homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.162.238
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 88 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 88 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
www.microsoft.com removed from Google
sorry but i did this
feelfree




msg:109365
 7:21 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

we have discuss this before in this thread.
[webmasterworld.com ]

It happened to my sites. You can remove any site that doesnt have index.html or index.htm. I did it i know.

See, that is from this url: http://services.google.com:8882/urlconsole/controller?cmd=fullStatus
**********************
2004-05-05 07:36:19 GMT :
removal of http://www.microsoft.com/index.html
complete
**********************

I ask google to remove microsoft index.html file. They dont have this file and google removed it after a week.

http://www.google.com/search?q=www%2Emicrosoft%2Ecom

Google also send me this email.

**********************
The following urls/messages have been removed:

www.adobe.com/index.htmlNOINDEX
www.microsoft.com/index.htmlNOINDEX

**********************

Check their PR also.

Be sure that i dint hack any system. Just removed index.html pages. I also removed some more websites. It works.

Just used this: http://services.google.com:8882/urlconsole/controller
with my own email login.

It happened to us, and it may happen again.
That's why Google has to fix this problem.

I told this before on other thread. But everyone thought someone hacked our system. But i didnt need to hack microsoft.com. i just removed their index.html that has never existed.

 

IITian




msg:109395
 1:45 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

sco still PR0 and missing. Got that screenshot in a hurry. ;)

Macro




msg:109396
 2:08 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

If Google did indeed give MS and Adobe their PR back by making a manual change I'm very impressed.

While the task itself probably only takes a few seconds the bigger the organisation the more months it takes to get a relatively small job looked at even if there is a bit PR disaster at stake.

The fact that sco is still looking around everywhere for it's lost PR suggests that it's not a system wide adjustment Google made; they are doing it on a case by case basis.

I got the sco screenshot. Thanks for the heads-up :)

sem4u




msg:109397
 2:10 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

sco.com now a PR8.

Looks like Google has responded pretty fast to this.

Hanu




msg:109398
 2:11 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

They fixed that one so quickly, I didn't get to see it. Too bad.

There must be G employees lurking and leeching here.

mattglet




msg:109399
 2:14 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Brett said early on in this thread that he reported the problem to G.

-Matt

Chndru




msg:109400
 2:26 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

The core issue is not abt microsoft.com going bonkers. If it's a manual fix of PR, what about those several innocent medium-sites, which could have been affected, like feelfree's websites?

JasonD




msg:109401
 2:29 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)


what about those several innocent medium-sites, which could have been affected

I agree entirely. I belive the only way is for Google to go back, over a period of time and manually check all removal requests, reinstating those that are fraudulent.

I can see no other way but if they did this I can definately see it being a lemons to lemonade public relations campaign for Google.

The bottom line is that all companies have problems but once a problem is brought up how quickly and efficiently they fix is is what matters. We know they have the resource and ability to fix it for the small guys as well as the big guys I just hope they do :)

EliteWeb




msg:109402
 2:29 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I wonder if all the sites 'removed' will be re-evaluated by human to see if their removal script was abused.

Macro




msg:109403
 2:34 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

If it's a manual fix of PR, what about those several innocent medium-sites, which could have been affected, like feelfree's websites?

Exactly. C'mon Google, make some lemonade.

leppjc




msg:109404
 2:39 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'm not clear on this:

1) Has Google fixed this so that no more sites without an index.html or index.htm can be removed from the index?
2) If it hasn't been fixed, am I at risk since I use index.php for my homepage?

Learning Curve




msg:109405
 3:05 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google should just hire ciml. That guy's amazing!

ciml




msg:109406
 3:08 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

> I belive the only way is for Google to go back, over a period of time and manually check all removal requests

Or write a script.

For each submitted URL, check to see if it's "[something]/index.htm" or "[something]/index.html". If so, check "[something]" to see if it returns 404. Reverse removal if it does.

I'm pretty sure that Google will find the mistakenly removed URLs pretty quickly. Presumably the removal tool causes URLs to be removed after searching and before printing to the user agent, so Google should be able to put URls back as with microsoft.com and adobe.com.

<added>Hehe thanks Learning Curve, but I think they have more talented people there already!</added>

lennon7




msg:109407
 4:15 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Er, just a slight comment from a newbie:

Why dont you all simply put a index.html with sufficient content which redirects straight to whatever.php or asp. Maybe that would work well...

Milamber




msg:109408
 4:21 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Originally Posted by lennon7
Why dont you all simply put a index.html with sufficient content which redirects straight to whatever.php or asp.

