detlev
06-10-2004, 01:25 AM
Hello everyone,
Danny wrote this article about paid inclusion: The Paid Inclusion Dinosaur (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3361971)
I wanted to continue the discussion about the affect paid inclusion has on relevancy. Some sites are just not crawler friendly and paid inclusion offers Webmasters a service they can pay for to get crawler response. Paid inclusion is here to stay. Still, the basic service has been criticized for moving to CPC.
The main inclusion service that I see continuing is one that the large publishers engage: XML trusted feed. There simply is no way a general Web crawler can spider a large site and index all the content for Web search, especially when sites are delivered via increasingly problematic and dynamic platforms. I do not see a search engine magically making the problem go away by building a better crawler - ever. I think there will always be content crawlers miss, or pages they duplicate when attempting to index all the Web.
XML continues to be the best way a publisher can describe a site's contents to a search engine and advertisers gain customer support and marketing reports as a benefit. Is it evil? Some will always think so, but I believe these to be kinda radical people. It is evil when a publisher uses the XML inclusion service to spam. It is increasingly tough to participate in the Trusted Feed program due to the guidelines in place and the necessary policing that is going on.
All the resources it takes to offer the service means the cost must be offset by fees collected from advertisers. Paid inclusion is here to stay. I think the form that is best suited to stay and evolve over time is the XML Trusted Feed service. I have long believed XML is the perfect bridge between Webmasters and search engines. It is a matter that payment is involved and therefore the service comes under attack. Yahoo! believes paid inclusion actually *increases* the relevancy of its results.
If problem sites can afford to pay to get in the index, I agree with Yahoo! that it must increase the relevancy of results and not detract from them. Wether Yahoo! follows Danny's advice to actually boost these results and to proudly show them off as paid advertising is another thing. It may make sense, it may not. I just think that the XML Trusted Feed service really enables many problem sites with access to participate in search results where they might have been neglected by general Web crawlers without it.
*cheers*
-detlev
Danny wrote this article about paid inclusion: The Paid Inclusion Dinosaur (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3361971)
I wanted to continue the discussion about the affect paid inclusion has on relevancy. Some sites are just not crawler friendly and paid inclusion offers Webmasters a service they can pay for to get crawler response. Paid inclusion is here to stay. Still, the basic service has been criticized for moving to CPC.
The main inclusion service that I see continuing is one that the large publishers engage: XML trusted feed. There simply is no way a general Web crawler can spider a large site and index all the content for Web search, especially when sites are delivered via increasingly problematic and dynamic platforms. I do not see a search engine magically making the problem go away by building a better crawler - ever. I think there will always be content crawlers miss, or pages they duplicate when attempting to index all the Web.
XML continues to be the best way a publisher can describe a site's contents to a search engine and advertisers gain customer support and marketing reports as a benefit. Is it evil? Some will always think so, but I believe these to be kinda radical people. It is evil when a publisher uses the XML inclusion service to spam. It is increasingly tough to participate in the Trusted Feed program due to the guidelines in place and the necessary policing that is going on.
All the resources it takes to offer the service means the cost must be offset by fees collected from advertisers. Paid inclusion is here to stay. I think the form that is best suited to stay and evolve over time is the XML Trusted Feed service. I have long believed XML is the perfect bridge between Webmasters and search engines. It is a matter that payment is involved and therefore the service comes under attack. Yahoo! believes paid inclusion actually *increases* the relevancy of its results.
If problem sites can afford to pay to get in the index, I agree with Yahoo! that it must increase the relevancy of results and not detract from them. Wether Yahoo! follows Danny's advice to actually boost these results and to proudly show them off as paid advertising is another thing. It may make sense, it may not. I just think that the XML Trusted Feed service really enables many problem sites with access to participate in search results where they might have been neglected by general Web crawlers without it.
*cheers*
-detlev