Search Engine Watch
SEO News

Go Back   Search Engine Watch Forums > Search Engines & Directories > Google > Google Web Search
FAQ Members List Calendar Forum Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-10-2005   #1
dyn4mik3
Michael Nguyen
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Riverside,CA
Posts: 49
dyn4mik3 is on a distinguished road
Webposition.com de-indexed

Anyone else seeing this?

Greybar for Webpostion.com & Webpositiongold.com.

A site: command shows zero indexed pages.

Is Google hitting automated query software makers?
dyn4mik3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005   #2
sootledir
directory.sootle.com
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 146
sootledir has a spectacular aura aboutsootledir has a spectacular aura about
Thumbs up

I see the same thing you do, but I have no idea what Google may have done.
sootledir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005   #3
fantomaster
Industrial-strength cloaker
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 70
fantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of light
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/
fantomaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005   #4
arius
List your ecommerce site Free for a limited time! http://www.buying-directory.com
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 41
arius is an unknown quantity at this point
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.
arius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005   #5
Mikkel deMib Svendsen
 
Mikkel deMib Svendsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,576
Mikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud of
Quote:
They'll probably sue over this one.
So did Search King but the legal system basically said that Google's algorythm have the right to free speach and as such to be manipulated for whatever reason.

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
Mikkel deMib Svendsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005   #6
fantomaster
Industrial-strength cloaker
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 70
fantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of light
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.
fantomaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005   #7
Mikkel deMib Svendsen
 
Mikkel deMib Svendsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,576
Mikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud of
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 ...
Mikkel deMib Svendsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005   #8
arius
List your ecommerce site Free for a limited time! http://www.buying-directory.com
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 41
arius is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikkel deMib Svendsen
So did Search King but the legal system basically said that Google's algorythm have the right to free speach and as such to be manipulated for whatever reason.
Yeah but Google removing content from it's site is like censoring the free speech of others. I'm sure a good lawyer could argue that and win.

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.
arius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005   #9
fantomaster
Industrial-strength cloaker
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 70
fantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of light
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 ...
fantomaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005   #10
Jill Whalen
SEO Consulting
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 650
Jill Whalen is just really niceJill Whalen is just really niceJill Whalen is just really niceJill Whalen is just really niceJill Whalen is just really nice
Quote:
Yeah but Google removing content from it's site is like censoring the free speech of others. I'm sure a good lawyer could argue that and win.
Huh? Umm, I don't think so! Free speech doesn't apply to private companies.
Jill Whalen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005   #11
Mikkel deMib Svendsen
 
Mikkel deMib Svendsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,576
Mikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud of
Quote:
Yeah but Google removing content from it's site is like censoring the free speech of others. I'm sure a good lawyer could argue that and win.
No, that is absolutely not the way I understand free speach. Free speach dosn't give you the right to publish your content in any specific privat media such as a search engine, newspaper or online forum - that is entirely up to the owners. You are free to speak at your own turf, so to speak
Mikkel deMib Svendsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005   #12
dannysullivan
Editor, SearchEngineLand.com (Info, Great Columns & Daily Recap Of Search News!)
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Search Engine Land
Posts: 2,085
dannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud of
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.
dannysullivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005   #13
fantomaster
Industrial-strength cloaker
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 70
fantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of light
There's the rub

Quote:
I think that goes against its role to provide good relevancy.
It's very similar to the WordPress case recently when they were caught hosting and pointing to spammy pages.

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.
fantomaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005   #14
dannysullivan
Editor, SearchEngineLand.com (Info, Great Columns & Daily Recap Of Search News!)
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Search Engine Land
Posts: 2,085
dannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud of
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")?
I agree -- it's a bad thing.

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.
dannysullivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005   #15
sootledir
directory.sootle.com
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 146
sootledir has a spectacular aura aboutsootledir has a spectacular aura about
WordPress was a more blatant case. They violated Google's AUP. WebPosition doesn't appear to have spammed anything and they don't even rank for their own product name. That has to affect business.
sootledir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005   #16
DaveN
 
DaveN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 434
DaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to all
Quote:
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
I agree and disagree Danny.. something that goes against a companies TOS is always running the risk of upsetting that company... in this case they upset Google and Google took action, I break the rules and have had sites banned I have had a few IP's banned, but that's just the game we are in. for what I remember didn't WPG and G sit down and discuss a cost to query Google, but wpg didn't like the figure ??

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
DaveN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005   #17
Mel
Just the facts ma'm
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 793
Mel is just really niceMel is just really niceMel is just really niceMel is just really nice
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
Mel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005   #18
DaveN
 
DaveN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 434
DaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to all
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
DaveN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005   #19
fantomaster
Industrial-strength cloaker
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 70
fantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of lightfantomaster is a glorious beacon of light
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.
fantomaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005   #20
DaveN
 
DaveN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 434
DaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to all
they left this one thou www.web-positiongold.com ..

DaveN
DaveN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off