MikeNoLastName - 12:21 am on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)
Apparently the main problem seems to be that when the penalty was originally placed, probably at Ink, noone kept a note of WHY it was originally placed. Thus when they go to re-review them now they are going to be starting with an "assumed guilty" attitude and "just searching" for a valid reason to justify it. BIG BADdie!
Looking at the consensus of so many "approvals" of previously penalized sites in the sitematch submissions, there were apparently a whole lot of invalid penalties assigned by Inktomi. Is this the main reason why Y! bought Inktomi? With the big number (think $$) of (bogusly) penalized sites Ink CLAIMED to have, Y! must have seen it as a huge cash cow to milk for each getting re-reviewed from the start? But maybe Ink just randomly penalized every 5th site and misrepresented it as some scientific method to up their buyout price. If so... wow, why didn't I think of doing that, hey Y! wanna buy MY "100% guaranteed" bona fide, scientific list of spammers... er, I meant to say: "Y!, sorry to break it to you, but you've been screwed by Ink, accept it, write off the loss, maybe call in the lawyers on the former owners of Ink, and start over. C'mon I know you can do a better job on your own than Ink ever did."
I'm guessing they might just be having a problem with the inner workings of the search algorithm (oops we fired the guy who wrote the source?) and haven't managed to actually implement a flag or line of code to handle undoing the penalties. One way to determine that. Can we please hear from ANYONE... ANYONE in the WORLD! Who can actually claim "my site was previously confirmed a penalty Y! and is now not penalized". Just one? Anyone?
If not, I'd say they are having a simple ole programming problem and hopefully when it's fixed, you'll all be in where you paid to be.