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?
Interesting article at Search Engine Watch.
|wifi on the fly|
Wow - that was pretty cool, but how many other people knew about this long before? :(
I guess you could eliminate the competition pretty easily.
|Yes, Google says. The company sent this statement today: |
Who is "Google says" and why we don't heard GoogleGuy about this?
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 12:39 am (utc) on May 15, 2004]
[edit reason] we can not do email excerps of any kind on WebmasterWorld [/edit]
I posted last night about another big site that had no PR, but this morning the post was gone from this thread. (I wont repost the name in case the post was removed for a related reason.) The site in question still has no PR, but maybe its just a due to a factor I dont know about. (Perhaps the home page is just redirecting me to the 'latest'newest page)
|troels nybo nielsen|
kendos, I don't think that GoogleGuy's comments are really needed here. When a person in Danny Sullivan's position refers to a statement from Google this ought to be sufficient evidence that Google recognize the problem.
well googleguy always is suddenly "gone" when there are problems.
This is likely give us some confirmation that googleguy is a programmer or something like that and he is just busy when everyone overhere is crying and shouting. :)
When something like this happens, I don't imagine that Google wants to be issuing a Press Release, via GG, via WW.
When he's posting here, it might be best to see him as just another WW member who happens to work at the plex, not as an official spokesman.
GG has displayed a friendly and helpful spirit here for years. Since last fall, he has been less forthcoming with specifics and suggestions, but still helpful steering newbies away from problems.
He seems to have gone silent around the time the IPO was announced. Think there's a connection? ;)
With an IPO looming, I suspect any statements that could be construed as official are being carefully screened and funneled thru delegated spokesmen. I believe he's been "gagged." I just hope it's not permanent.
The upcoming IPO must have a bearing on the silence from GG. It's also a real pity that an "official announcement" went through Danny's site rather than here where the bug was identified.
As a Brit who doesn't know much about Californian law I hope you can clarify an area I am unsure about. Doesn't CA state law state that any "hack" that affects CA companies or individuals must be reported?
I appreciate that this has been called a "bug" in the system and in this instance it almost definately is, but isn't a hack the exploit of a bug?
Please accept my apologies if I am way of base here, as I said I'm just a Brit who isn't sure of US and CA law.
In situations where a problem has to be officially admitted, a vicarious PR guy such as GG has to keep quiet. He's probably smart enough to know that but I imagine he was given his orders too. (Of course, he may have just had his appendix out, or whatever, and be indisposed.)
With regard to the law, I doubt that what was done could be construed as a criminal hack. FeelFree could always claim that he was excercising his opinion that these sites did not belong in the SERPS. After all, Google are allowed to express their opinions, and so is everyone else.
In any case, there is no way Google would want to turn a minor PR problem into a full-blown nightmare.
>FeelFree could always claim that he was excercising his opinion that these sites did not belong in the SERPS.
I, for one, think that FeelFree should be rewarded by Google for exposing a hole in Google's software and openly sharing the outcome with us. He has been a gentleman throughout, even refusing to tell his methods to others for fear that they could used to harm the competitors. He seems to have a high sense of ethics.
|With regard to the law, I doubt that what was done could be construed as a criminal hack. |
Yes. There have been a couple of posts alluding to that... I would strongly suggest that people remember that what was done was done for a very good reason. It also resulted in something important being taken care of by G. We all remember the earlier thread where no one really believed him. He proved his point quite effectively... respect.
Absolutely.From me too.
Google have been a active participant in webmasterworld and IPO or not it warrants an official or an unofficial comment from them on this forum.IMHO
It could have gone on and on, sites mysteriously dissapearing (not necessarily the 'big' ones or people that lurk here). It was certain dramatic proof.
Thank you very much to supporters.
Google is really one of the most important thing for 3 years in my life. I am from Turkey. We try to catch world people (with my poor English). Google gave us this chance. Because it is not important where you are.
I want Google to keep its number one position in this business. And i am sure that google will be the one with its email service. I am waiting impatiently to have a gmail account.
Google gave me money and prestige. I want them to be perfect. Thanks.
