectations.

He also said Looksmart's job is to provide highly relevant search results and that they are now positioned as the clear leader in what we call search inclusion.

Once again, completely failing to talk about the 'elephant in the room', ET kept banging on relevancy, saying their network partners look to them to ensure that there are paid commercial links that are truly relevant and deliver highly relevant results for their users and in turn generate revenue.

Get the picture yet?

This is my favorite: We've been indicating for some time we were going to move away from the single fee model. The reason it took so long is we wanted to be really thoughtful about how we rolled that out and delivered value for our customers.

In the analyst (yeah, right!) Q&A, one of the trained wall street seals was banging on the customer count, trying to understand how many potential "existing (single fee) customers" there would be in the queue as potential participating ugprades. Either JK or ET said all those customers have the opportunity to sign up for the new product, and JK said the monthly budgets that these folks are setting ... are very healthy and above our expectations. ET clarified that it was way too early to make any judgements about the level of participation and the revenue possibilities, just that they were pleased and that results had exceeded their expectations.

ET was making a recurring point that since the new SBLs are based on descriptions and value added keywords, with the upcoming impact of the Wisenut technology, that the listings customer will enjoy the benefit of a more widely appearing listing, or increased relevancy. Their technology will allow your result to appear as relevant more often than a simple directory listing. (I'm very doubtful if that's a good thing, you'll be paying at your CTR for all those appearances, L$ just wants you to appear as often as possible so you can pay them as often as possible.)

So I fell out of my chair when the analyst moron asked (regarding all of the existing customers signing up): do they get a freebie on relevancy increase? (!) ROTFLMAO

Many analysts really are morons. This one just thinks that the customers are cells on a spreadsheet and all you need to do is change calculations and change prices and add product options, in order to dramatically increase revenues and profits. We customers are nothing more than numbers, and our behavior is simply modeled in a spreadsheet. It's obviously not possible to outrage and offend your customer base with stupid product changes and compulsory upgrades.

In response to an analyst question about the new value-proposition that L$ offers the customers, ET said that in this new model the customer has the ability to spend a lot more and get a lot more. When the analyst voiced concern about LookSmart having limited options to further raise prices, add options or change products, ET said the contract has a lot of flexibility.

Indeed it does. Actdumb slogan: "If You Consult Your Contract, You'll See That We Can Take Your Child."

I reiterate that this is simply my opinion of what I recall from the conference call, it is not in any way complete and is not to be taken literally. It is not to be taken in any way as representations from LookSmart. Talk to LookSmart for any guidance, questions, or documents, including their 10Q and all other company information. You might even ask them for a transcript of the call.

Newest Actdumb slogan: Thank You For Activating, You've Now Been Monetized. Cha-ching.

Mel

30-04-2002, 11:38/11:38AM

Sounds to me like they were talking for 60 minutes but no one said anything.
Given that they had 90,000 customers 5,000 (about 5.6%) activating in the first three weeks is not so hot, especially when you consider that activating does not mean that you are spending any money with them, as you could activate and take only your 100 free clicks.

The stock analyists are saying sell L$ now. Lets see what the Q2 results bring.

Advisor

30-04-2002, 11:51/11:51AM

Big whoop about activating. I activated because they made it sound necessary. Will I give them even a penny more of my money. Never Ever!

No matter what happens now, I will never pay them anything ever again. I wish I could figure out how to deactivate my credit card with them. Because they are not to be trusted and will probably charge me for some new contract term that they add while I'm sleeping.

Gotta love this: "ET said the contract has a lot of flexibility."

Here's surely what the next new clause will say: We can charge your credit card any amount we want, any time we want, because it's in the terms of service. Sorry, sucker!

ET phone home and get a clue.

Jill

nicebloke

30-04-2002, 12:03/12:03PM

Just noticed this at WMW:

http://www.reuters.com/markets_news_article.jhtml?storyID=900933&marketID=1&ric=

SubmissoR

30-04-2002, 15:54/03:54PM

The link in the beginning of this thread to the looksmart forum on yahoo, its been removed or something......(sorry if that was already mentioned, I didnt read all 8 pages of this thread!)

