| 8:06 pm on Mar 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
How many search terms do you have? How long does your rank checker wait between each search?
| 8:34 pm on Mar 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I got the same google page a few days ago by just using the built-in google search bar on Firefox. 10 minutes later it let me search without any changes by me.
| 8:51 pm on Mar 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Finaly somebody else saw it. I have been asking around I thought I was going nuts. I have ran the same rank checker for over a year never a problem. It only did it friday night and has not happened since. G is having problems with viruses out there searching for email address. It makes since that they would have to do this if a virus got out of hand it could shut them down. Basicly be a DOS attack. I think they were testing something or it kicks in at a certain level of activity.
| 4:31 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hi ogletree! That page originally started because when someone has a virus or a trojaned machine, they often don't realize that their machine may be sending queries to Google without them asking. :)
Recently, we've started to improve the software, and it can also detect lots of things like rank checking and other automatic queries to Google. Of course, we don't show the message to everybody that comes onto our radar, but our new software looks pretty good at detecting programmatic queries. If you're using WebPosition or other software that sends queries to Google from a program, I'm not surprised if you're going over a threshold where your queries are on the radar.
If you do see this message, I would recommend not sending so many queries to Google--the volume or type of queries are unusual enough that it's attracting greater scrutiny from us. If you avoid sending queries to Google from a program, you'll be as right as rain.
| 4:55 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I can duplicate this message consitently by searching for 302 go.php and then clicking to page two of the results.
Perhaps there are other triggers too.
| 5:09 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good catch pincher34. It is not showing the capcha. That looks like some sort of bug or something that one of the viruses do. GG thanks for the confirmataion. Everybody thought I was nuts.
| 5:11 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I got this the other day too. I did have some trojans on my PC, but I'm not sure that's what tripped it. Seemed like my manual searches did somehow.
Also, the page itself had a lot to be desired. It told me about viruses and then wanted me to enter info to proceed. Didn't seem all that different than was some trojans do, so I didn't do it!
| 5:13 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo has been doing something like this for a long time -- isn't their 'query limit' something like 200 in one hour?
It sounds like Google is trying to be a bit more intelligent about things, so a company with 30 people running behind the same firewall doesn't accidentally trip the filter.
It's interesting that this is becoming necessary, though. As scripting becomes more and more accessible to people, Google and other major 'free' service providers have to respond with actual service limits.
It's part of a move towards a more rational business plan, I suppose. Maybe this will move Google in the direction of an actual, subscription-based API as well -- so people who want to do rank checking will pay for the bandwidth they use. If Google really can scale their services indefinitely, this would make a great deal of sense to me.
| 5:14 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
looks like everyone will start going towards proxies and intermittant intervals in their software now.
| 5:23 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
webhound, it may keep you from getting the message, but that doesn't mean that it keeps you off the radar. :) The best way to be 100% sure you're in good shape is not to send programmatic queries to Google.
| 5:33 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What if GoogleGuy were to sign up with another name, in this forum, then sticky you for details about your secret software? How long would it be before he had enough details to derail the operation?
I don't think it's wise to trust people who have special methods for beating Google and then talk about them in forums where Google is listening.
(Of course, to be ultra-paranoid... What if GoogleGuy were to sign up as 'Webhound,' and post that he has a secret program to beat Google, and then watch and see who expresses interest in it?)
(Yes, I watch too many spy movies.)
| 5:46 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I was going to write a message asking what the problem is with rank checkers was, then I had a think about how they would work and can see that they would be sending too great a volume of queries in a time period to be acceptable even to a goliath.
I don't use rank checkers, no really I don't. But I do wonder what google could do about it anyway? Besides banning my I.P. telling tales on me.
"Whatcha gunna do google huh huh huh...!"
| 5:47 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
GoogleGuy: then how do we get the data? Sites are often dependent on Google rankings for profitiability, but we should just cross our fingers and hope we do well rather than seeing where we do well so we can make informed business decisions?
| 6:04 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I would like to take this opportunity to appologise to G and all it's staff for my post and any distress it may have caused.
Sorry, I was just joking.
Guys rank checkers are bad and the use of which can lead to dire consequences.
