Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

When Your Site Ceases To Exist

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the without-a-trace dept.

Google 191

El Lobo writes with a sobering account of how Javalobby dropped off the face of Google last month. The site had been attacked by forum spammers and Google indexed some of their spew before the Javalobby guys could remove it. According to a post in Rich Skrenta's blog, Google is now the de-facto front page for the Internet, accounting for anywhere from 70% to 78% of the search market. The power this conveys is hard to overstate. From the Javalobby saga: "We had completely disappeared from Google's main index! If you run a website, then you know how serious a problem this is. On any given day over 10,000 visitors arrive at Javalobby as a result of Google searches, and suddenly they stopped coming! ... Suddenly we no longer existed in the eyes of Google."

cancel ×

191 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Never heard of them before, so nothings' changed (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596908)

Javalobby? Another slashvertisement ...

Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (1, Insightful)

cpu_fusion (705735) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597324)

Such cynicism; but you do have a low user ID, so I'll give it a pass as perhaps the voice of a soul beaten down by actual slashvertisements. Perhaps you should read the article and give the content a chance? Yes?

Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (4, Interesting)

Utopia (149375) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597498)

Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597704)

Who would have ever know! Not something an editor would check, is it?

Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597758)

Well.........yeah. If you search for the exact term javalobby, there's a good chance that their website would come on top. More interesting would be some ambigious serach terms that would put it on top.

Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (4, Insightful)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597788)

yeah, and if you search for KillerBob on Google, my site comes up at the front. If you type my real name, my personal website isn't even on the front page. On the second page, there's a couple of scripts I wrote over 10 years ago, and a story I submitted to BBSpot years ago, but my personal website still doesn't show up. Selection of keywords. If you type the name of any specific site, you'll get that site first. If you type what the site does, you may find that it's much lower on the page ranking. They probably aren't worried about traffic from people who search for the word "javalobby", because those people probably already know about their site.

They're worried about the people who search for terms like "java help", which is what somebody who *doesn't* already know about their site would be searching for. In my case, it's quite deliberate. I'm using robots.txt to tell GoogleBot to ignore my personal website. It's *personal*. All it is is an e-mail gateway, anyway; the blog is restricted access. There's no point in having it in Google, so the robots.txt reduces my daily traffic.

Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (5, Funny)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597334)

Dude. Slashdot is the last place I'd want to advertise. Their site will be down in minutes (what with being on the front page, and the article unabbreviated).

Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (3, Interesting)

Cylix (55374) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597806)

Yes, downtime will come and go, but the page rank effects will be everlasting!

Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (2, Interesting)

danbeck (5706) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597962)

Slashdot (and digg for that matter) only hurt the small personal and hobby sites run on the $19.99 hosted solutions. Traffic from slashdot to real sites running real businesses isn't all that much to write home about. Now a mention on Yahoo, that is serious traffic.

Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597524)

Rick Ross, the guy that wrote the article, is this crazy marketing guy. He emails my company at least once a month asking how much he can pay us to drive traffic to his stupid sites. (My company is not in that business, which is why it's so strange.)

Google needs to do more of this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597592)

For example:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Denny+Fish+Jr.%2 2 [google.com]

Some hacker compromised a lot of websites so they could get Google to associate this name with "JMP analyst" and then leveraged that into a press release that said "Upgraded SCOX from Market perform to Market outperform" as if they had some sort of hope of avoiding bankruptcy.

Some flack from a major news outlet quoted him, probably after being cued where to look by an interested party. He's probably a bot and nobody will ever be able to prove he existed at all, but the flack will be able to wipe his hands on the first amendment and point to google's cache.

<sigh> I wish it were harder to game the google.

What's the problem...? (3, Informative)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596922)

I just typed in "Javalobby" in the Google search and their link came up on top. If there was a problem, it looks like it's fixed.

Re:What's the problem...? (4, Informative)

stevesliva (648202) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596992)

I just typed in "Javalobby" in the Google search and their link came up on top. If there was a problem, it looks like it's fixed.
Phew. At least when you're caught in the crossfire in the spam war, it's just a flesh wound. The seem to be on the third page [google.com] of a Google search for java.