Advisor

30-04-2002, 16:59/04:59PM

You can always find that thread at finance.yahoo.com and then search for LOOK. Once you find LOOK, click on "messages" and you'll get to the forum. Beware, it's pretty nasty in there!

Jill

ihelpyou

30-04-2002, 21:36/09:36PM

New 'reminder' email message from L$:
Dear Valued Customer:

On April 11, we emailed you to announce the launch of Small Business Listings. Now we'd like to clarify a few points raised in that message.

When we migrated your listings to this new, improved product at no charge, we also started giving you a Free Monthly Account Credit of $15 per listing. Your listings are already using these free clicks. However, unless you act soon, this Free Monthly Account Credit will end after your 3rd month in the program.

We urge you to take advantage of this offer to extend your Free Monthly Account Credit to 20 months -- giving you $300 in free clicks for each listing currently in your account. To receive this offer you must activate your LookSmart account.

Activation is absolutely free -- There is NO charge and NO obligation.
Once you activate you can cancel at any time and pay nothing.

To activate your account, follow these steps:
1. Go to the Activate Your Account page in the My Account section of the LookListings Small Business web site.
2. Log in to your account using your email address and password.
3. Complete and submit the Activate Your Account form.

Immediately after you activate, we'll email you a coupon for $20 off Update Listing (reg. $49). Right now your listings are not performing as well as they could, because you have not yet selected keywords for them. Update Listing lets you select up to 10 relevancy keywords for a listing. You can also update the listing's title and description.

Activate your account and take advantage of this offer today. We know Small Business Listings will continue to be an effective lead generator for your business.

Sincerely,
The LookListings Small Business Team

My oh my. They truly believe we are ignorant. I know I have until July 10th. DUH!!! LOL

Gee, I wonder why they feel it is sooooo urgent that we activate our accounts? Could it be they want more money?? LOLOLOLOL

Advisor

30-04-2002, 23:02/11:02PM

They want to give big numbers of those who activate. Just like they supposedly gave in the investor phone call today.

Really doesn't get you anything not to update now, I don't think. Shouldn't matter either way. Obviously no one is going to pay them anything additional, and will just set their clicks to 100. So you might as well just at least do that and not lose your listings.

J

Mel

30-04-2002, 23:07/11:07PM

Hi Jill:
No problem with the credit card - just go back into your account and change the credit card number to something random then let them try to charge it.

Seems like the analysts and investors did not like the news on the 29th as L$ stock dropped 23% the next day. Wehn theystart to find out just how badly Look$mart are screwing thier customers around it may just fall through the floor and all those nice folks over on the Yahoo forum can spend the next six months moaning over how much (potential) money they lost.

Advisor

30-04-2002, 23:17/11:17PM

I wasn't sure if they may verify the credit card and that wouldn't work. But I suppose it wouldn't hurt to try it!

Jill

Kal

30-04-2002, 23:58/11:58PM

Newest Actdumb slogan: Thank You For Activating, You've Now Been Monetized. Cha-ching. [/B]

:green: That's my favourite so far! [note to self]get back to work & stop hanging around the forums![/note to self]

tlacaelel

01-05-2002, 00:21/12:21AM

NEWS ALERT - ACTDUMB SPEAKS AGAIN

The inspired brilliance of brother (sister?) Actdumb has been heard again. A second bitterly satirical post has appeared at the end of the thread started by the selfsame Actdumb. That thread is entitled "Reverse Spin".

If you haven't read Actdumb's first post (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2819&perpage=20&pagenumber=1) from 12-April, please do. If you have, then please rush over and check out Actdumb's second post (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=36762#post36753) from 30-April.

A superb writer of satire, with considerable insight into L$ business malpractices. Methinks Actdumb is ex-employee who knows well the cast of misfits piloting the L$ ship.

