Google - Paid inclusion?

[eragon]

Someone came to me and said they thought Google offers paid-inclusion, like Yahoo. I don't recall seeing information that supports this. In fact, from the information I do keep up with, I think the opposite is true--that Google is one of the last SEs to NOT offer paid-inclusion in their serps.

So can somebody please confirm which side of the fence G is on regarding paid-inclusion? Thanks!

[AdWordsRep]

Someone came to me and said they thought Google offers paid-inclusion, like Yahoo. I don't recall seeing information that supports this. In fact, from the information I do keep up with, I think the opposite is true--that Google is one of the last SEs to NOT offer paid-inclusion in their serps.

So can somebody please confirm which side of the fence G is on regarding paid-inclusion? Thanks!
Eragon, I'd be happy to jump in on this - and confirm that no one may pay to appear within the Google search results, nor, once there, can anyone pay to improve their position.

I'm guessing that your contact may have mistaken the paid AdWords ads to the right of (and in some cases, above) the search results for paid inclusion.

(And by the way, just to have said it - being an AdWords advertiser, regardless of spend, will not influence appearance in the search results either. No connection between one and the other, at all.)

AWR

[eragon]

Thank you for confirming my belief! I was worried there for a second thinking I had fallen asleep and missed something like this. I hope G never decides to do paid-inclusion. Sometimes easier isn't always better. :)

[seobook]

nor, once there, can anyone pay to improve their position.
unless they hire (or are) a competent SEO...or contact a link broker :)

[rustybrick]

It would be interesting to see Google go the paid inclusion route.

:confused:
Did I just set myself up to get stoned? :eek:

[Anthony Parsons]

It would be interesting to see Google go the paid inclusion route.

:confused:
Did I just set myself up to get stoned? :eek:

No stoning required! ;)

I think about that myself at times. Yes, without it, Google chooses what is indexed and what is not, and with PFI, well, they lose control of that, and lets face it, once indexed, its open slather for manipulation then. I guess we would have more junk than we do now appearing in top results. It is definately a border line decision though...

[rustybrick]

I think about that myself at times. Yes, without it, Google chooses what is indexed and what is not, and with PFI, well, they lose control of that,...

This kind of leads us back to a thread Danny started a while back named What Organic Search Support Services Would You Want? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=197).

[AdWordsRep]

nor, once there, can anyone pay to improve their position.

unless they hire (or are) a competent SEO...or contact a link broker
Heheh! I guess I should have said "...nor, once there, can anyone pay Google to improve their position" !!

Language. You gotta watch it every second! :cool:

AWR

[seobook]

Heheh! I guess I should have said "...nor, once there, can anyone pay Google to improve their position" !!

Is that an official Google endorsed statement that SEOs can and do manipulate their index? :D

Language. You gotta watch it every second! :cool:
just teasing you with word games :)

[AdWordsRep]

Is that an official Google endorsed statement that SEOs can and do manipulate their index?

Well, no. But it is a personal opinion that SEOs can and do work tirelessly, effectively, and ethically to enhance their client's Internet presence! :)

AWR

[AussieWebmaster]

Well, no. But it is a personal opinion that SEOs can and do work tirelessly, effectively, and ethically to enhance their client's Internet presence! :)

AWR
Wow that is quotable.... if the tongue wasn't sticking so far out the cheek!!!

[Nacho]

SEOs rule the Search Engines vs. Search Engines rule SEOs . . . hmmm this calls for a thread:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1645

Have fun!

[David Wallace]

It is already pretty evident IMO that paid inclusion has come and gone with the exception of Yahoo hanging on to it and even that has been debated whether they made the right move with the PFI program last March.

I certainly don't see Google making such a mistake and letting money having any influence over their editorial results. They still have the largest and most up to date index. Their AdWords unit is still extremely profitable., they are now public. Why mess with all that?

[jan]

No one may pay Google to appear within the Google search results, nor, once there, can anyone pay Google to improve their position.
Excellent strategy. Keep editorial and ads separate. How would you like it if your newspaper were mixing up these two? Or CNN? That's exactly what I dislike about the Yahoo directory...

[NFFC]

>Someone came to me and said they thought Google offers paid-inclusion, like Yahoo.

