This week, Avi Datner filed a lawsuit against Yahoo Inc., alleging Yahoo "intentionally and wrongfully interfered" with the relationship between Mr. Datner and the advertisers on his website. At first glance, this case seems similar to the ongoing lawsuit of Kinderstart v. Google, but at least one thing makes this case different: PartyPop.com is a much better site.
The Datner v. Yahoo case alleges that sometime in mid-2005, Yahoo dropped PartyPop.com from their search index. Before that, they say, searches for various party-related services would return PartyPop.com in the list of results. I tried a search for "wedding flowers" on both Google and Yahoo, and PartyPop.com turned up as the second result on Google, but not within the first 150 results on Yahoo. I then searched Yahoo for partypop.com, and it returned a few keywords, not including "wedding flowers." I picked one of those and searched for that keyword, but PartyPop.com did not turn up in the first 100 results. Clearly PartyPop.com is not prominent in the Yahoo index, but the reasons are unclear. In fact, I'm more surprised that PartyPop.com placed so highly with Google than by the fact they don't show up on Yahoo. Placing second for "wedding flowers" despite not having the word "wedding" in either title or URL is a neat trick!
After PartyPop.com learned they were no longer showing up in search results in mid-2005, Mr. Datner claims he contacted Yahoo in November and informed them of the problem, as well as the fact that it was costing him money, and that someone with Yahoo told him that PartyPop.com had been placed on some sort of exclusion list, but that person didn't know why. Mr. Datner believes his contact motivated someone at Yahoo to act, and his site began to show up in search results again – for about a month. In December 2005, it disappeared again.
Article comments
1 - JP
So should sites be "objectively" listed or listed with sponsor influence? People will go to the engine that gives them the best results, either way. Can PartyPop prove that it's done everything the optimizers say is necessary?
2 - Phillip Winn
I did notice that PartyPop.com doesn't pay for any ads on either Yahoo or Google. Not that they should have to, but if they're really worried about traffic, I'm reasonably sure more people click on the sponsored ad for a search like that than the #2 result.
I think that's the biggest question: Can PartyPop prove their claims? I doubt it, but we'll have to wait and see.
The Kinderstart case was just dismissed today, which I'll write up as a new articles. It's not quite dead yet, though.
3 - Jon Davis
Partypop.com is a very aggressive company, within ten minunts of submitting your site on their website you get a phone call. They also dominate every party related keyword on google. This is accomplished by giving all its users a set of banners to put on their sites. I wonder how many people would put these banners on their sites it they knew how much it was helping their SEM efforts.
4 - PartyPop employee
I worked for PartyPop when they were getting started and optimizing themselves for search engine ratings.
Avi Datner hired people to "scam" the ratings system and commissioned programmers in Israel to artificially inflate the clicks, etc to give the impression of true traffic.
His onsite tech guy was very involved in directing these sorts of tactics using software installed at the server besides at other locations. Every trick that was possible Avi Datner tried.
He created hundreds and hundreds of slightly altered sites serving up the same text but optimized for different keywords.
One thing was guaranteed with PartyPop--it was ALL about making money by beating the competition through every trick available. Legalities were never an issue for Avi. He didn't mind lawsuits whether they were filed against him, which some were, or filing lawsuits in return.
By 2006 I am absolutely positive that PartyPop was using the most sophisticated technology and programming available to boost their search engine results.
Perhaps Yahoo investigated and did a forensic analysis of how Avi and PartyPop were placing so high for searches where they did not seem to be legitimate contenders.
I am positive that Avi was using a black technique that serves up different pages to a search engine bot than it serves up to regular users. He was using that technology already in the early 2000's.
5 - Anonymous
I agree with the above Partypop Ex-Employee.
Partypop.com is a cost effective, modern, and efficient form of Advertisement. That being said, Avi Datner is a sociopathic, maniacal individual. His sales team is aggressive because they work on 100% commission.
Being paid $0 an hour is stressful, so you can imagine that there is pressure to sell. Avi leads people into believing it is a base/commission position via Craigslist, then takes away the initial base.
Trapped in a job has no hourly pay, 0 benefits, and you have to take 20% out of every check for taxes, the environment quickly becomes negative and stressful.
I am sorry for anyone who has been caught up in this scheme.
I truly feel many people have been taken advantage of by Avi's "I've got nothing to lose" attitude because he puts all the pressure on his staff.
Before taking a position at Partypop.com, be aware that sales are the arms and legs of any company. You are a valuable commodity and worth more than $0 an hour. Any respectable business should pay their salesmen to increase their ability to provide only the best customer service, this should be without question.
This house of cards will be the demise of Partypop, and is a clear factor in Partypop's inconsistent customer service reviews.
Avi Datner is not a kind indiviudal. He is a ruthless business man who only care for his own profit.