Make sure to check out Actdumb's posts on the "Reverse Spin" thread. You will enjoy them.

Random Actdumb slogan: Don't Call The Cops, Pay Us The Ransom, And We Won't Harm Your Listing.

Mel

01-05-2002, 00:30/12:30AM

Hi Jill:

methinks they are not verifying the CC numbers at registration time as I used an expired card number to activate my free clicks and they ate it up.

Climber

01-05-2002, 09:15/09:15AM

I received the following email notice for one of my clients listing:

Time: 30-April-02 8:48PM

" Dear Valued Customer:

On April 11, we emailed you to announce the launch of Small Business Listings. Now we'd like to clarify a few points raised in that message.

When we migrated your listings to this new Bla Bla Bla....... "

What a lie! I only received the 'announcement' for this listing on 30-April-02 8:03PM. Exactly 45 minutes before the remider to activate.

Will I Activate? Not a chance! this clients site is still ranked # 1 .
I made the mistake of logging onto an other clients account and the ranking dropped from # 3 to # 68 after 'temporary service interruption'

John

Advisor

01-05-2002, 09:20/09:20AM

Will I Activate? Not a chance! this clients site is still ranked # 1 . I made the mistake of logging onto an other clients account and the ranking dropped from # 3 to # 68 after 'temporary service interruption' Unbelievable :2:

They truly are donkeys.

Jill

romik

01-05-2002, 10:24/10:24AM

The sale volume of LOOK is now incredible. The are droping like a stone, it's good to know that the world is not full of idiots. :) Good Bye LOOK.

Advisor

01-05-2002, 10:41/10:41AM

LOL...they're under 2! I knew I should have shorted them!

J

romik

01-05-2002, 10:50/10:50AM

Google got the deal with AOL.

kneelsit

01-05-2002, 10:52/10:52AM

Interesting times!

1. Overture's just signed up for 3 years with Yahoo. This announcement seems to have kept their stock price fairly steady.

2. Google signed a deal with AOL - not certain exactly what they will be supplying.

3. Will MSN now rely mainly on Inktomi for its general search results?? - since L$ is virtually on life support.

Advisor

01-05-2002, 10:55/10:55AM

Will someone tell those idiot LS investors that I never said this:The other point, Jill who apparently is masquarading on this board makes startling revelations that "No investor has a right to be on your "Forum" unless they own a
website.

I strongly believe that anyone can be on any forum they like, regardless of their reasons, and I know I never said anything even close to the above.

Thanks.

Jill

ihelpyou

01-05-2002, 11:08/11:08AM

That guy is simply grasping at straws Jill. Don't worry about it as we know you did not say that. Anyone is welcome anywhere as long as they keep it clean with NO bad language, etc, like I see over there.

I truly feel sorry for Looksmart. I was a huge fan for along time. They simply brought this on themselves with no help from anyone. They could still change things for the better but I'm not sure they will do that.

All they had to do was simply grandfather the current clients in the new scheme and give all of us a choice. They did not. It could have been very simple.

Advisor

01-05-2002, 11:26/11:26AM

That's what I find so interesting about this whole L$ phenomenon. They were so over the top in what they did that even their staunchest supporters (such as you, Doug), have turned against them. Plus, even people who are usually very reserved and logical such as MMT and Alan are speaking out heavily on this. If I'm not mistaken, even Danny is amazed and won't have much good to say when his next article comes out. (That's just my speculation.)

Does anyone know of any other company that managed to piss off such a high percentage of their customer base and lived to tell about it?

The only people that seem to think what they've done is a good idea are the couple of idiot investors at the Yahoo forum, and a few LS bigwigs. I LOVE the fact that they won't change their mind on this whole thing. It will make their demise be all that much quicker!