That someone was wrong.

In general they do an excellent job in putting a "chinese wall" between the paid ads and the real results. Having said that they are a business not a non-profit, they will be influenced by the $ in one way or another.

For example we have a thread here about Microsoft cloaking, will they ban Microsoft? Of course not. If say Ebay or Amazon were having a few problems with getting pages indexed do you think they would get a little Google help? Of course they would.

Thats all just normal and good business. To me the grey area comes from statements like;

>And by the way, just to have said it - being an AdWords advertiser, regardless of spend, will not influence appearance in the search results

Now I'm not suggesting that AWR is lieing but in my view that statement is somewhat economical with the truth. Its an open secret that big adwords spenders can get a little "advice" on real results questions if they ask.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. If I were a big spender I would maybe expect a little advice if I had a problem in the real results [no direct intervetion though] but the fact that spending big is the primary decider on whether you can get that advice sticks in my throat a little.

Still you can only judge people by their peers, in that respect they are streets ahead. Still doesn't mean they are whiter than white though.

IMHO.

[AussieWebmaster]

>Someone came to me and said they thought Google offers paid-inclusion, like Yahoo.

That someone was wrong.

In general they do an excellent job in putting a "chinese wall" between the paid ads and the real results. Having said that they are a business not a non-profit, they will be influenced by the $ in one way or another.

For example we have a thread here about Microsoft cloaking, will they ban Microsoft? Of course not. If say Ebay or Amazon were having a few problems with getting pages indexed do you think they would get a little Google help? Of course they would.

Thats all just normal and good business. To me the grey area comes from statements like;

>And by the way, just to have said it - being an AdWords advertiser, regardless of spend, will not influence appearance in the search results

Now I'm not suggesting that AWR is lieing but in my view that statement is somewhat economical with the truth. Its an open secret that big adwords spenders can get a little "advice" on real results questions if they ask.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. If I were a big spender I would maybe expect a little advice if I had a problem in the real results [no direct intervetion though] but the fact that spending big is the primary decider on whether you can get that advice sticks in my throat a little.

Still you can only judge people by their peers, in that respect they are streets ahead. Still doesn't mean they are whiter than white though.

IMHO.


Any suggestions I get I pass along here... so it pays to read the forums, as others also do the same.

[seobook]

Now I'm not suggesting that AWR is lieing but in my view that statement is somewhat economical with the truth. Its an open secret that big adwords spenders can get a little "advice" on real results questions if they ask.
I only recently found out about the "engineer consultations" and I have had something like a half dozen people confirm it within a few days of hearing it.

economical indeed.

Any suggestions I get I pass along here... so it pays to read the forums, as others also do the same.
while it is still helpful, that is still not the same thing. I spoke with a search engine engineer for a couple hours not that long ago and it means more when you hear voice inflections from the original source rather than reading second hand what is passed along.

as sources become more anonymous eventually statements get blurred and lose accountability. you can bet if I am getting advice and am spending a few million dollars a year that the advice is going to be more customized and correct than what I get for free second or third hand.

[lots0]

As google is now a publicly traded corporation, that has to answer to it’s stockholders, I predict (I even have my tin foil hat on) that as soon as their ad revenue stops increasing or drops google will start paid inclusion.

<edited for spelling>

[seobook]

As google is now a publicly traded corporation, that has to answer to it’s stockholders, I predict (I even have my tin foil hat on) that as soon as the ad revenue stops increasing or drops google will start paid inclusion.

that is a bold claim...they would lose a bunch of credibility with a move like that.

[lots0]

I don’t think what I said is a bold statement at all, I think it is just a matter of time, sooner or later the profits will slip and then we’ll see... ;)

[projectphp]

I think it is just a matter of time, sooner or later the profits will slip
If you said "sooner or later profits will plateau" I might agree. But profits will slip? I really can't see revenue decreasing anytime in the short to medium term, and I can't see Google increasing spending significantly, so really, profit will only grow for the forseeable future.

The real question is what Google will; do in 3-5 years when PPC and online ad spend plateau's, and the hideously inflated P/E needs to come into line, whether that will lead to a dramatic drop in share price, "necessitating" such measures, at least in under pressure management's eyes.

