Yahoo Selling Search Results?
According to a thread in our SEO Forum and a post at SEO-Scoop, Yahoo is including pay-per click ads in its organic listings. To the casual observer, the ads are indistinguishable from regular listings leading some to question whether Yahoo! is selling rankings in their search engine result pages (SERPs) as well.
As mentioned above, the paid ads appear to be no different than Yahoo’s regular (organic) listings, however a little sleuthing will quickly reveal which is which. The ads er, search results in question redirect through ads.trafficleader.com. Here’s what TrafficLeader’s website has to say:
TrafficLeader’s partnership with Yahoo! Search Marketing provides advertisers with access to Yahoo! Search Marketing’s extensive PPC network. TrafficLeader is also a Yahoo! Search Marketing Platinum Preferred Search Submit Pro Partner, providing advertisers with direct feeds into Yahoo!, AltaVista, and AlltheWeb indices.
Some other tell-tale signs:
- The title on Yahoo! differs from the actual title of the page linked to.
- Yahoo! offers no cached page for the questionable links.
Need an example? Look at the number one result for the search “Missouri traffic tickets.”
The Yahoo! title is “Missouri Traffic Tickets” but it links to a page titled “USTrafficTickets.com – Submit a Traffic Ticket online!.” The link itself begins with:
http://www.ustraffictickets.com/default.htm
The actual link is to:
http://rds.yahoo.com/ (deleted for clarity)
http://ads.trafficleader.com/track.htm (more deleted for clarity)Edit: FYI, the information above refers to a single link. Yes all Yahoo links redirect for tracking, but this one also redirects to trafficleader.com and then to the site.
Which leads to the big question: If Yahoo! is including paid ads in their search results, are they selling results rankings as well? You tell us… Do YOU think the example above got to be #1 on its own merits?
EDIT: It’s been pointed out to me that ustraffictickets.com does quite well in Google too. So they may indeed have earned their ranking. So I suggest you search for [Star Wars Birthday Party]. I’ve seen the birthdayexpress.com paid inclusion as high as #1 and as low as #3. Their “organic” listing has floated between #2 and #7, always a bit below the paid inclusion. They have a paid ad on Google for the same search phrase but are #24 in the results listings.
Hey, it’s their search engine. What ever makes them happy and keeps the cash rolling in. Is there really any difference in Google showing the local ads/maps below the PPC ads or the Froogle product listings below that? I know you don’t have to pay anything for these, but you do have to submit your info to Google in most cases which takes time and your time is just as good as money. By the time it gets to the organic listings, you’re halfway down the page.
It’s great to be an SEO and get the organic listings, but let’s be honest here. You have to play the game and the Yahoos and Googles are making the rules. If Yahoo is showing trafficleader.com ads in the search results then you should probably go to trafficleader.com and set up an account.
I’m not saying what they’re doing isn’t dirty to those of us who do this for a living, but it shouldn’t come as a big shock to anybody. The name of business is to make money and Yahoo is a business.
I’m still not 100% sure they’re guilty of anything, and those URLs may be of sites that are paying for ads, but they may have earned those spots and not paying for the clicks they receive there. On SEO-Scoop it shows the example of a site ranking #10 so I’m not sold on ads getting you the high placements. May just be something that Yahoo uses as a tracking device to relay to the trafficleader customers which percentage of their clicks are coming from the SERPs and which are coming from the PPC ads.
Hmm, looks a little strange. Here’s something interesting looking at the trafficleader.com site: “TrafficLeader is a wholly owned subsidiary of Marchex, Inc.” Much of the parked domain traffic on Yahoo’s PPC network comes through Marchex-owned sites. Yahoo must really be desperate to monetize search if they’re corrupting the “natural” search results with one of their parked domain partners.
Google’s partnered with Oversee.net (DomainSponsor.com). Yahoo’s partnered with Marchex.com (TrafficLeader.com). Both companies are selling out their PPC advertisers. Didn’t anybody read the sausage manifesto? Lame.
Joey,
If you look through magazines, you’ll find ads that look just like articles, except for the text at the top that says “advertisement”. That’s probably there because the Federal Trade Commission likes it when companies are honest about what’s content and what’s an ad: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2164891
Earlier I didn’t think that this would be considered illegal, either. Turns out that I may have been wrong; deceptive advertising is.
According 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.
If false advertising is illegal, then most of you guys should be arrested for your “natural” backlinks :)
Yahoo’s results are increasingly more relevant than googles. In my opinion it is Yahoo’s engine to do what they want with,
Im sure their users will have their say in the end.
This is just paid inclusion on a fixed rate CPC? They never stopped doing it when they bought Inktomi, AllTheWeb etc a few years ago.
Why is this a story now?
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/srchsb/choose.php
Joey, I’m OK with Yahoo running their site anyway they want. In fact I generally prefer there search results over Google’s. But, we certainly have the right to hold their feet to the fire when they behave in a questionable manner as I believe they are doing here.
As far as its justification for rank #1 is concernted i think its on merit according to requirement of competitive matrix.
http://www.nichewatch.com/missouri_traffic_tickets.html
Have you been to Google recently? The “results” also show ads, notice that the paid for results appear at the very top with a blue background and that some results appear on the right. However, in browsers with css disabled, those results appear all the same, the blue background is removed and all the results are practically indistinguishable from one another.
Wow, I was not aware of Yahoo selling these positions. Sure, they can do whatever they want, it’s their business. But to me, this looks sneaky and greedy on Yahoo’s part, and if word of this spreads to the mass public then previous loyal Yahoo users will abandon it. Consumers do not like to be deceived and once that trust is broken, it’s extremely difficult to win them back. So while it may be profitable in the short term for Yahoo, I think they will just end up shooting themselves in the foot in the long run.
This is paid inclusion, yahoo has been doing it for years. Its another form of PPC advertising, the advertiser is paying for inclusion in the organic index, however he is guaranteed any position. Pricing varies per industry but usually starts around .25 a click.
Search Submit Pro does not offer better ranking.
SSP ensures that the customer’s content is included in the index. It’s paid inclusion.
SSP also gives control over how the ad looks (title, description, link etc.) to the customer rather than leave it up to yahoo to decide how the ad should look.
More: http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/srchsb/ssp.php?cmp=CAP&ctv=SSPov&s=Y&s2=CAP&s3=SSPov
two words, submit pro, and relevancy.
Indeed this has been going on for a number of years but, to a lot of people in the industry and certainly to the casual user, it’s been under the radar. And the question remains, how do these paid inclusions affect search rankings?
I don’t belive that they have no effect. Look at the results for [Star Wars Birthday Supplies] at http://search.yahoo.com/search?&p=Star%20Wars%20Birthday%20Supplies. The #1 is a paid inclusion and #2 is the home page of the same site. Seems to be too much of a coincidence to me.
I’ve seen Yahoo’s Search Submit Pro work very well for numerous clients. While they look like normal organic listings, in my mind they hold more value. It’s proven that conversions from natural listings are much better than through paid listings and people are generally more inclined to click an organic listing anyway.
I thought this was well known.
Could this be the trend of the future? You have to imagine the big $ that would be made if people paid for search results instead of trying to gauge whatever mood Google is in when they display their results.
If a company is spending money for search engine ranking, they want: sure thing not: maybe.
This is paid inclusion and has no effect on positioning. I am not sure why you made such a big deal out of this.
How did this get Dugg? Paid Inclusion has been around for a loooong time and this service hasn’t been hidden and isn’t something secretive.
People inrolled in the program are not buying a certain position either. I have had clients in the Paid Inclusion service and then cancelled it. After cancelling, there was no drop in rankings which showed us that paid inclusion was not necessary as it just adds on a click cost to a ranking that you would have already had.
Barry, the searches that Donna and Pops found seem to suggest that they DO have an effect on positioning.
I realize Yahoo says that it doesn’t but you’ll excuse us won’t you, if we’re a bit skeptical?
So, the company line is that these inclusions have no effect on position.
I’m very skeptical but, all other consideerations aside, if a paid inclusion ranks ahead of you, it affects your position, right?
And the company line is that inclusions are ranked base on their merits.
But what determines the merit of a paid inclusion? The title and description of the inclusion or the content of the page it points to? If something like this is what determines your ranking:
“Star Wars Party Supplies
Star Wars Party Supplies – Find your Star Wars Party Supplies at Birthday Express today.”
And you don’t have to worry about inlinks, actual content on the page, etc. then a paid inclusion haas a tremendous advantage when compared to an actual web page.
All we’re doing is pointing out some apparent inconsistencies in Yahoo’s statements and actions. If you can explain them away, I’m willing to listen.
Finally, even if there is no affect on position. These are paid ads and the person clicking on the link should be made aware of that.
basically where one step closer to a search result first page of all adverts, doesnt anyone realize that this is a bad thing? Or am i the only one thats not happy with this?
Whats new? How about the billions Google makes from scamming adsense and wordsense? Fraud is a public corporations best friend, when done right.