|
#3
05-10-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Simple
they banned them altogether:
http://www.google.com/search?q=www.webposition.com and http://www.google.com/search?q=www.webpositiongold.com And here's (probably) why: http://www.socialpatterns.com/search...sition-banned/ 
|
|
#4
05-10-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
This does seem kind of harsh.
Google is almost like a public utility. This is like the Electric company or Water company cutting you off even though you pay your bill. I see that they are still advertising with adwords. They'll probably sue over this one.
|
|
#5
05-10-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Google booted SK for selling PR, they can boot WebPosition for selling their software and they can boot a website for being violent, nazi or whatever they deem they do not want in it. At least until a court or law say something different somewhere ... So far I haven't seen or heard of any legal cases that require Google to include any website, allthough I wouldn't be surprised if some day, some country, might pass such laws. I just haven't seen it yet. I could off course be wrong, so if anyone knows better please tell 
|
|
#6
05-10-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
It would require some hefty legislation
to convert them into a public utility type outfit tying them up into such obligations.
Good idea, maybe. (Not that we can realistically expect them to agree )The best guess probably being Europe,where general opinion actually seems to be headed that way, triggering it.
|
|
#7
05-10-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yes, I would surely like guaranteed inclusion by law - it absolutely would reduce the risk dramatically on certain kinds of questionable tactics
... but, I have my doubts we will see it anytime soon ...
|
|
#8
05-10-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I guess the real problem is that people use WebPosition frequently to produce reports and these are a drain on Googles computing resources which they provide for free. I guess the shareholders are telling them to cut operating costs.
|
|
#9
05-10-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
In that case
they'd have to block the people using it, not the developers and vendors. Which, of course, is quite a task these days.
Blocking WP proper may hurt their business (which might backfire nicely, BTW - isn't WP's latest version equipped with a Goo API function, making it quite legit?) but it won't reduce Goo's bandwidth usage one bit (pardon the pun). If WP play their hand right it might yet prove to be yet another terrible PR move on Google's part - something they truly excel in currently anyway ...
|
|
#10
05-11-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#11
05-11-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
05-11-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
FYI, this isn't new. They've been banned for literally years. I've written about it several times before and the issues it raises in terms of disclosure. In particular, see Spam Rules Require Effective Spam Police from last year and Got To Censor Search Listings? Why Not Disclose?.
My view is this. Google can do whatever it wants with its listings. You can argue it's like a utility -- but to date, no country has ruled it as such. Instead, it's more like a media outlet, a newspaper, that can publish what it wants. Free speech issues in the US don't apply. Free speech protection doesn't give you the right to force someone to say anything about you -- only that the government can't prevent you from speaking. Trust is another issue. Google can do what it wants, but it also has to do things in a way that engender trust with its readers. Censoring listings often don't do that. There are sometimes good reasons to censor -- but then there are good reasons to disclose. In this case, Google is censoring simply because it does not like the WebPosition tool. As a result, anyone trying to find the official WebPosition web site cannot do so with Google. I think that goes against its role to provide good relevancy.
|
|
#13
05-11-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's the rub
Quote:
From the standpoint of relevancy, what's the point of banning or penalizing a site which, like it or not, is the most relevant for a given search term (e. g. "WebPosition", "WordPress")? This puts corporate agenda (aka fighting it out with WordPress, WebPosition, etc.) before users' interest - effectively driving them away elsewehere. People just don't care about such issues and tend to shun them. If you happen to be a pub patron and the publican starts throwing out people every night, even those you might have wanted to talk to, you'll probably switch pubs sooner or later, whether his actions are justified or not. And of course, this affects all search engines across the board - it may also define the limits of anti spam policies. Another point is consistency: banning WP from the index is one matter, continuing to display their AdWords another. From a PR standpoint this will convey the impression of sheer greed. Obviously this is mere incompetence and lack of synch between altogether different departments, but again users probably couldn't care less.
|
|
#14
05-11-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of examples where Google overtly will remove material from its index like this -- self-interest. For example, if they banned Yahoo from showing up, there'd be a huge outcry. Now, they do remove things like Nazi-related sites in response to French and German laws, but at least you can understand that they aren't above being subjected to laws. The same thing with DMCA complaints in the US. They also remove stuff because they think they've been spammed, which is a self-interest move but also one that they'd argue also helps users. Banning WebPosition? No one has ever suggested that WebPosition itself spammed Google. Indeed, I doubt the site has. But for years, they've been on the outs because Google simply doesn't like the software itself.
|
|
#16
05-11-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
which would be worse ban the product or ban the user ??, the smart move would be for google to ban all sites that have used WPG imo. they broke the rules
|
|
#17
05-11-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Webposition have not broken the Google TOS and in fact the program now uses the Google api for querying so even the users aren't in violation.
If Google have a thing about automated reporting then they should ban any tool that uses automated reporting, and caution against any tool in their FAQs instead of mentioning WP by name. Since they have not done so it would appear that this is due to corporate bias more than anything truly related to saving bandwidth or whatever.
__________________
Mel Nelson Expert SEO Dont settle for average SEO Singapore Search Engine Optimization and web design
|
|
#18
05-11-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
Mel do you have to supply WPG with your owe API key ?? and does it stop at 1,000 queries ??
I don't use the product so I honestly don't know.. DaveN
|
|
#19
05-11-2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, it's not as if Google didn't have a history
of opting for the easy way out. By banning WP they'll scare off clients, effectively hurting their business.
And that is where, IMV, WP could turn it into an asset: this may arguably be construed as business malpractice on Google's part, even though proving the extent of damages is always a moot point. Maybe it's about time, too, that courts realized that the endless mantra of "this is a private business, so they can do what they want yadda yadda", which won't stand muster in various other industries (chemicals, advertising, food, real estate, medical treatment, print media, software, to name but a few) either, cannot and should not be misconstrued as a free-for-all for what is, after all, a very dominant player in the world of search. But of course that's bound to be a fairly lengthy procedure and might take several years.
|
|
#20
05-11-2005
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