I being of sound mind and body and being free from duress, annoyance or external stress make this statement of my own freewill.
is this ok?
| 6:10 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I assume (?) that using a rank checker that uses the Google API key is ok. Within the TOS, and all that...
| 6:18 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
nice, lol. i can see how this would raise problems, as well as a solve. i, am an seo, and have done it for years now. checking positioning with software is always nice, especially for clients, but, working for a big company, i can understand how google hates people tasking servers for the purpose of placement. that would upset any company getting hit hard.
| 6:27 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think Google has figured out a way to identify me, BC they *only* serve up off target ancient results anymore as far as I can tell... it must just be me BC no one would use them if they got the junk I do when I G-query :) how did they get so bad all the sudden? Not a good time to drop the ball IMO. come back to Florida google :)
[edited by: igf1 at 6:35 pm (utc) on Mar. 8, 2005]
| 6:30 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Nope, not allowed to use the Google API for anything but "personal, noncommercial uses". And it only gives the top 10 anyways.
| 6:50 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Nope, not allowed to use the Google API for anything but "personal, noncommercial uses". And it only gives the top 10 anyways. |
So, checking my ranking is not a personal, noncommercial use?
| 6:52 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What does it mean to be on the radar? Ack.
| 7:15 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|(Of course, to be ultra-paranoid... What if GoogleGuy were to sign up as 'Webhound,' and post that he has a secret program to beat Google, and then watch and see who expresses interest in it?) |
Webhound certainly would be an appropriate nic...
| 7:25 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
1) Why not launch your own tool to check PR. It is quite evident now that lots and lots of people are checking PR these days?
2) In many cases 1000 results are not enough why not start a survey requesting users if they would like to see more results.
Thanks Google is still the best.
| 7:34 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|What does it mean to be on the radar? Ack. |
I think it means they know what kw's you check, what sites you visit right before and/or right after checking those kw's, how many times a week those sites change, what sorts of changes are made (hmmm, SEO-like changes?), whether or not those site changes occur after major updates, what forums you visit. You know, stuff like that. :-)
Also, I think it means they know what movie you went to Sat. night.
How was Be Cool, btw? ;-)
| 8:50 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
insight, I'd start with your server logs--that's gold that's usually not mined nearly as much as rank checking. Personally, I don't see a problem with using the Web API to check rankings for your own sites--just don't sell that tool/service. :)
| 9:46 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
GoogleGuy: we get more out of our server logs than our rank checks, sure. But server logs tells us about us, and rank checks tell us about competitors. Why would we want to take that tool out of our toolbox?
The API getting only the top 10 results is too limiting. We want to see approaching competitors coming so that we can learn what works, not panic when they're on top of us. It can be a bit like reading tea leaves to figure it out, but I can say for certain that we've picked up valuable techniques we would otherwise be losing business because of. We're not trying to get away with something, we're trying to compete fairly.
Expand the API. Let us buy access and get more than 10 results. We'd be first in line, beats the hell out of spending a couple hours a week tracking down the newest ways you guys malform your HTML. This week it was links that appear to be a real link taken, stripped of http:// and url-encoded. Ugly stuff.
| 9:58 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hmmm...maybe something has changed that I am unaware of, but I've used the API many times and can query way past 10 results.
I can get the same 1000 results I am able to using the regular google via the API. The only issue is that you can only get 10 results per query, but it's easy enough to use multiple queries to get far more than 10 results.
Just use the "start" parameter in your query to start past result 10.
| 10:17 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Ah, yeah, I forgot about the specifics, just that the API would only allow us a small fraction of the data we currently gather.
| 10:25 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
That's a lot of data to shuffle around between servers. I wonder how you ship it and analyze it so quickly.
That said, some of it is definitely static and specific keyword based. There are certain terms that willl trigger it automatically, perhaps problems terms used in the past.
| 10:30 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The API getting only the top 10 results is too limiting. We want to see approaching competitors coming so that we can learn what works, not panic when they're on top of us |
The API allows you to get 10 results at a time, not just the top 10 result. Still a little limiting, but it works fine as long as you're not checking WAY down the SERPs or a huge number of keywords.
| This 77 message thread spans 3 pages: 77 (  2 3 ) > > |