What is Digg?53 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Because when 2% of your click-throughs end up purchasing your product the $.05/click investment on thousands of clicks is nothing. People wouldn't do it if they weren't profiting from it, and the profits can be very handsome.
- timdorr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I stopped when they sourced rds.yahoo.com as "evidence". That's their redirection system. It lets them keep track of what people are clicking on in the search results. Google does the exact same thing.
If anything, this is just someone gaming their results. Not really news, since it happens *all* the time... - robdavy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Yahoo! Search 21.1%"
Quite a few people it seems...
(Source: OneStat—May 2005 - kinda old I know, but you get the idea) - jimbocook, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7According to Yahoo’s Search Submit Pro page:
“Your Web site listings are displayed based on the relevancy of your site content to search terms."
But in the cases we’ve seen, it’s clearly not the site content that is determining where the listings are displayed. Rather it appears to be the title selected for the page listing (not the actual title or page content) that governs the link’s placement in search results.
Also from the same page:
“Search Submit Pro is typically for customers with search marketing budgets of $5,000 per month or more, or advertisers who submit more than 1,000 Web pages to the program.”
Clearly it sounds like Yahoo! is selling search results to big spenders. - jimbocook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4But it's more than just a paid inclusion if it can be manipulated to affect search rankings independent of page content which seems to be the case.
- Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yeah it seems like this would be a step back about 5 years or so. I mean Google is looking to improve their results and make everything more personal, it would seem foolish of Yahoo to move in the other direction... that's not to say they haven't made foolish choices before, this would just seem to be an obvious one.
- twitmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Disclaimer: I am not an expert and could be wrong... That said:
This does not look like paid placement to me. Take a look at the search results for Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Missouri+traffic+tickets), these guys are number two for Missouri Traffic Tickets. Do you think Google is selling paid placement in organic results?
A very large component of Yahoo's ranking algorithm (like google's) is based on inbound links to a site. This site's primary domain used to be missouritraffictickets.com, they smartly put up a 301 permanent redirect on the old domain which effectively transfers the "value" of the 100+ existing links to missouritraffictickets.com to their new domain. This (along with other factors) is keeping them in the top of the search results for that specific term, despite the fact that they have almost no keyword relevant content on their homepage. It's kinda like the George Bush "failure" google bomb.
Also note that EVERY organic search results is linking to Yahoo's redirect server "rds.yahoo.com." This allows yahoo to determine which links people are clicking on in their search results. It can be used both for tracking PPC campaigns, or for improving their ranking algorithm. - Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You might already be a conspiracy theorist and think "Of course PPC results are factored in" but according to both Google and Yahoo, they play no part in their rankings. So, evidence proving them wrong then becomes news.
Oh, and for the record, Yahoo has a lot more revenue streams than Google does. - unknwn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If this is true, it kind of ruins the whole point of search and is limiting the learning experience of the user. However, I doubt a Yahoo! search will turn into viewing Yahoo!'s biggest customers, and search won't change much. Yet, it still is unfortunate.
- Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I don't understand why someone would be willing to pay per click for the life of their listing... am I missing something here? I mean I guess if you could be ranked first for your terms that would be pretty significant but that would require a pretty big bankroll I'd imagine.
- ScienceBlog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I do, and it's at least as good as Google. In some respects, much better, in others worse. Overall, it's better for me.
Here is an experiment for you: use Yahoo only for a week or 10 days and then decide if it's better or worse for you. Then ask "who uses Yahoo anyway?". - kufurex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This has been going on for a while. The service is actually an express inclusion. Yahoo! reviews and includes your site in their index within 48 hours, and then IF the site happens to rank and get clicked on the client would pay a CPC charge. Retarded? Yes! I've been saying this for a year now. lol
- rustybrick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is paid inclusion, they are not selling search results.
- Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That is an aspect I hadn't thought about. If competitors didn't realize the link was paid for, they wouldn't target it for fraudulent clicks.
However, I think the users' confidence in their results would drop dramatically if they knew that those were paid listings. In my experience, users also don't like finding out they've been duped. - pjs1840, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Good point... however in this case, USTrafficTickets.com is going to get A LOT of worthless clicks in the next few days as this thing gets more attention. I hope they put a cap on their daily spend. MOOOOHAHAHAA!
- TheLD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Doesn't google do that as well sometimes?
eg:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=[DESTINATION]&revid=680761687&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&ct=result&cd=3&usg=__YORkKtL7CBAHk1oVzmzSeCj0nBE= - mrnukem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This just in. Yahoo is trying to make a profit. Panic and anger spread across the landscape like wild fire.
- DanBox360, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I work for a agency producing the feeds that they use for this, by paying per click you're basically given a license to spam. :)
- BradleyLS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You pay to get into their index - not for your placement. And this isn't new. The yahoo SSP program has been around for at least a year.
- Zwart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2LOL - in fact that's true. There's no LAW or even a "rule" that says you can't mix paid and organic.
Still, as a web user (and one with more than half a brain as I'm sure we diggers all are) I will certainly look at Yahoo serps from a different perspective next time. Which is a shame, because internet search should be intuitive and informative and clean (IMV) - MrSolutions, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2In fact it looks like Yahoo has indexed nearly 5000 of these links:
http://uk.search.yahoo.com/siteexplorer/search?p=http%3A%2F%2Fads.trafficleader.com&bwm=p&bwmf=s
affiliate links and advertiser links appear in search engine results naturally all the time - its nothing paid...
It just sucks for the advertisers if they are in fact having to pay for appearing in the SE results due to a "fault" in their algorithm. - ptryan123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1did i say rankings? i said they are included in the crawl. and, by the way,, that's all that paid inclusion products ever promised.