Re:What's the problem...? (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597780)

Now, the way you searched is a little more scientific than actually searching for "javalobby"

Re:What's the problem...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597988)

Or perhaps there was never a problem in the first place.

Similar; they seem to be OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597852)

I went on the site and went down the page to something posted a few days ago and grabbed some random text: "which allows native libraries" and googled. There were only three hits but they were one of them.

They haven't disappeared. Google indexes them. Their problem may be that they no longer come out on the first page of the google results.

Not long ago there was a story on /. about captchas and I wondered what the big deal was. Well, after this story, I've been educated.

Re:What's the problem...? (2, Insightful)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597902)

I just typed in "Javalobby" in the Google search and their link came up on top.
If you know the site exists and what it's called, it's not very likely that you're going to be looking for it on Google. I think the idea is that Javalobby's copious articles had been showing up with good placement on Google, under more "generic" java-related searches (couldn't resist the pun). They were getting a great deal of traffic from these Google results because they'd worked very hard to build an original, content-rich site with information that appealed to surfers... Then, thanks to a spammer, all of that dried up within a matter of days.

I'm not intimating that anyone is entitled to any particular search rank, and I think it's rather irresponsible for the administrators of a large site to completely drop off the grid over the holidays (and, therefore, not notice that someone's posting thousands of spams to your forum). But to say that "Javalobby is at the top of the search results for 'javalobby'" is missing the point.

For those posts calling this a Slashvertisement because they'd never heard of the site before, come on. Just because a site you don't visit shows up here does not an advertisement make. I've been visiting Javalobby.com (and DZone.com, and TheServerSide.com, and Ajaxian.com, and EclipseZone.com) daily for about six months; aside from Sun's own site, reading this handful of sites is a good way to keep on top of Java news and software.

Man, I thought it was bad when I lost 50 places... (4, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596926)

My joke site (SSLI: Search for Satanic Lyrics [dimspace.com] ) used to be the number one result for "Satanic Lyrics, but about two months ago, ZAP! Gone from the frone page of Google. It's something like number 50 now, so instead of getting... ummm... three visitors a day, I get something like one a week :-)

Re:Man, I thought it was bad when I lost 50 places (4, Funny)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597674)

I just visited your site just so I could joke around about being your single weekly hit.

Joke's on me and my poor eyes; I can't believe that you are ranked so high up at 50.

Re:Man, I thought it was bad when I lost 50 places (5, Interesting)

Skidge (316075) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597818)

I had a similar, but opposite experience. I started setting up Yet Another Job Site, but I never got around to making it useful (see Click. Hired! [clickhired.com] ). Google decided that it sort of liked it for a while, sending some traffic my way. I went from making nothing on my google ads to a few bucks a day. It wasn't much money, but it was fun seeing the traffic come in. Then google decided it was the crappy site that it was and my traffic went back to its deserved trickle. I wrote an article about it with pretty graphs:

What Google Giveth, Google Can Taketh Away [lot42.com]

I should have submitted it for a slashvertisement. :)

Re:Man, I thought it was bad when I lost 50 places (2, Insightful)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598088)

My joke site (SSLI: Search for Satanic Lyrics) used to be the number one result for "Satanic Lyrics, but about two months ago, ZAP! Gone from the frone page of Google. It's something like number 50 now, so instead of getting... ummm... three visitors a day, I get something like one a week :-) I see similar traffic due to the fact that my site is the number 3 for PI to a certain number of decimal places.

I made a proposal in the W3C AC forum a week ago that would kill linkspam. So far I have not managed to follow up with Google.

The key observation here is that linkspam is not aimed at the reader of the blog, its aimed at the search engines, in particular Google. So all we need to do is to define some RDFa type markup that allows a blog to mark regions of the page as comming from a third party source.

There is also a proposal to extend the norobots scheme to allow marking of regions but I don't like that as it breaches a core principle of HTML: declarative coding. Norobots is an imperative command, 'this is external content' is declarative.

I should have a note ready sometime next week.

Re:Man, I thought it was bad when I lost 50 places (1)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598106)

I made a proposal in the W3C AC forum a week ago that would kill linkspam. So far I have not managed to follow up with Google.

Should have linked this the first time. For more details on this scheme, see my personal blog [blogspot.com] .

The Quick Fix (3, Funny)

dj245 (732906) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596948)

1. Move all forums to Javalobbyforums.com or equivalent
2. ???
3. Hire 'little people' in multicoloured pointy hats to help generate traffic for your site not that it is now google acceptable
4. Profit!

Quick Fix Redux (4, Funny)

dj245 (732906) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596978)

5. Have midgets properly proofread all posts

Re:Quick Fix Redux (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597176)

Bah! No love for us unemployed dwarfs. You're nothing but a big-est!

Back to basics (0, Flamebait)

sauge (930823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596950)

Remember the days when one got word out on a web site based on sharing word of mouth, etc? Back to them.

Of course, the anti-spam crowd will say it is a good thing this disappeared because they weren't fast enough to do something about it. Kinda like Googles Real Time Black Hole.

(I don't share that opinion.)

What problem? (5, Funny)

jcarkeys (925469) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596952)

They're on the Slashdot front page, I don't think they'll mind being off Google for a little while.

Re:What problem? (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597318)

They think they have problems? Slashdot them, melt their server, get their hoster to kick them. That pales next to being relagated to Googles 3rd page of results.

Maybe... (2, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596968)

Maybe you should stop relying on a single source for you advertising.

Maybe you should actually monitor your forums. You know, in case your customers need your help or a SPAM-bot goes on a rampage.

Maybe you should actually have a site that people care about so they'll keep coming back.

Maybe you should slashvertise and ... wait, you did that.

If your site is worthwhile, dropping off Google for a week won't affect it that much, and you'll actually have control over your forums.

Re:Maybe... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597050)

Maybe you should RTFA - they're not relying on Google for "advertising"
Maybe you should RTFA - they DO actively monitor their forums. They deleted the messages very quickly - but too late, because Googlebot beat them to it.
Maybe you should RTFA - they DO have a site that people care about and frequently visit. But they want people searching for solutions that appear in their FORUMS to find those postings via search engines.

Re:Maybe... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17598070)

And maybe you should drop the AC and admit your affiliation to javalobby, a garbage site of little value.

GP is correct.

Re:Maybe... (0)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597072)

The same advice could be given to those who complain about the MS monopoly. Funny how the double standard works here.

Re:Maybe... (4, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597310)

I don't see a double standard, yet. I don't know the GPs opinion on the MS Monopoly.

Re:Maybe... (1)

Canordis (826884) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597764)

It takes five seconds for me to migrate from Google to Yahoo. Total cost of operation: risible.

The only thing Google has on everyone else is mindshare and arguably, quality. That does not qualify as a monopoly, specially since they don't charge anything for their search services which can only loosely be considered their 'product'.

Re:Maybe... (1)

ralphdaugherty (225648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597676)

Maybe you should stop relying on a single source for you advertising.

Maybe you should actually monitor your forums. You know, in case your customers need your help or a SPAM-bot goes on a rampage.

Maybe you should actually have a site that people care about so they'll keep coming back.

Maybe you should slashvertise and ... wait, you did that.

If your site is worthwhile, dropping off Google for a week won't affect it that much, and you'll actually have control over your forums.


      This was rated Insightful, but it's really silly.

      Traffic coming from Google searches is not "advertising".

      People come in from all over the world to sites to post links to their "you are so owned" site links. If you have a site of any consequence, and let people from all over the world register, you have to let them post their garbage before you can boot them. Google monitors site constantly, and will catch it as soon as posted.

      My site is not of any consequence, and I delete the daily registrations from scumbag spammers, but Google and other search engine bots are constantly monitoring and catch whatever is posted or new member registrations with their info. I personally don't think Google dropped javalobby because of a spam posting. The nature of it is your site just drops off, and in cases like that not for any valid reason.

      I have javalobby in my bookmarks, I'm registered there and have posted a few times, and all the uninformed comments about the site are just that, uninformed.

