Search Engine Placement and Optimisation. Internet Marketing, Web Site Promotion and Pay Per Click Management

Looksmart saga continues
BT buys Scoot
Teoma/Direct Hit updates
Yahoo lets in Overture





LookSmart issues email to advertisers

Included in this email is a notice relating to a settlement of a class action involving
LookSmart, Ltd. Please read the email carefully and completely. If you are a member of
the Class, it contains important information about your rights under the settlement.

Please do not reply to this email as replies will not be read.



) Case No. 02-407778
) Honorable Ronald Evans Quidachay


BETWEEN MAY 13, 1998 AND APRIL 9, 2002:



This Notice has been e-mailed to you because the records of Defendant LookSmart show
that you are either a current or former customer of LookSmart, Ltd. ("LookSmart"), who initiated
a listing with LookSmart in the period May 1998 to April 2002. You may be eligible to receive
consideration from a proposed Settlement of a class action filed against LookSmart.


LookSmart is in the business of providing online marketing services for persons and
businesses who desire Internet users to visit their web sites. LookSmart offers online businesses
the ability to list descriptions of their products and services in LookSmart's searchable directory.
It also distributes its directory database to leading Internet portals and search engines, such as
MSN. Internet users utilizing LookSmart or other portals incorporating its directory database are
able to find the web sites of LookSmart customers by using targeted keyword searches. They
then typically "click" on the link provided by the search engine to visit the proffered web site.

This litigation comprises the cases of Legal Staffing Partners, Inc. v. LookSmart, Ltd.,
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 02-407778, filed May 9, 2002, and Kramer v.
LookSmart, Ltd., et al., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 02-410034, filed July 9, 2002,
and consolidated by Pretrial Order No. 1. The operative complaint in this consolidated action is
the Consolidated Amended Complaint ("Complaint"), filed on October 23, 2002.
The Complaint was filed by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities
who Plaintiffs allege made a "one-time payment" to LookSmart for listing services between May
13, 1998 to April 9, 2002 (the "Class Period"), and whose account was unilaterally changed by
LookSmart to another type of service that requires additional payments.

Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, LookSmart represented that for a "one-time
payment" it would list customers' web sites in the database indefinitely, and that LookSmart
breached the agreement when, in April 2002, it required customers to begin to "pay-per-click"
pursuant to a new program. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Business &
Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., and 17500, et seq.

Beginning in July 2002, LookSmart began extending to Class Members 100 free clicks
per month, and committed to providing the 100 free clicks per month through December 11,
2003. LookSmart acknowledges that this litigation served as a catalyst in its decision to provide
the free clicks to Class Members, and, in addition to the consideration described below and as
part of the consideration for the Settlement Class, LookSmart already is providing 100 free clicks
per month to current customers through December 11, 2003.


You are a member of the Settlement Class, and therefore are covered by the Settlement,
if, between May 13, 1998 and April 9, 2002, you paid LookSmart a fee for review by LookSmart
of your listing for potential inclusion in the LookSmart directory database, your listing was
subsequently included in LookSmart's directory database and was listed in the database as of
April 9, 2002. Excluded from the Class are any customers who were terminated by LookSmart
from the directory under LookSmart's editorial discretion during the Class Period.


A. All Class Members whose listings were added to the LookSmart directory
database between May 13, 1998 and April 9, 2002, and whose listing continued to
be included in the database as of September 5, 2003, are considered "Eligible
Current Customers." All Eligible Current Customers will continue to
automatically receive 100 free "clicks" per month through December 11, 2003,
or whenever their listings terminate, whichever is earlier. There is no need to
submit a claim to receive these free clicks.

B. All Eligible Current Customers whose listings were added to the LookSmart
directory database between October 9, 2001 and April 9, 2002 ("Period One")
shall automatically receive 75 free "clicks" per listing per month beginning
December 12, 2003 and ending June 12, 2004, unless their listing is terminated
prior to June 12, 2004. The 75 free clicks are exclusive of the 100 free clicks
described in section 4.A. and there is no need to submit a claim to receive these
free clicks.

