| 10:10 am on Feb 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Could of course be a cynical way to get more press - seen this banded about on all major press ....
Cheap marketing with no downside - no one lost any data, no one was 'harmed' G got loads of free press....
As for people saying well it harms their reputation - well a 70%+ market share on search won't disappear cos of this....
just a thought
| 1:07 pm on Feb 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Tedster, you're right they weren't affected
| 3:46 pm on Feb 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
literal epic fail
| 5:17 pm on Feb 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Adwords and Locals were NOT affected. Which means that they are NOT included in the Bad Site check. |
Since adwords are known to be used to advertise malware sites - WORRY about it! Why are they not included?
Simple. You pay money to Google to advertise so you get a pass.
2) Imagine a newspaper that publishes a list of business in its justification and has a big label next to them stating "Harmful" to consumers.
There would be lawsuits galore for defamation.
Google gets a pass for pulling this more than once.
Think of all the wasted man hours that Webmasters world wide expended trying to fix a problem that did not exist and visitors who added those websites to the mental list of 'do not visit in the future'.
| 6:59 pm on Feb 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Simple. You pay money to Google to advertise so you get a pass. |
Local and Adwords sites end up in the SERPs through a different technical path, that's all.
| 7:22 pm on Feb 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Could of course be a cynical way to get more press - seen this banded about on all major press |
There are lots of ways to get press -- this has to be the worst, so I can't see the whiz kids at Google purposely making such a monumental goof. They say it was a mistake and I take them at their word.
But as I said earlier, it's an important reminder of how dependant so many online businesses have become in regards to Google. We know we shouldn't do it, but when you're in the room with a thousand pound gorilla, you tend to make decisions based on their likely response. Slowly but steadily, they own your attention.
| 8:59 pm on Feb 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Could of course be a cynical way to get more press - seen this banded about on all major press .... |
Unlikely. G has far more effective and less risky ways of getting press. They are all too aware that the level of competition in search, primarily in the quality of SERPS, is such that they don't want to give their users reasons to go searching somewhere else. It has been noted by numerous people twittering, journaling, blogging, and otherwise commenting on this incident that Y! did not suffer any service interruption during that time. Moreover, people realized that Y!'s results were just as good as G's.
| 12:14 am on Feb 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Frontpage - it isn't "simple" it's dangerous. If google knows there are thieves and cut-throats about then they should, regardless of payment, lock them out the same as they do unpaid ones.
On the other hand, if you're saying google lets tham have free rein because they are making money from them then I suspect that may be untrue and actionable. :)
I suspect the real case is that they have not caught up with the latest cyber-criminal activities yet.
| 6:26 pm on Feb 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm used to write for example "adwords" in firefox and google finds the right page and send me there. However, it appears that if the result is a malware site you get redirected to the SERPs. And the results on the SERP was marked as malware. I'm guessing more people then me had problems with remembering urls and gTLD. :)
This error kinda broke the internet for FF users.
| This 99 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 99 ( 1 2 3  ) |