homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.180.175
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 78 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 78 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
BMW.de removed from Google index
illegal javascript redirects
jetteroheller




msg:730921
 1:03 pm on Feb 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Okay, normal no URLs, but in this case, this appears in worldwide news and it's the URL of a big car producer in Germany.

So it seems Google applies the time out penalty regardless of the size of a web site, regardless of AdSense income or not.

 

bluewidgets




msg:730951
 11:59 am on Feb 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

entschuldigen Sie mich für mein schlechtes Englisch

Pico_Train




msg:730952
 12:08 pm on Feb 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

But BMW does not depend on web traffic and they are fully aware that cloaking is not kosher so the what ifs are pointless.

I understand your point entirely my friend but web traffic dependence or not, certain tricks are not cool and they are reminding EVERYONE of that.

arbouzas




msg:730953
 12:30 pm on Feb 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

The truth about the bmw.de removal is:

- At first it was noticed by some bloggers and the new was duplicated in a thousand of blogs. This happened about 1st of February.
- BMW removed the links BEFORE they were removed from Google. The day was 3rd February.
- Google removed bmw.de from search results, this was 4th February.

why did Google removed bmw.de?

europeforvisitors




msg:730954
 2:26 pm on Feb 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

nd if this portal I'm speaking of would not show up at all in the search result, then search engine users would not be able to find it.

And the search result as a whole would not be as good as with those search results included.

Two things:

1) No site is indispensable. (As BMW.de has just learned.)

2) Sometimes you need to consider the larger picture, as Google has done in this case.

mrMister




msg:730955
 2:42 pm on Feb 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Is there an official response from BMW out yet?

The BBC quotes a BMW representative in this article:

[news.bbc.co.uk...]

"We did not provide different content in the search results to the final website," Markus Sagemann told the BBC News website.

"However, if Google says all doorway pages are illegal we have to take this into consideration."

taps




msg:730956
 4:09 pm on Feb 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

We did not provide different content in the search results to the final website," Markus Sagemann told the BBC News website.

Of course they did. Some people simply don't get it.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:730957
 10:04 pm on Feb 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

why did Google removed bmw.de?

Well it didn't just happen. It happened while Google was receiving bad press about the China Syndrome.

Coincidence? I think not ;)

jecasc




msg:730958
 10:24 pm on Feb 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

why did Google removed bmw.de?

Well it didn't just happen. It happened while Google was receiving bad press about the China Syndrome.

Matt Cutts anounced recently on his blog that Google would put more focus on the non english part of their serps. A few weeks ago it was automobile.de, one of the larger german used car market places that was removed. Now it's BMW.

This is simply a warning: If you are still using black hat SEO in Europe modify your pages while its not too late.

It was about time this happened. Techniques that where of no use in english serps and can be considered as obsolute are still working in german and other european language serps.

FromRocky




msg:730959
 3:13 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

It's back.

A reinclusion request has been received and bmw.de is back to business. How quick it is. Two days not 30 days for mom & pop sites.

lammert




msg:730960
 8:36 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Also the second site Matt Cutts mentioned, ricoh.de, is back in the index. Google probably did a very good job to warn black hat SEO's in Europe with these actions.

I think that Google has choosen these two targets carefully. On one hand it didn't harm these two companies too much because they are such well known brands that the majority of their traffic is probably from links and typ-in traffic and not from the SE's. On the other hand these brands are so well known that every spammer now knows that if Google is not affraid to catch such large companies, then their small spamming sites may also be in danger.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:730961
 8:59 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Isn't it all a bit frightening this power that Google is developing? After all BMW make good cars, they did not break any laws and their company name is being dragged through the mud. There are much worse things happening at corporate level that go unreported.

People who read the headlines and don't really understand the situation will just associate BMW (and Ricoh) with some sort of wrongdoing.

Is it right that this should happen?

please don't pillory me, I am only philosophising ;)

66sore




msg:730962
 9:03 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

I was thinking the same thing. The power of Google and of the controllers of the internet is something we as webmasters should be very aware of as our livelihoods are at stake.

taps




msg:730963
 9:52 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes, they are back - with the same javacript redirect as before. Just check for "bmw neuwagen". Maybe there was some rollback?

gstewart




msg:730964
 11:06 am on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

BeeDeeDubbleU asks
Isn't it all a bit frightening this power that Google is developing?