You shouldn't need to shouldn't need to have an index.html or .htm its just one extra "useless" page on site.

[edited by: Milamber at 4:22 pm (utc) on May 13, 2004]

Dubhglais




msg:109409
 4:22 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

For me it's a bit late I'm already out, now just waiting to see what happens next. When this site was built and subsequently updated we didn't foresee that others would be able to get us dropped from Google.

Hindsight is a wonderful gift for those that have it :)

razinkane




msg:109410
 5:09 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

[SCO.com...] is still out with a PR of 0 here in North Carolina.
Sorry, no information is available for the URL sco.com

Find web pages that contain the term "sco.com"

This is a Major Google Bug

john_k




msg:109411
 5:16 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Why dont you all simply put a index.html with sufficient content which redirects straight to whatever.php or asp.

In addition to the response by Milamber, you run the risk of Google (and other search engines) inferring that "index.html" is the home page for your site. See the numerous posts about how to do a redirect without losing pagerank as to why that is a problem.

Macro




msg:109412
 5:32 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

john_k, in fact I've always had an index.html in addition to my default.htm. They are optimised for different spellings of my keyword. Sure, the PR is shared but it's worked out OK for us.

Internal links all go to index.html but default.htm is what you see when you come to mysite.com/

cabbie




msg:109413
 5:41 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

An apology and a statement from google is in order.

john_k




msg:109414
 5:45 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

john_k, in fact I've always had an index.html in addition to my default.htm. They are optimised for different spellings of my keyword. Sure, the PR is shared but it's worked out OK for us.
Internal links all go to index.html but default.htm is what you see when you come to mysite.com/

Well that works out okay for you. But other sites that currently have no index.html would be left trying to juggle the two.

Since this is really a side-effect of a hack to protect against a bigger problem, I don't think it pays to go too far down the "what-if" path. Instead, I am hoping that we will hear from Google (soon!) that they are implementing some type of verification process for dropping URLs. Until then though, I will keep the index.html pages with redirects that I put in place right after this thread started!

richmondsteve




msg:109415
 6:07 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

It's gotten very little press from what I've seen. news.google.com only reports one story (and a very short one at that) from what I can gather. They wouldn't have filtered other stories, would they? ;-)

Brett_Tabke




msg:109416
 6:25 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

It is impossible to prove what really happened. It is a that is untouchable for most of the net because it is 100% here-say.

It is just like all those "press release" allegations that Google is alleged to have "censored" this story, or that story, when in fact, they just zap alot of the obvious spam stories. Yet out there on the web are dozens of articles about how Google "censored" their personal pet project that was going to save the whales and fix the hole in the ozone.

There are a few blogs that have picked it up, but nothing even we would feel comfortable quoting here. (especially those that didn't include a link to the source)

Macro




msg:109417
 6:27 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

It's gotten very little press from what I've seen.

An apology and a statement from google is in order.

Let sleeping dogs lie? ;)

Whoever it is from Google who lurks here forgot to repair sco's PR.

wifi on the fly




msg:109418
 6:41 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

And my PR...I still have a PR0 for a squeeky clean site. Email from Google said read the Google Guide. Absurd. Fix it Google! ;)

IITian




msg:109419
 6:57 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Whoever it is from Google who lurks here forgot to repair sco's PR.

Maybe, it is a manual penalty. ;)

jonrichd




msg:109420
 8:35 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Adobe.com still not in the index here in Atlanta at 4:30 local time. Microsoft has its pr, but when you try to look at G's cache, you get a Google generated error message.

killroy




msg:109421
 10:14 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'd love to get a peep at MSs logs and see if that made a dip in their traffic...

SN

mvl22




msg:109422
 10:20 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I found that one of my site's front pages (a non-commercial but political site, I might add) has disappeared about two weeks ago, even though the rest of the site is there. The site is squeaky clean, so I can only imagine the site has been bitten by this bug.

Where is the best place to report it?

Milamber




msg:109423
 10:40 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Originally posted by mvl22
Where is the best place to report it?

I would suggest sending an email to webmaster@google.com

kwasher




msg:109424
 5:00 am on May 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

For removals, they could use a process similar to a domain name transfer.

communitynews




msg:109425
 7:27 pm on May 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

The root page of one my sites has the "Sorry, no information is available for the URL www.domain.com" when www.domain.com is searched on google and yet the page comes up when the keywords I follow are used.

Does this mean that this is not the way to check for the problem discussed in this thread or does it mean that the test doesn't really indicate that the site is missing from google?

This 88 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 88 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved