Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
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.
Yes, they are back - with the same javacript redirect as before.
So BMW cleaned things up but Google still has to recrawl the site.
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.
>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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.