But i still have something about this removal thing. I removed 4 more websites (I am sorry about that, i see that, if you try to say something, kill the biggest ones. then people turn their looks on me. I wish i didnt do for them). And they still didnt restored. So i am not so sure that they really fixed it. They said we restored 10 websites, No they didnt. If you want sticky. I can send these urls. Please do something for these 4.
|Google have been a active participant in webmasterworld and IPO or not it warrants an official or an unofficial comment from them on this forum.IMHO |
Cabbie, in my (admittedly limited) experience on this forum when anyone suggests that Google should comment on any issues it only guarantees that they will not.
Like you I wish they would, but things are even more sensitive than ever at the moment. If someone digs up another couple of bugs and this gets in the press, well ...?
My opinion of 'feelfree' is that removing these websites was totally irresponsible. There was no need for it and if they have suffered losses I hope they try to take action. How would the members here feel if their own website had been removed and had not recovered.
|troels nybo nielsen|
Your action proved your point, feelfree. No-one can doubt now that the problem was real. You might have chosen a less dramatic way of doing it, but that might not have been enough to make the problem obvious. I do not think that it is fair to criticize your action. I did not have the honour of welcoming you when you first arrived here, but I am pleased to meet you now.
I cannot see that there is any basis for any website taking action against you. So many webmasters so often forget that being in Google's database and SERPs is not a _right_ that we can claim.
And a few word about GoogleGuy's silence: GoogleGuy's position is very difficult. There are situations where he serves everybody best by keeping a low profile. This might be one of those situations.
|And a few word about GoogleGuy's silence: GoogleGuy's position is very difficult. There are situations where he serves everybody best by keeping a low profile. This might be one of those situations. |
Clearly in these situations his position is very difficult, however I must disagree with you on this one. Burying one's head in the sand solves nothing and only serves to create suspicion and mistrust.
It's a bit like when someone says "no comment". You immediately think that they have reason to hide something.
>>>How would the members here feel if their own website had been removed and had not recovered
As I see it a sacrifice of a few for the good of many.
dont kill the messenger/ next time he keeps his mouth shut :)
OK ..I apologise for jumping on your case feelfree...
( I was somewhat busy dealing with the results of multiple hacks ( not you ) on a whole bunch of servers by Pron affs ) ....so was more than a bit tetchy ..again sorry ...
As for google ..well finally people are waking up to the fact that they are business like all the rest and that in advance of IPO "they ain't sayin nuttin" about embarrassing stuff ...
GG isn't hiding ...or gagged ..he's having his highlights done or was painting the fence during his vacation in "diddengottaphonelinedownthere ..east nebraskeee"..( thats more or less what he'll say when he gets back )on past performance ...
As I posted elsewhere and as Brett says elsewhere for different context .."been there ..done that ..won't be back" ...I resigned from PR after having enough of being hung out to dry by the "suits" and "bean counters"....
Bill G must've fell of his small change laughing when "otherguysbadPrgeek" told him the news ...maybe he'll offer to rite a "patch" for "G" and we and some 9 yr old from the Ukraine can all make ourselves #1 with no SEO ....just a handheld and a modded wardialer
Just a thought..the silence from "g" on this subject ...I don't suppose any of you guys thought to wrap your emails in money or include your credit card details ....seems like the only way to get some action from the "plex" at the moment ....
I checked the 4 links feelfree gave to me and they are still missing from Google's index. Google hasn't fixed the problem yet.
[added]Unlike Microsoft and Adobe, who wouldn't have suffered much, if at all, because of drop of their index pages, because people could still find them, these 4 links relate to highly competitive travel business (Hotel reservations) and I think they must have seen a big drop in referrals from Google. I think restoration of these must be given priority by Google.[/added]
GoogleGuys silence on this forum would be part of the pre IPO 'quiet period' before the actual prospectus is issued. Its just good business - and it isn't just a Google issue - every company shuts down announcements, Public Relations, press releases etc between IPO announcement and prospectus publication - because the laws in this area are so broad. The safest, cheapest way to comply with the laws is silence.
Chris D, what you say makes sense and is no doubt true but would there not be Brownie points to be earned by simply announcing that there would be no announcements meanwhile?
We adults would understand :)
You mean - make an announcement to the effect that you won't be making any announcements?
| This 88 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 88 ( 1 2  ) |