      In the four years my site has been up, it has dropped out of Google a couple of times and reappeared within a week or so. No reason for it to drop, none for it reappearing. Just whatever shuffling goes on with Google software, happens.

  rd

Re:Maybe... (1)

danbeck (5706) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598086)

God, you are an ignorant ass! The fact of the matter is that Google pushes a massive amount of new eyeballs to sites every day and they tend to be valuable and highly targeted visitors. You just can't spend enough on advertising to get those kinds of visitors. Google and other search engines are a huge part of running any business where you do not have a majority of the mindshare out there. Does McDonalds or Amazon need Google? No.. Does Joe Blow's Car Part Emporium from Utah need Google? Fuck yes.

Just because people don't or shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket, it doesn't mean it doesn't hurt when one falls out and breaks..

It's their own fault... (5, Insightful)

Codename46 (889058) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596986)

If they could have implemented one layer of security or verification to prevent spambots from registering (similar to phpBB or vBulletin), they would have prevented all this. But they didn't. There is no image verification on their forum registration page. All it takes is a spammer with a source of disposable e-mails such as dodgeit.com to spam your page to hell.

Re:It's their own fault... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597228)

Thanks for the "heads up" about Dodgeit.com, I was looking for a new email service for my next campaign.

Or delay letting Google see recent forum posts... (1)

tugrul (750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597312)

If the forum isn't particularly time sensitive, how about just not serving recent forum posts ( 1 week) to the search engine spiders, which advertise themselves as being such, no?

That gives you some elbow room.

Re:It's their own fault... (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597380)

>If they could have implemented one layer of security or verification to prevent spambots from registering (similar to phpBB or vBulletin), they would have prevented all this.

Thats BS. I bet you that with in two weeks after you install phpbb with captcha and email account verification you'll have spam bots/spamers registering and spaming your forums. They also seem to pick interesting times of the day. I noticed they do it really early in the am hours of my time zone. So usually aroung 3-5am. Which gives the spam some exposure time on the forum before someone finds it next morning.

The only way I minimized the spam bots was to ban certain tld's. eg *@*.ru or *@*.info etc... and also implement word filters for sex or drug related keywords. Eg "free celeb movie" is replaced with "Spam Spam Spam"

Re:It's their own fault... (2, Insightful)

Codename46 (889058) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597482)

I bet you that with in two weeks after you install phpbb with captcha and email account verification you'll have spam bots/spamers registering and spaming your forums


Now THAT is BS. The only reason phpBB is penetrable is because their default captcha is EXTREMELY EASY to bypass.

If you develop your own proprietary and independent captcha (either with a stronger image verification system, or by requiring the user to answer an easy trivia question), you automatically prevent spambots from registering on the site, and no hacker is going to spend days trying to crack your captcha just so he can spam ONE site.

And in case you didn't, notice, the JavaLobby forums doesn't use phpBB. They use Jive [jivesoftware.com] .

Re:It's their own fault... (1)

telbij (465356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597576)

It's not really trivial to create your own custom spam security. Not everyone with a website has a programmer. Even if they did, the cost of combatting spam can be huge. On my little blog I created the entire thing from scratch in Rails using a novel form of spam prevention, I found one post where someone had gone through the effort to code up a spambot just for that one page (linked from reddit)!

But the essence of your post seems to be that it's the website operator's responsibility, which I don't think anyone can reasonably argue against. Google spends millions upon millions combatting spam, and there's no reason for them to give an inch just because one website can't protect itself. It's the lesser of two evils by far.

Re:It's their own fault... (2, Informative)

Codename46 (889058) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597640)

It's not really trivial to create your own custom spam security. Not everyone with a website has a programmer. Even if they did, the cost of combatting spam can be huge. On my little blog I created the entire thing from scratch in Rails using a novel form of spam prevention, I found one post where someone had gone through the effort to code up a spambot just for that one page (linked from reddit)!

You don't even have to code it yourself depending on what forum you're using. There are literally DOZENS of phpBB mods that are custom captchas, and all it takes is 10 minutes of adding copypasta to install them.

Re:It's their own fault... (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598096)

RTFA - they had a special forum for unregistered guests to post (stupid in this day and age), and it was that forum that received 50,000 posts for all kinds of spam spew.

However, you're still right in that the forum software should ask unregistered viewers who want to post to answer a captcha, and perhaps restrict their posting to 1 every 5 minutes or so.

What does /. use to prevent anonymous cowards from posting? The only spams I see are gnaa, no casino, poker, viagra, stock pumping or porn.

Pay (2)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596996)

Did you miss the memo? Google owns your ass now.

This is why people don't like monopolies much.

Anti-trust against Google? (0)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597008)

Maybe it's time for the DOJ to start building an anti-trust case against Google...?

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597048)

On what grounds? Google isn't stifling competition.

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (2, Interesting)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597160)

Go to Google. Type in "maps". First link is Google. If they really are the "home page" for 80% of the people on the planet, then that's most definitely stifling competition.

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597244)

But how are Google preventing you from going to other search engines? Being successful is not against the law.

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597428)

But how are Google preventing you from going to other search engines?

Microsoft never prevented me from installing another browser, either. Don't ask me. It doesn't make any sense to me, either.

Being successful is not against the law.

It shouldn't be, but it clearly is in the US.

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597540)

Microsoft never prevented me from installing another browser, either.

No, but they did do their best to stop OEMs installing other browsers. And there were issues with API disclosure and "sharp" business practices. Microsoft were basically abusing their monopoly. Lowering the index ranking of a site because that site has temporarily been spammed is not abusing Google's near monopoly - especially as there is every chance that a cleaned up JavaLobby could rise back up the rankings.

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (1)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597550)

Google doesn't engage in the illegal activities that MS does, such as discounts for only offering windows on machines. Also, google doesn't bundle their services or products with any operating system.

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (1)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597976)

Found an error there:

Google doesn't engage in the illegal activities that MS does, such as discounts for only offering windows on machines. Also, google doesn't bundle their services or products with any desktop operating system.

I'm referring to the Nokia 770, which comes with Google Talk, a search applet with Google as the default search. Technically, even the above is incorrect, if you fire up Ubuntu for example, the default search in the default browser is Google right out of the box. However, Google bundling their products with an OS is irrelevant, because they don't have an OS monopoly. What matters is what they bundle with their search engine. However, it's harder to call Google's position a monopoly, because the switching cost for users is so low (maybe not, if you consider how resistant some people are to change).

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (1)

Manchot (847225) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597556)

You've confused "monopoly" with "being successful." There's a big difference between the two. "Monopoly" implies that the user effectively has no choice but to use your product. Microsoft had a monopoly in Windows because a lot of commercial software and a lot of drivers were available only for Windows, locking the user in to that OS. Google doesn't even have a monopoly, since there are alternative search engines that can be used just as easily.

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597350)

Go to Google. Type in "maps". First link is Google. If they really are the "home page" for 80% of the people on the planet, then that's most definitely stifling competition.
Go to Yahoo. Type in "maps". First link is Yahoo. Actually, it's rather interesting. For Google, the order is:

1. Google Maps
2. Mapquest
3. Yahoo Maps

For Yahoo, the order is:

1. Yahoo Maps
2. Mapquest
3. Google Maps

I don't know if that's a result of each search engine tooting their own horn, but at least you can't say that Google's map results are any more skewed than Yahoo's.
 

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (1, Interesting)

MickDownUnder (627418) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597664)

Do you know what the true irony of all this is....

Go to live.com search for maps...

1. Yahoo Maps
2. Maps.com
3. Mapsonus.com
4. Google maps

There is a link to maps.live.com. It is the #1 in the paid advertising section.

Isn't ironic that out of all the search company's Microsoft is the only one that seems to be supplying unbiased results?

And guess where live.maps.com is on Google's search?

Go look... no it's not on the first page....

Go to the second page of results... Ah yes half way down.... HMMMM

I think Google has a case to answer here, I simply don't believe Microsoft maps can possibly legitimately be ranked where it is.

HA!!!

Hilarious, come on all you Google fanboys/MS anti-fanboys.... try and spin this one into yet another Microsoft bashing session I dare you, then I can see something truly imaginative.

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (1)

GTMoogle (968547) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598030)

How is Google's search biased? Live.com ranks maps.live.com lower than google does (page 6).

Are you blaming Google for MS not buying ad space on google?