But anyone, who said Google needs to do "traditional" Paid Inclusion? What about another set of results ala Froogle news etc? If Froogle goes PPC, that might be the best of both worlds.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

>And by the way, just to have said it - being an AdWords advertiser, regardless of spend, will not influence appearance in the search results

Now I'm not suggesting that AWR is lieing but in my view that statement is somewhat economical with the truth.

I m not going to call anyone a liar either but this statement is "political" or simply uninformed. I am not the only one that have experienced exactly the oposite of that AWR is saying: Big dollars spend on AdWords does in fact influence your appearance in search results.

I am not saying that you can pay for inclusion (that is, unless you pay me :)) but it is a proven fact that the largest of Googles advertisers do get a different treatment. I don't think thats very different from most other media.


Now, back to the original question:
I may personally be partly responsible for the rumour. Early this year some "friends" and I started spreading this joke and we actually talked about promoting it on a site: "Google Paid Inclusion". We mostly did this to tease (in a friendly way) our friends at Google. We told them: "We offer Google Paid Inclusion" and they replied: "WHAT!" Yes, we said, companies come to us and pay us money to get into Google. It's not very different from Yahoo PFI ... except, you (Google) don't get any of the money - we keep it all. Thank you! :D

Not long after we started to hear the rumour coming back to us ... "have you heard, this company offer Google Paid Inclusion ...!" I guess, thats what happens to good rumours. Word of mouth os powerful! Others may have launched the same rumour so I won't claim sole credit for this.

Anyway, as any good rumour there is some truth to it. Yes, companies actually pay me (and others) to get into Google. For completely un-indexable sites we call it: Indexing Barrier Removal Services - other may probably name it different, but the game is the same: Companies pay us (SEOs) to get into Google. Guarantee? Well, do Yahoo give you any guarantee on inclusion? No, if you spam Yahoo they penalize you just as Google does - no matter who you pay.

Actually, I was thinking of giving an inclusion "guarantee" on my "Google Paid Inclusion" service: Pay me $25 per URL per year - I will even top Yahoos offer and only charge you after the URLs are indexed! I think I have got almost 1 million pages indexed for various clients over the last year, so that would be a pretty good deal (for me, that is - Google still would not get a dime) :)

The question is: How long will Google let me (and other SEOs) run away with all the "inclusion money"?

[lots0]

PHP this is one of those rare occasions when I agree with you :)
I should have written when profits peak, plateau, level off or some such. Cuz I think your correct about the short term profitability of google.

But, I don't think it will take 3-5 years, I am thinking it will be much shorter term maybe 1-3 years.

I have been hearing rumors about google going PFI ever since goto(overture) started the first real PPC.

[AussieWebmaster]

I don�t think what I said is a bold statement at all, I think it is just a matter of time, sooner or later the profits will slip and then we�ll see... ;) I think you are way off... when the money drops off from this there are a bunch of better ways for them to monetize... paid inclusion has been the death toll for more than one engine.
The hob integration as mentioned in the monster thread... subscription search, licensing search... selling database info... and all the technologoies that have yet to be developed... why go back to a loser?

[lots0]

I think you are way off.

Not the first time. ;)

Only way to know who is right or wrong is to wait and see. Maybe in a few years someone will drag this thread out and make me eat crow, but I don't think so.

BTW - There is at least one big name SE that does quite well with paid inclusion. Paid inclusion is profitable and I don't believe for a second that Paid Inclusion is a loser for the search engines.

<added>
paid inclusion has been the death toll for more than one engine.
Can you name any major search engine that has died or gone bankrupt bcuz they were a PFI or went PFI?

Can you name one SE that has changed back to free submission after they have went PFI?

[projectphp]

PHP this is one of those rare occasions when I agree with you
Well, as if my day could get any weirder!!!

I think paid inclusion via a seperate index just makes more sense, i.e. a segregated result set. Mixing results is a bad idea IMHO, but a seperate "chunk" of results probably isn't bad.

[dannysullivan]

Can you name one SE that has changed back to free submission after they have went PFI?
Two: Ask Jeeves and MSN.

