Lycos, ASK to resell SEO in the US

[KeywordMonkey]

According to Search Engine Lowdown http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/2...offer-seo.html Lycos and Ask will start reselling SEO.

Interesting in itself (would you buy SEO from a search engine? Conflict of interest, anyone?)

But it seems Lycos is in fact reselling Inceptor's services.

This Lycos SEO page http://ranking.lycos.com/siteside.html has 978-298-1550 on it as the enquiries phone number and Inceptor's homepage has 978-298-1525 on it. Suspiciously close numbers!

And a Google search for the number on the Lycos SEO site -
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...98-1550+&meta= - shows the number on Lycos' site in a press release from Inceptor... (unfortunately it's no longer on FindArticles but cache here http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cac...98-1550+&hl=en)

So Lycos are reselling Inceptor's SEO services.

[Nick W]

There is quite a bit of coverage on this actually. It started at this searchguild thread, which was reported at my site, then isedb.com and now searchenginelowdown.

Check em all out, good reading between the lot of them...

Nick

[seobook]

Originally Posted by Nick W

It started at this searchguild thread

Kalena Jordan started it at IHU

[Nick W]

Whoops!

Pardon me for my rudeness Kalina! Credit where credit is due!

thanks seobook!

Nick

[seobook]

Originally Posted by Nick W

Credit where credit is due!

green, not red

[NFFC]

...and in the bizarre world that is the current forum scene...it was first noticed here http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...read.php?t=516

That thread focused on the "ranking" reports but the SEO service was there too.

[rustybrick]

Three Words:

Conflict of Interest

[David Wallace]

Definite conflict of interest. So if you hire a search engine for your SEO (SE responsible even though they are outsourcing), then they are essential allowing money to influence their organic results - right? What is the difference between this and allowing someone just to pay to be on top? To me this move is nothing more than a struggle to survive in the search engine wars and a "grasping at straws" at that!

[Daria_Goetsch]

Originally Posted by David Wallace

Definite conflict of interest. So if you hire a search engine for your SEO (SE responsible even though they are outsourcing), then they are essential allowing money to influence their organic results - right? What is the difference between this and allowing someone just to pay to be on top? To me this move is nothing more than a struggle to survive in the search engine wars and a "grasping at straws" at that!

Absolutely agree with you KeywordMonkey, David and Barry. Does the process actually boil down to paid inclusion and ranking for the engines? How about how much the SEO relates to the Lycos and AskJeeves algos, but not the other search engines, any conflict there? It's all pretty interesting when you think about it. Wouldn't this imply that search engines admit SEO is worth something by getting into the market?

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by KeywordMonkey

But it seems Lycos is in fact reselling Inceptor's services.

Does this mean that Greenlight lost the contract, then? For those who may have forgotten, Greenlight were hiring SEO's to SEO Lycos UK back in Jan 2004. Or was that for Lycos UK only?

[KeywordMonkey]

Implies one main thing in my mind; Lycos are as desperate for revenue as ever.

Ask is a differnt kettle of (SEO) fish - they inherited a tie-up with a SEO with their acquisition of Interactive Search Holdings; apparently their CEo says "it's not true" - http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/2...ss-or-are.html - ie. they aren't really getting into SEO.

Hopefully, this will fade away and most marketing people / business owners will realise the conflict of interest in this - I doubt Inceptor expect it to be a major boost for their bottom line, either. They've not exactly shouted about it.

[KeywordMonkey]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Does this mean that Greenlight lost the contract, then? For those who may have forgotten, Greenlight were hiring SEO's to SEO Lycos itself back in Jan 2004. Or was that for Lycos UK only?

The SEO reselling using Inceptor is Lycos US.

Greenlight were hired by Lycos UK and Ireland to SEO www.lycos.co.uk .

Lycos USA is part of Terra Lycos; Lycos Europe is owned somewhat differently and listed in Frankfurt if memory serves.

[NFFC]

Just a comment about the lycos thing, I haven't looked at the Ask stuff.

I think there are two false assumptions, one that Lycos is a search engine, two that this is any different to the "submit you site to a gazillion search engines" advert that used to show on the AV ransom note submit page.

[Nacho]

I hate say it, but I told you so. Geez, why did I knew this was comming??

I'm in the I DONT LIKE IT group.

[grnidone]

How is this any different than paying a search engine to rank your site well via ppc?

In my mind, PPC is just a way to bribe the engines to put you at the top. I don't see how engines doing seo for people is any different. You pay them a bribe to put you at the top. No matter how they do it, you pay, they put you at the top.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Nacho

I hate say it, but I told you so. Geez, why did I knew this was comming??

I'm in the I DONT LIKE IT group.

Any SE involved in SEO will:

1. Target the lowest denominator
2. Fail large-scale commercial clients
3. Refuse to shape clients to any real application of search tech

Otherwise, all you have is a PPC SE, and so far I'm not convinced that anything in that mould has made a particular impact on the search market. Some degree of relevancy has always been the key to SERPs - any SE that values it's stock share will almost certainly think twice about providing nothing but ads instead of search relevant results. Ads as separate.

[Webvisitor]

Seems to me this is PI by another name. It also seems to me that they will attract some business as the name Lycos is a recognized internet brand.
So -- pay from the Lycos Insite page for your page(s) to be "optimized" for organic listing-- then move into the Lycos PPC program.

[Nacho]

Even if I try to put myself in their shoes, I don't find it how it can work without any conflict of interest for relevancy of results in the natural listings. They would be placing themselves at high risk.

Even PFI has its pros and cons, but this . . . it's just too much.

I also agree with Brian that they will fail to provide a flat standard service acrosss the board from small business to large-scale commercial. Unless all they are providing is optimization of meta-tags

[andrewgoodman]

Originally Posted by grnidone

How is this any different than paying a search engine to rank your site well via ppc?

In my mind, PPC is just a way to bribe the engines to put you at the top. I don't see how engines doing seo for people is any different. You pay them a bribe to put you at the top. No matter how they do it, you pay, they put you at the top.

It's very different.

PPC is not a "bribe." It's paying for something identifiable on market principles. Search engines must disclose the areas on their sites that are marked off for sponsor listings.

Paying a Google engineer to hard-code your site into "organic" listings would be a bribe.

[Chris_D]

So if you hire a search engine for your SEO (SE responsible even though they are outsourcing), then they are essential allowing money to influence their organic results - right?

<grins>

So you guys think that I should just tear up this Google contract to be their SEO for Hire?



Ok - its a joke. I don't have any such contract. Just joking

But what would you do if Google offered your company such a contract? Conflict of interest - or put in your bid?