C. All Eligible Current Customers whose listings were added to the LookSmart
directory database between April 9, 2001 and October 8, 2001 ("Period Two")
shall automatically receive 50 free "clicks" per listing per month beginning
December 12, 2003 and ending June 12, 2004, unless their listing is terminated
prior to June 12, 2004. The 50 free clicks are exclusive of the 100 free clicks
described in section 4.A. and there is no need to submit a claim to receive these
free clicks.

D. All Eligible Current Customers whose listings were added to the LookSmart
directory database between May 13, 1998 and April 8, 2001 ("Period Three") will
receive only the free clicks set forth in Section 4.A.

E. None of the free clicks outlined above are transferable. Unused free clicks will
not carry over from month to month. If an Eligible Current Customer has
terminated a listing prior to the Effective Date of the Settlement, or terminates a
listing prior to June 12, 2004, LookSmart assumes no obligation to pay such
customer the value of unused free clicks, if any, as of the date the listing is
terminated. None of the free clicks offered in Sections 2.1 through 2.3 constitute a
guarantee by LookSmart of traffic generation for eligible customer listings
sufficient to utilize the free clicks, and LookSmart assumes no obligation to
generate such traffic.

F. Eligible Former Customers (as defined below) who submit a timely
Claim Form ,
(click on the Claim Form hyperlink to access the Claim Form) will receive an
individual cash payment of up to $50.00. The maximum amount available in the
aggregate to Eligible Former Customers who submit a timely claim form is
$250,000. If the total amount of claims by Eligible Former Customers exceed
$250,000, each individual Former Customer's recovery amount will be reduced
pro rata.

An "Eligible Former Customer" is defined as a Class Member: (1) whose listings
were added to the LookSmart directory database between May 13, 1998 and
April 9, 2002, (2) whose listing was included in LookSmart's directory database
on April 9, 2002, and whose listings were, after April 9, 2002 but before
September 5, 2003, cancelled by specific choice of the Class Member by use of
the cancel listing feature of the Advertiser Center or through contact with
LookSmart's customer service; (3) whose listings were not cancelled because of a
violation of LookSmart's policies, editorial guidelines, or due to any violation of
LookSmart's terms and conditions (except as disputed in this litigation); (4) who,
as of the Effective Date of the Settlement, is the rightful owner of the URL
associated with the listing; and (5) whose listing, as of the date the Court approves
the settlement, is not part of the LookSmart directory.


LookSmart shall, at its expense, administer the claims of Class Members, provide the free
clicks described herein, and pay cash refunds to claimants as set forth herein. Class Counsel will
regularly audit the claims administration process.


Eligible Current Customers: If you are a Class Member who is an
Eligible Current Customer as defined in Section 4(A) above, you
need do nothing in order to participate in the Settlement. If you do
not timely exclude yourself from the Settlement pursuant to
Section 13 below, you will be bound by the Settlement and you
will be deemed to have released LookSmart and each of the
" Released Persons" (as defined in the Stipulation of
Settlement) from all of the Released Claims (as defined in the

Eligible Former Customers: If you are a Class Member who is an
Eligible Former Customer as defined in Section 4(F) above, you
will receive a cash refund of up to $50.00 only if you complete and
submit a Claim Form
(click on Claim Form hyperlink to access the
Claim Form) no later than November 14, 2003. Also, if you do not
timely exclude yourself from the Settlement pursuant to Section 13
below, you will be bound by the Settlement and you will be
deemed to have released LookSmart and each of the "Released
Persons" (as defined in the Stipulation of Settlement) from all
of the Released Claims (as defined in the Stipulation).


To act on behalf of the Class for purposes of the proposed settlement, the Court has
appointed Legal Staffing Partners and Curt Kramer as Class Representatives and the following
attorneys and law firms as Class Counsel: Andrew N. Friedman of the Washington, DC law firm
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., and Eric H. Gibbs of the San Francisco law firm
of Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP.