OK, Ask Jeeves still hasn't put up a free Add URL page. Doesn't matter. Those pages have never really helped anyone that much anyway, given the sheer amount of submits they receive. They're more about making the new webmaster feel good they've done something than ensuring an actual listing. That listing will simply come from crawling.

As for MSN, still using Yahoo of course -- and Yahoo does have a free submit page. So effectively, that's MSN having shifted over.

[AussieWebmaster]

Two: Ask Jeeves and MSN.

OK, Ask Jeeves still hasn't put up a free Add URL page. Doesn't matter. Those pages have never really helped anyone that much anyway, given the sheer amount of submits they receive. They're more about making the new webmaster feel good they've done something than ensuring an actual listing. That listing will simply come from crawling.

As for MSN, still using Yahoo of course -- and Yahoo does have a free submit page. So effectively, that's MSN having shifted over.Lol... that MSN one is a fine line walk. So the LookSmart PFI got dropped and the Yahoo/Inktomi listings are being used... and Yahoo has a free listing (but for non-commercial pages only) but Yahoo also has its paid inclusion...

[lots0]

Hi Danny,

Ask Jeeves is still accepting PFI until the 30th of this month Ask Jeeves will accept submissions from our resellers, www.ineedhits.com and www.positiontech.com until September 30th, 2004. Source:http://sp.teoma.com/docs/ad/p8a.html

And so far to me, it looks like after the end of this month, Ask is still going to include both PIF and free submission, just like before. But, I could be wrong, I don’t follow Ask that much.

I totally disagree with calling M$N anything but a PFI or PPC.

I do have some old commercial sites that are in M$N that did not pay to be there, but any new commercial sites have to pay. I don’t think it is any coincidence that the M$N “Submit a Site” page has this title tag
<title>MSN Advertising</title> Source:http://advertising.msn.com/msnsites/SubmitSite.asp
If anyone has a fast free way into M$N for a commercial site, please PM me with it ;)

By default, I was only thinking about commercial sites when I made those statements about PIF. Things are different for non-profit sites, as we all know. I guess I should not have made such general statements or I at least should have qualified my statements a little bit better. :)

<edited to ad a source>

[Elisabeth]

I just split off some really good posts into a new discussion in the more appropriate Yahoo - Paid inclusion forum here, as the details were beginning to focus on their approach to free and paid submit:

Exploring Yahoo Paid Inclusion & Free Submit Options
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1740


Let's get back to the topic of GOOGLE free vs paid results here - and leave discussion of other paid programs that were mentioned here in their respective forums.

[The Generator]

Not to get off subject here, but since we're talking about chedder, at this point in time I don't really feel it's necessary to pay a single cent to search engines for the purpose of organic SEO. I got top listings for some keywords in Yahoo, without paying the $299 to Yahoo. However, if you have the budget to pay the fee, i.e. if you are working on a corporation's website, by all means do it.

In my opinion, Google's pristine reputation as a provider of objective search results would become tarnished if they got a fee involved, even if it were to be significatnly less than the $299.

[rustybrick]

I spilt off the discussion about AdSense getting you into the Google index, in a thread in the Google AdSense forum named Does AdSense Get A Site Index by Google Quicker (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1807).

[sebastian]

i think not.

yahoo may have lost credibility with some of us "geeks"; but the average user has no idea it goes on and doesn't care. that's where strong brand is going to win out over the "pfi conspiracy" folks.

there is not one person that i can think of, outside the business, that would know or care that yahoo accepted paid inclusion.

therefore, if google did it, so what ...the only people griping about it will be those who can't afford it.

...but again, the users will never care.

my 2 cents

christian "sebastian"

[seobook]

therefore, if google did it, so what ...the only people griping about it will be those who can't afford it.

Google has flat out stated that accepting payment for inclusion into the results is wrong. those words would haunt them.

people would want to push that issue...there are a ton of Google haters in the world who would enjoy to see them fail.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

those words would haunt them.

I think history have proven that Google often make solid statements like that but soon after turn around on it. Remember when they told everyone there was nothing called spam in Google? They claimed their algo was too good for any spam to slip through. Do you still hear them say that? :rolleyes: