|Don't ban Everyman|
| 6:23 pm on May 29, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I've been banned as Everyman, Doofus, Snafu, and Kackle. It's because I was the first consistent Google critic (if you don't count marketers who complained about their rankings every month), and Brett is a Google fanboy. I haven't been around much since the period from 2000-2003, when I was most active. I was very interested in Google and still am, but I've never been interested in ecommerce or ads.
Even today, you cannot spell "#*$!" (by the way, that was supposed to be #*$!) on this site, even though it handles over 300,000 searches a day now and has existed since 2003.
-- Daniel Brandt
| 11:49 pm on May 29, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Strange how you got banned as a Google critic when so many other Google critics remain.
Conceivably, it was not what you said, but the way that you said it.
Or it may have been your favourite site, which uses a Google search, but denies them their ads. Google funds the search by ads, you know. Yes, really.
So how is it alright for your favourite site to offer a Google search and ask for donations, but not alright for Google (who fund the search engine) to display ads?
Now can we get back to the debate at hand ...
| 12:26 am on May 30, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|It's because I was the first consistent Google critic |
I'm a Google critic and I can't speak for Brett but trust me, he's often a critic [webmasterworld.com] and starts threads critical of Google so you're overlooking that subtle point.
Critics are never banned, nor are fan boys.
However, people with an axe to grind that don't contribute anything of any value to the conversation but their love or loathing of the company or product really don't enhance the discussion or the community.
What value does every thread about Google have if 20 people chime in "Google sucks" without adding any pertinent information about the specific topic?
| 12:58 am on May 30, 2010 (gmt 0)|
>I've been banned as Everyman, Doofus, Snafu, and Kackle.
>It's because I was the first consistent Google critic
You walked on threads - were disrespectful to members - have generated more complaints about than the rest of the membership combined - you admitted to signing up multiple aliases in violation of the tos - link dropped and self promoted so much your site was put on the swear word filter - you effectively refused to contribute to the community. You were the first and only name put on the intra-forum black list passed among several other forums.
| 1:56 am on May 30, 2010 (gmt 0)|
| 4:11 am on May 30, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I don't participate on all threads, and fewer Google than most (and I'm certainly not a Google fanboi), but for the most part Scarecrow, in the years I've seen your posts... most of the time you present good arguments... some I might not agree with, but then again, I don't agree with a lot of other people. Best I can say is any previous "bans" seemed to work as a suggestion to KEEP IT FOCUSED. As far as I'm concerned you, as Scarecrow, have been an asset to the mix.
Which tells me the current policies in effect actually work.