The Class Representatives and Class Counsel believe that the claims asserted in the
litigation have merit. However, Class Counsel recognize and acknowledge the expense and
length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute the litigation against the Defendant
through trial and through appeals. Class Counsel have taken into account the uncertain outcome
and the risk of any litigation, especially in complex actions such as this litigation, as well as the
difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation. Class Counsel are mindful of the inherent
problems of proof under and possible defenses to the violations of law asserted in the litigation,
and have also taken into account the difficulties inherent in certifying the putative Class. Class
Counsel are also aware of the difficulties they will likely face in recovering any monetary relief
for the Class even if they prevail on their claims. After considering these and other factors, Class
Counsel have concluded that the proposed Settlement is fair and equitable to all Settlement Class
members, and will confer substantial benefits upon the Settlement Class. Based on their
evaluation, Class Counsel have determined that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.


The parties agree that LookSmart shall pay Class Counsel the sum of $600,000 in
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, for legal work and costs and expenses related to the
litigation. The parties agree that these amounts are reasonable, based on the work performed and
costs incurred, and should be approved by the Court.


No. The Class Representatives are not being paid separately for their efforts in filing and
prosecuting this matter.


If approved by the Court, the proposed Settlement will be legally binding upon all Class
Members. The proposed Settlement will release and discharge LookSmart from all known and
unknown claims for damages and other relief in connection with claims made in this litigation.


If the proposed Settlement is not approved by the Court as being fair, reasonable, and
adequate, the Settlement Agreement will be null and void and Plaintiffs will proceed with their
lawsuits. The Plaintiffs and Defendant could also attempt to enter into another settlement


Yes. If you exclude yourself you will not receive any benefits of the Settlement and you
will not be bound by the Final Order and Judgment which may be entered dismissing these
lawsuits against the Defendant. You will be free to pursue whatever legal rights you may have
by pursuing your own lawsuit against the Defendant at your own risk and expense.

To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must send a Request for Exclusion by
first-class mail, postage prepaid, to Eric H. Gibbs, GIRARD GIBBS & DE BARTOLOMEO LLP, 601
California Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94108; Andrew N. Friedman, COHEN,
MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Ave. NW., West Tower, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20005; and Jonathan C. Dickey, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, 1530 Page
Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304. Your Request for Exclusion must be in writing and
postmarked by October 10, 2003.

To be effective, a Request for Exclusion must include: (a) the name of this litigation as it
appears on the caption of this Notice; and (b) your name, address, email address, and telephone

If the Request for Exclusion is not timely submitted, you will be included automatically
in the Class and you may be eligible to receive benefits from the proposed Settlement. You also
will be legally bound by the proposed Settlement, including provisions releasing the Defendant,
as more fully described in the Settlement Agreement.


A hearing will be held before the Honorable Ronald Evans Quidachay of the San
Francisco County Superior Court, Department 603, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco,
California, on October 31, 2003, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. (the "Fairness Hearing"). There is no need
for you to attend the Fairness Hearing if you simply wish to participate in the proposed
Settlement. The purpose of the Fairness Hearing shall be to determine, among other things: (a)
whether the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate,
(b) whether Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be
approved, and (c) whether the Final Order and Judgment should be entered dismissing the Case
with prejudice and on the merits against the Plaintiffs and all Class Members (except for those
persons who timely and properly request to be excluded from the settlement).

The Court has the power to adjourn or reschedule the Fairness Hearing from time to time
without further notice of any kind.

Any Class Member who has not filed a timely written request for exclusion and who
wishes to object to the proposed Settlement must file a statement of his/her objection, as well as
a specific statement in support of each objection with the Court no later than October 10, 2003,
and serve same on Class Counsel (See below) and Defendant's Counsel (See below) postmarked
no later than October 10, 2003.

Any Class Member or his/her attorney intending to make an appearance at the Fairness
Hearing must (i) file a notice of appearance with the Clerk of Court no later than October 10,
2003, and (ii) serve same on Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel postmarked no later than
October 10, 2003.

All such objections, papers and briefs shall expressly refer to the name of this litigation as
it appears on the caption of this Notice, as well as the judge and case number. All written
objections must clearly identify the name, address, email address, and telephone number of the
Class Member making the objection and shall provide documentation demonstrating that the
person making the objection is in fact a Class Member. All written objections also must clearly
identify any and all witnesses, documents and other evidence of any kind that are to be presented
at the Fairness Hearing in connection with such objections and shall further set forth the
substance of any testimony to be given by such witnesses, if any. The pertinent addresses are as

(i) Class Counsel:
Andrew N. Friedman
& TOLL, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Ave. NW.
West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005

Eric H. Gibbs
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108

(ii) Defendant's Counsel:

Jonathan C. Dickey
1530 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304

Any Class Member who does not comply with these requirements shall be deemed to
have waived such objection and shall be forever foreclosed from making any objection to the
proposed Settlement.


