| 3:52 pm on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Automatic queries for example.
| 4:05 pm on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think you are using the word "block", where you actually mean "ban"...?
Google has not been known to "ban" by IP address, as they recognize that on some web servers, multiple web sites exist on a "shared" IP address.
Inktomi on the other hand.......
| 4:09 pm on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have heard rumors of them doing this (specifically overseas). GoogleGuy used something along the lines of "they prefer not to". As redzone mentioned - I think you mean blacklisting and it would be most likely done by domain name.
I know people that have taken the same banned domain - changed nothing but the links (to now refer to non banned urls) - and get back in google.
Changing your IP isn't going to help - changing your domain may help (depending on why you were banned). If you were hit by a florida filter - it most likely will not help.
| 6:15 pm on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
very unlikely but possible. Banning by ip is a delicate business with virtual hosting and things like that. This subject has been beat to death. Do a search of webmasterworld for it and you'll find tons of information.
| 8:17 pm on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>>Can anybody please let me know if Google can block any IP and if so why will it do that?
Sure they can. Anyone that runs a network can.
Wether they do or not I don't know.
| 10:05 pm on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We can do it, but we prefer not to. Virtual hosting means that innocent sites and spam sites can be on the same Class C block--or even on the same IP address. Besides, it's not so hard for a NastyJerk to move to a different hosting company. So in general we avoid this.
| 10:19 pm on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If you were hit by a florida filter - it most likely will not help.
Could some body give me a quick intro about the Florida filter? ... only thing I know is that you use to name those filters as hurricanes :-) I suppose because the damage is to hard :-D .. but I'd like to know what exactly the filter means ..
| 6:51 pm on Dec 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Ah, my first post. I guess the first time isn't so hard.|
Methinks that the google-watch-watch reply is a little naive. (Not wrong, just a little naive. Of course, I believe that google-watch is duplicitous.)
Google may be the "will of the people"--but as I learned in my time as a DC pollster, numbers can be manipulated. As long as someone or some company has control of the algo, then it's open to abuse, mistakes, what-have-you. I'm not saying that's what's happening, I'm just saying it's possible.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am now consulting for a comany that has seen its ranking for a two-word listing drop from forty-something to oblivion.
My humble 2 cents.
Questions? Flames? Praise? Let me have 'em.
| 8:38 pm on Dec 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
rohan, I think talking about the Google Watch stuff would be off-topic for this particular thread. The most in-depth analysis of that doc that I've seen is by Danny Sullivan. He talked to both Daniel Brandt (Brandt posted as Everyman here a while back, and posts as Kackle now), and he also talked to Sergey Brin about that doc too. I don't know where the url is, but I'm guessing a search like danny sullivan big brother should turn up a smattering of stuff about it.
Hope that helps,