J

MakeMeTop

01-05-2002, 12:24/12:24PM

I had a client who has 5 LookSmart listings fly to Ireland today and spent 2 hours going through the L$ situation. Basically, I've been told to do nothing more with L$ and go for Overture and Google AdWords on 2 new sites we are doing, plus my usual stuff. So today alone I've paid Yahoo $900, Ink $120, LS UK £600, put $100 on Overture and set up a $25.00 ppc per day budget on Google. L$ got not 1c. I will do this 2 more times this week. If this is multiplied by the many other SEOs who have taken L$ out of the equation - who knows what fall in income L$ has received - with other SEs being the beneficiaries.

Oh, another site which normally receives about 20 referrals per day used all 100 clicks in 36 hours!

How do they think anyone could possibly recommend this to clients? Unless they are just hoping to cut out the middle-man and appeal to the unwary site owner directly!

Chris_D

02-05-2002, 02:24/02:24AM

I love graphs - don't you?

I really love this graph on the L$ site - its a graph of their share price over the last month..... at first... I thought it was a picture of a big cliff !! LOL

http://www.shareholder.com/looksmart/chart.cfm?Period=1&Bench1=

Maybe some of those L$ investors who were so vocal a week or so ago could explain the graph to us?

Kal

02-05-2002, 05:55/05:55AM

That's the prettiest cliff I've seen in ages hey Chris? ;)

Mel

02-05-2002, 07:20/07:20AM

Yes thats one of the nicest stock charts i hve seen in some time, but I don't think its finished yet.

BTW, regarding the vocal fools on the Yahoo message board, I am totally amazed that people will invest large sums of money based on the shape of a graph, without knowing the slightest thing about the business or prospects of the company.

They are now talking over there about Looksmart having these valuable propeties Zeal and Wisenut that are going to be thier ultimate salvation. Considering that both are free submission schemes and that neither is a major player how the h*** do they expect that to happen, especially after losing the AOL deal? They can't even shaft the payig customers since there are none.

ihelpyou

02-05-2002, 08:25/08:25AM

Good question.

We may see someone like Google or MSN buy up the assets, with the biggest assets being zeal and wisenut's technology.

romik

02-05-2002, 13:36/01:36PM

Mel,

These posters at Y! forum consider themselves traders (not investors). Whether they are or not I don't know. They sure don't act like the ones that I know. Traders sit by their PC all day long looking at charts/news/etc & don't have time to post all this garbage. It certainly looks like these posters are simply ramping the stock, just look at their posts, they are plain dumb to say the least. Certainly not investors.

I post there and will never ever take to heart what these morons are saying or will say about myself and I told them that. I will keep posting until the time LS disappears from Y! financial forums :)

Advisor

02-05-2002, 14:19/02:19PM

I'm sure most of them are just looksmart plants. Nobody in their right mind could act the way those people act if they were true investors. It just doesn't make sense. I've seen the same thing on other stock boards...company plants always act the same way - STUPID!

Jill

JuniorHarris

02-05-2002, 14:48/02:48PM

Maybe someone needs to douse those company plants with water!~ ;)

We will not even be activating our account, or even coming close to logging into "our" account...I'm so done with them I don't even discuss it anymore. Well, except for a few fellow web site owners who have asked about submitting to LS...'course I tell them to forget it fast!~ There are plenty of other engines/services eager to take their monies, and some even actually respect their customers and offer reasonable customer services!~;)

lots0cash

02-05-2002, 15:13/03:13PM

I have kept out of this thread- up till now. It has been an interesting read.

I made some money off L$ - I shorted the stock as soon as I found out what they were doing, I think I will buy me a
new pickup truck with the profits.:)

I must say that in my opinion most Internet stock traders really don’t have a clue. The dot.com crash was brought
about by these same clueless folk running around driving Internet stock prices to truly unreal levels, then causing the crash when they realized they had way overvalued the stock. Then these same so called Internet stock traders proclaimed the Internet is dead - no one will ever make money off the net - I say Bull ****.

As you can tell my opinion of most Internet stock traders is not very high, IMO their mentality is about the same as a
spamer; chase the easy money even if its not there.

And to all you Internet stock traders who’s feelings I have hurt - Too bad, suck it up. Your stupidity and greed hurt a lot of people.