This Notice is only a summary of the proposed Settlement and does not describe all of the
details of the Settlement Agreement and other papers filed in these lawsuits. Accordingly, Class
Members may review the Stipulation of Settlement and the other documents filed with the Court
in this action, all of which are available for inspection at the office of the Clerk of the San
Francisco County Superior Court, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California, 94102, or
may contact Class Counsel at the addresses listed above, or by sending an email to the following
web site:


If you simply wish to participate in the proposed Settlement, you do not need to do
anything now. If you wish to request exclusion from the Class or appear at the Fairness Hearing,
these are the relevant dates:

· Deadline for mailing request for exclusion: October 10, 2003

· Deadline for filing Notice of Appearance or Objection: October 10, 2003

· Deadline for Former Customers to submit Claim Form: November 14, 2003

· Date of Fairness Hearing: October 31, 2003 at 9:30 a.m.


The Notice provides only a summary of matters about these lawsuits. You may seek the
advice and guidance of your own private attorney, at your own expense, if you wish. You may
also contact Class Counsel at the address listed in Section 14, above.


The Honorable Ronald Evans Quidachay
Judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court
State of California

Dated: September 5, 2003

This administrative email was sent to this address based on the information in your LookSmart account. If you would like to review the email address to which administrative communications are sent, log in to your LookSmart account and update your personal information.

Visit our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service for additional information..

Copyright © 2003 LookSmart, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

A proposed class action lawsuit claiming breach of contract, fraudulent business practices and misleading advertising has been filed against LookSmart over a recent change in how the company sells some of its commercial web site listings.

"LookSmart offered one thing to a lot of small businesses and signed a contract and unilaterally changed the program," said the lead attorney behind the case, Jeffrey L. Fazio, of Hancock Rothert & Bunshoft.

In April, LookSmart moved thousands of companies that previously had paid a one-time submission fee into a new cost-per-click listing program. Companies who refuse to pay the new, continuing fees risk being delisted when free credit given to them by LookSmart in association with the switchover runs out.

The move has caused outrage among some LookSmart customers who feel the company is unfairly demanding additional money from them. Legal Staffing Partners, a North Carolina company that does business as "Juris Resources," is one of those customers and the initial plaintiff in the proposed class action suit filed on May 9. If approved by the court, other parties will be able to join the case.

Legal Staffing Partners paid LookSmart $199 on or about June 12, 2001 to be listed within the directory, according to the complaint. It was then shifted unilaterally by LookSmart into the new cost-per-click program on April 12 of this year and delisted on April 15, when the $15 in free monthly credit it had been given by LookSmart was exhausted.

"Contrary to the terms of its agreement with customers, which states that no additional payments will ever be required, LookSmart is halting all internet traffic used in its search listings to those customers who made the 'one-time payment' for its services," the suit says, summarizing the contention of breach of contract.

The complaint cites statements from a past LookSmart FAQ page about its one-time submission fee programs as evidence LookSmart promised customers that no further submission fees would be charged.

"For your one-time payment, your site will be listed in the LookSmart network indefinitely. Once you submit, there is no need for additional payments and no need to submit your site to any of LookSmart’s partners or affiliates," said the LookSmart FAQ page on December 17, 2000, according to the suit. It further cites, "For your one-time payment, your website will remain in our directory as long as it complies with our submission guidelines."

Previous to the suit, LookSmart had asserted to Search Engine Watch its belief to be on firm legal ground in moving "one-time fee" customers into the new cost-per-click program because the terms of the old programs granted LookSmart the sole right to change any part of the agreement at any time.

Now that a lawsuit has been filed, LookSmart said it couldn't comment on specifics but did say it believes it will win in any action.

"We believe suit is incredibly baseless. We’re going to defend it vigorously," said Robert Goldberg, LookSmart's senior vice president of sales and marketing. "We feel we are in a very strong legal position."

The case was filed in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, where LookSmart's US operation is based. The court will now evaluate the merits of the proposed case and determine if it can go forward as a class action.

"It’s approving the case to proceed, a determination that there are a lot of plaintiffs and that it makes sense to proceed with this one case rather than many and if the complaints are similar and can be tried at one time," said Fazio.

How much could this end up costing LookSmart, if it lost the case? The suit doesn't name an actual figure but asks for restitution of all money received by LookSmart through its one-time fee programs, interest, damages and attorney fees.

A ballpark figure on just the money received? Assume 90,000 customers at $199 each and you get about $18 million. The actual amount could be higher or lower, because LookSmart has had different price points throughout the history of its programs.

[ top ]

BT buys Scoot for £5m

Dan Milmo
Thursday June 27, 2002, the online directories business worth £2.5bn at the height of the internet boom, has been snapped up by BT Group for just £5m.

The struggling company was due to run out of money at the end of the month, but the telecoms giant has stepped in to prevent it from going the same way as

A BT Group spokesman said Scoot was a good business with potential for growth, despite its spectacular fall from grace.

"Across the whole sector companies have seen their values decreased quite alarmingly. We think this is still potentially a good business, available at a good price. When we lock it into our directories business, we think it will do very well," he said.

Scoot generates revenues of around £30m a year by channelling customers to goods and services through its online and voice directory service, but its share price collapsed as investors realised profits would be a long time coming. It posted a loss of £180m for 2001.

The company bought Loot, the classified advertising publisher, for £189m in June 2000 and the purchase unbalanced Scoot's books.

Loot was sold to the Daily Mail and General Trust in a £45m deal in September last year, securing Scoot some much needed breathing space.

Earlier this month, it emerged that five former executive directors of Scoot received salary and bonuses for 2001 worth almost half the company's entire market value.

Scoot's shares were trading at 0.6p this afternoon, against an all-time high of over 330p.

[ top ]

Teoma launched

Search engine upstart Teoma has officially launched, and the media is once again touting it as a Google killer. Here's a look behind the hype, and the real reasons you'll want to add Teoma to your web search toolkit.

Labeling Teoma a Google killer makes for a great headline, but is really rather silly. Teoma is a very good search engine, but at this point it poses very little threat to Google's dominance of the web search world.

We'll save the face off comparison for later, after Teoma has had a chance to prove itself. Meanwhile, let's look at some of the nifty things that makes Teoma unique, and an excellent choice for many types of search queries.

Teoma offers three kinds of results for each query. On the left of the result page are "relevant web pages" that are similar to what other engines produce. On the right are two other kinds of results: "Refine," a list of "suggestions to narrow your search," and "Resources," which are "link collections from experts and enthusiasts."

Each set of results is useful, for different reasons. And all three types of results are generated using proprietary technology that makes them somewhat unique compared to other engines.

Teoma's underlying technology is an extension of the HITS algorithm developed by researchers at IBM several years ago. In a nutshell, the search engine goes beyond traditional keyword and text analysis and seeks out "hubs" and "authorities" related to your query terms -- a "social network" of related content that forms a "community" about the topic.

The cool thing about Teoma is that its community-seeking behavior is both query-specific, and happens in real time. "Whenever you type in a query, we're actually looking for the communities after you type the query," said Paul Gardi, Teoma's Vice President of Search. "We're using a method called dynamic rank, because there's a lot of information you can learn about that page by its friends."

Teoma's approach differs from Google's, which uses a similar, but more static ranking system. It's also unlike the approach taken by Northern Light and other engines that classify web pages based on pre-defined categories.

"We're going into the communities, finding the link structure of the community using text structure as well," said Gardi.

What does this mean in practice? How can this approach improve your search results?

First of all, by relying on the "authorities" within a community, Teoma "relevant web pages" are generally quite useful, even for obscure topics. Second, "Resources" are often link-rich pages -- pathfinders or directories -- that are excellent starting points for further research on a particular topic.

But it's the "refine" results that are perhaps Teoma's most unique feature. These links are automatically generated labels that "define" a community for the query words you're using.