- ptryan123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3this is an old old old old story -- there have been many 'paid inclusion' programs over the years. it generally used to guarantee that the urls you submit are crawled on a guaranteed regular basis, with no attendent ranking adjustment. fyi -- the effectiveness of paid inclusion basically pales in comparison to a well crafted search campaign.
this used to be important when people had lots of content behind things like site search. people these days typically provide better site navigation and/or crawlers are a bit smarter.
the naivete of folks commenting here is a hoot -- do you really think that all of the adwords urls don't get factored into the Google crawl of the web? advertising pays about 99.99% of the bills at Google as well as Yahoo!, and advertising is completely subsidizing the information provided by search engines (as well as every other source of information you get -- newspapers, tv, the web in general). while a purist view on the church/state issue of editorial and advertising seems laudable, it's not practical in reality (nor has it ever existed). - hdias123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It think one advantage of this is that it could potentially decrease click fraud, which turns out to be the main problem with using Google's Adwords. Frauders have more of a tendency to click on ads which blatantly and collectively appear as PPC ads.
- ScienceBlog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yes, if you've turned on Personalized Search. There is more info at:
http://ekstreme.com/thingsofsorts/seosem/google-tracks-serps-clicks - Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2cynoclast, you do realize you sound like a member of the KKK spouting on about black people right?
If you bothered to learn about SEO rather than just blasting those who practice it as "spammer" and "scum" you might actually learn something. But, we both know that's not going to happen. You'd have to admit you were wrong, and ignorant people don't like to learn so... - Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Sure but every other search engine around distinguishes between their paid inclusion and their organic results. That's the whole point, yahoo is passing off their paid listings like they aren't sponsored results.
- jimbocook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"This is paid inclusion, they are not selling search results."
"You pay to get into their index - not for your placement."
Everyone who knows this to be true because - by-golly - Yahoo said so, click your ruby-red slippers together three times and say, "There's no place like Yahoo!" - daveisfera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why is this any different than the "Sponsored Link" section at the top of the Google results pages? I have read several studies that talk about how most people think those are the top results of the search and didn't even realize that it was anything different from the standard search results.
- mebob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0While it doesn't seem like it, there is no proof that they are paid listings.
Every link on the page has an indirect link through yahoo and I've even seen google do this to listing for my own site sites(both with and without adwords.) - htmlforms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yahoo is screwing the paying advertiser. If the advertiser has succeeded in getting ranked in the results (whether its a high ranking, or not) then there is no reason that a click should be counted as a paid click. Unless of course it was on a "sponsored link" etc.
- dgarallenpoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So what! Everyone talks about the vaunted "organic" links as if search engines really had some way of determining the relevance of a site to a particular topic. I see this with my own site which has content very specific to certain topics. Nevertheless, it is outranked by other sites that are basically link farms. The reality is that search engines don't have much of an interest in the relevancy of organic searches because they want people to click on the sponsored links. The better the organic links are, the less people will need sponsored links. As far as Yahoo allowing paid results to appear as though they are organic, so much the better. At least this levels the playing field a bit and makes it all a little more fair.
- alteratti, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3since when did Yahoo *have* any, to start selling in the first place..
repeat after me:
"Google is God, Google is God" - Zwart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Pffft.A lot of "SEOs" would prefer things to move back to 1998 when "on-page" still ruled.
But what does that have to do with Yahoo and the issue explained above?
Maybe you like to discriminate against (all) SEOs - nice ones and icky ones alike. I - for one - have this thing with people whose nicknames start with cyno. Does that sound reasonable and balanced? No. Hmmm - ok.
Anyway........ This topic is interesting. I'd like to hear from Yahoo about it. Maybe I should ping one of their engineers and hear him out. - christiancadeo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3No conspiracy here. Essentially it is there paid inclusion program and the referral URL is essentially to track the CPC for them.
- flemingo, on 10/03/2008, -0/+0If anything, this is just someone gaming their results. Not really news, since it happens *all* the time...
http://www.xlntseo.com - MrSolutions, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This sounds like something blown out of proportion to make something news-worthy.
Any link, whether it contains an ad code or not, can appear in organic search results if people use that link on their website. Its just a case that the search engines (Yahoo in this case) have picked up a few of these links on other peoples web pages, and have added them to their search results. The search engine's algorithm has decided (although admitedly a wrong decision) that the link should be placed high up in the results. Its nothing to do with bing paid. If you take an advertisers link like the one shown in the article and add it to a few hundred web pages chanced are that link will turn up in the results. - h2d2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Wow.... is it the year 2000 again?
- cleverhanz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4SEO blog spam. Gag me.
- skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Crap. Now everyone will know I typed in "penis queen" a couple of times.
- Cynoclast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1SEO is a euphemism for link spam. Nothing more. If you're a a links spammer, you are scum. Even if you refer to yourself as a "Search Engine Optimizer" you're still link spamming scum. Kill yourself. (Thanks, Hicks)
- lelio98, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Booo!!!! Yahoo doesn't understand!
- monchichi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0i can see how diggers could be naive about this, but how would a bunch of SEOs have never heard of SSP?
- Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"Gag me"
- Lorddias, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I don't like search engines where you search and you have to go through two pages of ads before you finally see the results..Sounds like Yahoo is trying to earn my hatred. I'm a Google user myself.
- monchichi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0you guys are retards, this is old old OLLLLDD news..
- accidental, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Kinda funny, i thought more people knew about this. They have been doing it for years
- TheMachine1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Who uses Yahoo anyway?
- Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Bah... that was supposed to say "Gag me" -- gladly
Read the article and judge it on it's own merits, not your preconceived notions on SEO. - seoul_scurry, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@ jrocknyc: dude, I just shot coke via my nose all over my screen when I read your comment... funny as heck. Great way to end my day!! =)
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is