mhansen - 5:32 pm on Dec 21, 2010 (gmt 0)
I just want to be sure and say I am not against the reasons Google is doing this, its great. The way its doing it however... just kinda wrong. I too will ask friends what they think of it, without bias. Most users, I'm sure, will think it's a great idea! They trust Google. Don't you agree?
In fact, if Google told me right now, false positive or not, that WebmasterWorld itself "Might Be Compromised", I would probably find a different place to read webmaster news and talk with other webmasters for a while. If I knew the owner personally and had a way to contact them, I would tell them immediately... If not, I would try to reach out to other webmasters and warn them, as well as tweeting and posting about it warning others of the possible danger, and the need to get the news to the owner.
But... I'm not your average user. Most will either etch the information in their mind and walk away forever, or completely ignore it and move on to the next site in the list. Either way, its a sum loss for the website owner. I'd also think its a sum loss for Google as well, since every site you DON'T have a warning message on, gets your unwritten Stamp of Approval!
Just imagine if a trusted guide in mobile phones, like AT&T or Samsung, listed all phones available, but put a small caveat next to Google Android phones that said: "Using This Phone May Compromise your Privacy". As a user, I would somewhat assume that the others didn't present any risk!
Great Idea, protecting your customers... but why not do it right? Remove the infected page links from your index (or at least strip out the hyperlink from serp's, since the exploits seem to be triggered by referrer), and if the webmaster doesn't figure out their site is compromised by the lack of visits, maybe it doesn't care to be indexed in the first place?!