So even if your initial query doesn't provide spot-on results, the "refine" links allow you to "drill down" into a community, potentially revealing information you can't easily find with traditional approaches to information processing.

"It's extremely valuable for the user to have something to refine. It's a very different kind of refine because it's actually pulling you down through the actual communities that exist," said Teoma's Gardi. "Communities are getting stronger or weaker based on how the web is growing."

This dynamic approach to surfacing content means that Teoma can discover beginnings of a new community even for new or obscure pages. This makes it an excellent companion or alternative to other search engines, including Google, that tend to rely on lots of links pointing to pages to infer authority.

But Teoma is not a wholesale replacement for Google, nor is it an engine you'll want to use exclusively. Teoma's index of 200 million pages is tiny compared to most of the other major search engines. And the company doesn't intend to compete on size, but rather on providing "authoritative" results. "We're adding a little bit every day -- we're about halfway to getting to where we need to be," said Gardi.

Think of Teoma as a new type of hybrid between a search engine and a directory, incorporating the best features of both. Like most search engines, Teoma's scope is large enough to satisfy even the most obscure information need, but without overwhelming you with millions of near-matches or false drops. And like a good directory, Teoma structures information in a way that facilitates browsing based on context and meaning.

Bottom line: Teoma isn't a Google killer now, and likely never will be, but it's still an excellent search engine for many types of queries. Definitely worth adding to your web search toolkit.

[ top ]

Yahoo! to Integrate Overture As Its Pay-For-Performance Search Provider

Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO - news), a global Internet communications, commerce and media company, today announced the launch of Yahoo! Sponsor Matches, an enhanced placement program to give Web sites increased visibility in Yahoo!'s search results. Yahoo! will introduce the program through an alliance with Overture Services Inc. (Nasdaq: OVER), formerly GoTo, the leading provider of Pay-For-Performance search to Web sites across the Internet. Overture will distribute its search listings product on Yahoo! search results pages until at least April 2002, at which time Yahoo! will either offer its own Sponsor Matches program independently or explore extending its agreement with Overture.
The launch of Sponsor Matches builds on one of Yahoo!'s core strengths as a leading search and directory service. Businesses will be able to reach their targeted consumers more effectively through enhanced placement in search results on keywords that are relevant to their business. Under the agreement, Yahoo!'s search results pages will feature Overture's top five Pay-For-Performance search listings submitted by its growing base of 49,000 advertisers. In order to differentiate between paid and editorial placements within Yahoo!'s search results, enhanced placement listings will be distinguished in clearly demarcated sections. The program will begin on November 15, 2001.

"Yahoo! Sponsor Matches is consistent with our strategy to leverage our core strengths in order to build growing and diverse revenues," said Terry Semel, chairman and chief executive officer, Yahoo! Inc. "Millions of Internet searches conducted on Yahoo! each day are commercial in nature, giving businesses tremendous opportunity to market their products and services through enhanced placement in our search results.

"Our alliance with Overture gives Yahoo! an immediate opportunity to create the Sponsor Matches program. Businesses will benefit from the traction and visibility of Yahoo!'s search and the high quality results and proven cost effective model of Overture," said Semel.

"The category we've built has come a long way in the past few years. We are excited that Yahoo! has chosen to add Pay-For-Performance listings to its world-class search offering," said Ted Meisel, president and chief executive officer, Overture. "We are pleased to enter this mutually beneficial alliance and look forward to the possibility of extending our agreement with Yahoo!."

The introduction of an enhanced placement search program complements Yahoo!'s existing successful directory services, Sponsored Sites and Yahoo! Express. Sponsored Sites is a fee-based service that enables commercial Web sites already listed in the Yahoo! directory to receive enhanced placement in specific commercial categories of the directory. Through Yahoo! Express businesses can pay to expedite the review of their submission for inclusion in the Yahoo! directory.

The primary benefit of Yahoo!'s search and directory is that its human-built directory places a user's search in context. Yahoo! experts appropriately categorize Web sites into an intuitive organizational structure, effectively connecting consumers with the demographic, geographical or subject-based content, services and businesses they need.


[ top ]