IMO it's absolutely terrifying. BMW and their design/marketing folks were reckless and pretty daft to do what they did, and certainly deserve the penalty. But until the competition, whether Y or MS or (preferably) some new player altogether, provide a real alternative we're stuck with an effectively monopolistic situation. In the long run a solution to that problem that may need government intervention.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:730965
 12:29 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

It could happen.

financialhost




msg:730966
 12:49 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes, they are back - with the same javacript redirect as before. Just check for "bmw neuwagen".

You mean they are still cloaking?
Are just using a redirect with no keywords on the cloak page?

fritzbayer




msg:730967
 2:13 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

BeeDeeDubbleU, I don't think it's scary but I think it is a little hypocritical.

Google is, because they accept censorship from a regime, which does not care about human rights.

I wonder what deals they cut with the regime and if those would are legal by western standards?

Anyway what's legal or illegal is written in the law books and applied by judges.

So when people here talk about legal and illegal practices I guess they mean things which google dislikes or likes.

europeforvisitors




msg:730968
 4:07 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't think it's scary but I think it is a little hypocritical.

Google is, because they accept censorship from a regime, which does not care about human rights.

What does one have to do with the other? Save the red herrings for breakfast.

crobb305




msg:730969
 5:37 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

How quickly BMW was reincluded. What about the rest of us who have tried to resolve problems and be reincluded for years now?

lammert




msg:730970
 6:14 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes, they are back - with the same javacript redirect as before.

The cache in Google is still the old one with keyword stuffing and they will probably calculate the ranking based on this old page version. But the page linked to is without javascript and contains a plain <a href="..."> link to the user visible page.

So BMW cleaned things up but Google still has to recrawl the site.

europeforvisitors




msg:730971
 6:53 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

How quickly BMW was reincluded. What about the rest of us who have tried to resolve problems and be reincluded for years now?

I asked the same thing in the Supporters Forum, and another member made the good point that Google.de would look foolish if the search results for "BMW" didn't include bmw.de.

In other words, now that Google has delivered its message (in a dramatic manner, at that), it makes sense for Google to get back to business as usual.

crobb305




msg:730972
 7:49 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

It would just be nice if the rest of us stood a chance, and could be heard.

C

europeforvisitors




msg:730973
 7:58 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, don't do what bmw.de did, and you won't get whacked for cloaking or keyword stuffing. :-)

hutcheson




msg:730974
 8:53 pm on Feb 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

...>> Google.de would look foolish if the search results for "BMW" didn't include bmw.de.

>In other words, now that Google has delivered its message (in a dramatic manner, at that), it makes sense for Google to get back to business as usual.

And what is business as usual? Making sure people find the results they expect when it matters (that is, findnig bmw.de and not buy-bmw-buy-your-new-bmw-here-cheap.ru!)

And ... if there are ten thousand sites any hundred of which would serve well enough, showing whatever 100 of them are convenient, regardless of which hundred were shown last month -- not wasting time on wash results.

That's great, if you're one of the lucky hundred this month. Next month it'll be great for a different hundreds. And ... that is in its own way much fairer than a more ossified set of search results -- that it, it DOESN'T create a class of arbitrarily "privileged sites" because of a historical accident.

b2net




msg:730975
 11:29 am on Feb 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

MC didn't approve my comment to his blog, but here is what I wrote (I have nothing against him and by talking about Matt I mean Google in general.)

Matt has never been a webmaster of a commercial website. He doesn't know what it feels like to spend long hours on building a white hat website and trying to make a living with it and then all of a sudden one day (September 22, 2005 or December 27th, 2005) the site loses all Google traffic. No idea what might have caused it. No response from Google. Removing pages that might have cause a near-duplicate content penalty doesn't help. Besides, those pages are relevant to the user.

I just finished 3 more WH sites but since I might loose them any day to some stupid Google filter or sandbox why bother? I can generate thousands of doorway pages in a second if I want to and use them to redirect traffic to my main sites. (Note: keyword pages don't need any redirects so they don't break Google guidelines)

At this moment - when Google indexes each page individually making it necessary to stuff pages with keywords - BMW style doorway pages are a must have. If it weren't for doorway pages you wouldn't find BMW.de when searching for "bmw 5er neuwagen".

-ends-

As for the BMW pages: all the pages are still there, they have just removed the js redirect and replaced it with a normal link to the main site. This is good news to all thinking of making doorway/keyword pages: they're fine as long as you don't redirect anywhere.

