turbocharged - 1:46 am on Apr 28, 2013 (gmt 0)
That may be true tedster, but I think some people are more aware of the value of their content these days. I know my client is extremely hot about this Appspot stuff, and rightfully so. It's costing him money for me to clean things up. Although I'm cheaper than a SEO firm, it's still going to cost this guy more money than he had originally budgeted for something he was not aware of.
In these days where Google is really driving home the importance of creating quality and compelling content, it's astonishing that they have allowed so many webmasters to be victimized by their own service. The user above "getcooking" reported a 10% rise in traffic after blocking Appspot. Obviously this is what my client wants to see. If his site is in the omitted results, it's kind of obvious that Google is treating him like the scraper. What kind of sitewide implications does this have? Nobody really knows, and it would be difficult to gauge when Google is continually tweaking their algorithm.
The user rish3 reported that Google denied his DMCA request because it was a "proxy." I would have an issue with this. If Google caches the proxy page, then they are storing a stolen version of someone elses property. Even though webmasters may use .htaccess to block Appspot, the burden of time, and cost in my client's case, falls onto the site owner.
Although I don't know how Appspot works, I can't think of any legitimate reason to cache content from a proxy. If it is indeed a proxy, then it is pulling data from another source. It's that source that should receive credit for their work 100% of the time. A noindex tag would solve the proxy problem, but I don't think this is a high priority to Google. Appspot based proxies have been referenced in countless proxy hijacking posts for years, including on Google's webmaster help forum. For whatever reason, Google chooses to turn a blind eye to the theft of content and the burden it creates for website owners. The bright side is that I am being compensated to help correct the problem. But this problem should really have never existed from the start.