Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Had a good laugh though. :)
Once the pages are fully changed, people will have to follow the same procedure that anyone else would (email webmaster at google.com with the subject "Reinclusion request" to explain the situation).
Wonder if they'll have to wait for months for reinclusion...
(Not a slam -- I've, thankfully, never had a site black listed, and as much as I respect you, this answer just isn't holding much water with me.)
And why is the GSA using the same UA as the regular bot. :)
For instance: SA-Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/sa-bot.html) or something to this effect.
The [adwords.google.co.uk...] file says:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
User-Agent: Googlebot
Allow: /
Allow: /support/
Disallow: /*?
The pagese were in the /support/ folder
[edited by: Chris_D at 4:06 am (utc) on Mar. 9, 2005]
Hmmm that's funny, before your post and before it all of a sudden went poof, I tried some different versions with Googlebot but some didn't work. Like "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html) didn't work". If it checked for Googlebot wouldn't it have picked that up?
Sorry I missed it.
Post it here?
I don't mean to trumpet the google horn, as I'm not a big fan, but I think alot of people have really lost perspective as to what a independent company "owes" them.
Ebay - some of the best seo'ers on the net.
I know it! I interviewed there with a couple of others at their San Jose offices.
I didn't make the cut :(
Anyway notice that G's home page is PR 9?
the Google Search Appliance uses "Googlebot" as a user agent
I thought the default user-agent for the search appliance was "gsa-crawler"?
Or was this changed to be the same as the web crawler for some reason?
Once the pages are fully changed, people will have to follow the same procedure that anyone else would (email webmaster at google.com with the subject "Reinclusion request" to explain the situation).
Interesting - a reinclusion request for individual pages that have been excluded, as opposed to a whole site. Is that new?
To GoogleGuy:
"msgraph, the process will be the same: an email to webmaster at google.com with a subject of "Reinclusion request." The report won't be treated differently compared to other requests."
I would treat it differently and include it ASAP. Everyone here would do the same, so let's stop pretending. It's your own page and your own search engine and can do as you wish. End of the story!
Walkman:It's stupid and whoever did [this] has nothing to do with the search people.
GoogleGuy:Those pages were primarily intended for the Google Search Appliances
The guys that write the search engine wern't involved. However, whoever did this is some kind of search person. They should really have known the side effects of stuffing extra keywords in the title to any user presenting the UA substring "googlebot".
However, as has been mentioned. All other search engines are blocked from this page, so it only affects their own engine. Even so, they've gone so far as to punish themselves by banning the offending pages from the index.
It was a mistake, and they've received the same consequences that any other site would do if they had made the same mistake. Seems fair enough to me.
[edited by: mrMister at 12:42 pm (utc) on Mar. 9, 2005]
Look someone screwed up. With 3000 employees, for all they know, they might even have a serial killer on GooglePlex too. I mean, one guy or a group did something stupid, embarrased the company, got caught, I'm sure will be dealt with, and that does it for me.
main person who could have answered questions was flying back to the U.S. on a plane
Is this the guy that is responsible for the mistake? And Google bought him a return ticket? ;-)
for all they know, they might even have a serial killer on GooglePlex too.
/me looks suspicously at GoogleGuy
Nah, can't be him, they always say it's the quiet ones you have to watch out for :-)
Is this the guy that is responsible for the mistake? And Google bought him a return ticket?
I'd fire his boss. How many Google employees actually have the authority to publish web pages on their site? What sort of guidelines, training, education, and supervision are they given? Given Google's business, and their ethos, this is one area where you would keep close tabs on your employees.
yp, fire or whatever they decide. Employees come up with stupid ideas all the time. Once the boss gives the OK to implement them, he's responsible.
GG: since you mentioned you'll be watching another thread, please take a look at this too: [webmasterworld.com...]
It's hard for us to say how much our sites are being hurt by it (because other things might be in play too), but the problem exists and can be seen in cached pages.
walkman, I'm happy to walk around and ask people about this more. Have you sent an email to webmaster at google.com with the keyword "canonicalpage"? That will help make sure that any reports about canonicalization (including redirects) get to the right engineers.
GG, reply will posted on the above 302 thread, not to go way too off topic here.
So we banned him from the cave.
He has submitted a reinclusion request, and it is under consideration. Fortunately for him, the weather is relatively warm right now.
========
No offense meant G! Tthis has got to be a tricky one. But you gotta admit, from the outside looking in, it's hard not to make a few jokes. Happily we know you've got a sense of humor! :-)