Ps. Don't take my post seriously, I just had to get this out of my system.

fritzbayer




msg:730976
 12:24 pm on Feb 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

europeforvisitors, webmasters do not participate in spam, when they use cloaking, so that a search for "used cars bmw 3" actually yields a current offer to a used bmw 3, because it is on topic and relevant.

Others achieve the same result without cloaking, because their webapplication was built with seo in mind from the very beginning, so that they do not have to use cloaking to make up for previous mistakes.

So the only option for the first participant is to rebuilt his webapplication so that it matches his cloaked pages. The outcome in the end, would be more or less the same, as long as the content is real.

So those webmasters break one of the rules, which google sets out in their quality guidelines, because for their particular purpose cloaking actually only achieves what a site that had been built right from the start up would have achieved.

Google surely and hopefully agrees that people and regimes, which do not value freedom of speech, should be banned as well or boycoted. But I guess in this particular case, they apply the same reasoning as the webmaster who applies cloaking by saying: Well maybe it does more good than bad. Maybe and hopefully it does only good!?

But they don't grant the same reasoning, which they use in china to webmaster who apply cloaking in the way I describe it here. But only to themselves. That is like telling your children not to do something, which you do elsewhere. And that is hyprocrital.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:730977
 12:39 pm on Feb 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

europeforvisitors, webmasters do not participate in spam, when they use cloaking

Really?

fritzbayer




msg:730978
 1:33 pm on Feb 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

BeeDeeDubbleU, well you are right that's not generaly true.

Phil_Payne




msg:730979
 2:24 pm on Feb 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

> Matt has never been a webmaster of a commercial website. He doesn't know what it feels like to spend long hours on building a white hat website and trying to make a living with it and then all of a sudden one day (September 22, 2005 or December 27th, 2005) the site loses all Google traffic. No idea what might have caused it. No response from Google. Removing pages that might have cause a near-duplicate content penalty doesn't help. Besides, those pages are relevant to the user.

Building and rebuilding, in a desperate attempt to squeeze the last ounce out of whatever algorithm will be used next time. It seems to me sometimes that no two indices are ever built using the same algorithm.

Putting together a perfectly functioning site - for IE users, that is. Then getting comments from users of other browsers. Downloading, installing and generally messing with five or so other browsers - in the process having to get Linux up and running for Mozilla.

Then going through W3C validation on 450 pages.

Then converting to CSS.

Then re-optimising - dumping the keywords tag, revising all TITLEs, putting in appropriate H1s and H2s. What's the next algorithm going to look at?

And trying to keep the pages perfect for the REAL users in the meantime.

And all the time with the Sword of Damocles swinging over you - if I "upset Google" how long will it be (and how much of the above will I have to repeat) before the world can see me again?

There DOES need to be a consultation process before Google smacks on these bans. They're damn lucky, IMO, they didn't get sued by BMW. I would bet everything I own that a legal threat was issued by BMW - having worked in the legal department of a German company in a highly competitive environment back in the 1980s I know how that works - probably an "Einstweilige Verfügung" from a Bavarian court that would have frightened seven shades of ordure out of Google.

US legal actions take months or years. The Germans can have your sphericals on the table tomorrow at 09:00.

Phil_Payne




msg:730980
 2:40 pm on Feb 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

> This is simply a warning: If you are still using black hat SEO in Europe modify your pages while its not too late.

I think BMW's point is that there was no warning.

BMW broke the rules as I understand them and - if they want to be in Google's indices - they have to conform. Google was perfectly justified in excluding them.

HOWEVER - under German law any such action is "business damaging" (Geshäftsschädigend) and the potential "victim" (in this case BMW) has to be given proper notice ("Frist" - 28 days is woefully inadequate; any German judge wouldn't even laugh at you - he/she would just stare and suggest six months) and precipitate action has to be compensated.

I don't know how BMW values its web presence in terms of its annual revenue. But it would surprise me if they did not quietly sue Google (or threaten it, for an out of court settlement) to recover what they perceive as their loss over this period. They might even be able to recover the cost of their reprogramming.

Google was within its rights to act as it did, but not without notice or explanation - and that is what is going to cost them dear. The little guy, of course, can't afford to sue Google - until a group of the excluded get on Yahoo together and start a class action.

fritzbayer




msg:730981
 3:30 pm on Feb 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Phil_Payne, I don't think that there is a legal base for it. Nobody can tell google what to index and what not to.

If you open up a night club or restaurant, you can also leave people outside, if you don't like them.

This 78 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 78 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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