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (4, Informative)

Bert690 (540293) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598056)

And guess where live.maps.com is on Google's search? Go look... no it's not on the first page.... Go to the second page of results... Ah yes half way down.... HMMMM I think Google has a case to answer here, I simply don't believe Microsoft maps can possibly legitimately be ranked where it is.

Because you are an idiot. Go back to live.com and see where it shows up in the *search* results for maps (sponsored links DO NOT count, duh!). I tried, and the site appears nowhere in top TOP 50 results.

Hilarious, come on all you Google fanboys/MS anti-fanboys.... try and spin this one into yet another Microsoft bashing session I dare you, then I can see something truly imaginative.

You've already succeeded all on your own.

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (1)

Garrynz (904755) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598226)

No its because they don't have "maps" in their page title among other things, how does "Live Local Search" as a title relate to maps?

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597082)

Better off not. Or else all government web pages might suddenly cease to exist.

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597090)

Or maybe not.

Re:Anti-trust against Google? (2, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597688)

Being a monopoly isn't illegal. Abusing a monopoly is. When Google starts using OEM contracts to force their competitors in another market off the desktop, then maybe you have a case.

Is this normal? (4, Insightful)

rumith (983060) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597010)

The problem is indeed deeper than just a headache for a webmaster or two. Let's face it: just as the desktop software market depends on MS Windows, and a lot of software companies will vanish overnight in case Microsoft introduced a new trick [like, signed - for a price - executables only, or backwards-incompatible API, etc], so the web now depends on Google. Should all the Google system administration team take a week off - and voila, you get no new customers, because they don't know where to go, and you're lucky if somebody from your old clients returns using his browser's history. Of course, there's Yahoo, MSN, Nigma, and a hundred of startups, but all of them combined hardly have the same significance that Google enjoys alone. So let's either keep our fingers crossed and hope that Google will not do anything more evil than it does now, or... heh, I don't really know even what else could we do.

Concentration of power unoticed by Google Fanboys (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597066)

It's as bad as concentration of wealth. I know a bunch of geeks that think Google is all sweetness and light (probably because EA returns their resumes unscanned.) Maybe they'll wake up from their narcosis now; they're worse than Apple fanboys.

Re:Concentration of power unoticed by Google Fanbo (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597130)

Nah... Is there anything worse than Apple fanboys?

Re:Concentration of power unoticed by Google Fanbo (3, Funny)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597412)

Is there anything worse than Apple fanboys?

Definitely. Linux fanboys.

Re:Concentration of power unoticed by Google Fanbo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597586)

Zacky -- at least Apple fans have reasons to be proud.

Re:Concentration of power unoticed by Google Fanbo (1)

LordOfTheNoobs (949080) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597838)

Ah, the FreeBSD fanboys have arrived.

Warning: Site crashes Safari (1)

Andrew Tanenbaum (896883) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597128)

Pinwheel of death!

Re:Warning: Site crashes Safari (1)

WinkyN (263806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597682)

Loaded fine for me. Make sure your Safari is up-to-date and clear your Java cache files.

This is just stupid (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597136)

From the title, I thought this was going to be finding a mirrored copy of your website after you stop maintaining it and your host drops you. But being nolonger indexed?? That doesn't make your site dissappear - what a drama queen. Untill Google becomes the only search engine, or becuase a government institution, people need to stop being so dramatic. Websites existed before search engines as far as I understand.

Re:This is just stupid (0)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597358)

I found the wayback machine works well for yanking out static websites from the past.

Re:This is just stupid (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597364)

Even if Google was the only search engine, why does JavaLobby assume that they have a right to be near the top of the results? Their site had poor content on it and Google indexed them appropriately. It's the spammers that are at fault, not Google.

well, (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597146)

whilst some people may have a point about the *cough* slashvertisment this article has made me think about Google and monopolies, should I now change my search engine of choice because having many players in any market is better or is a monopoly acceptable when they are (pretty much) the best... even if they do sometimes change where, and if, they list sites

Alternative result types? (3, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597168)

Maybe this is where Google needs to provide multiple indexing algorithms. The idea by giving different result types ( most linked, closeness to keywords, flashiness, highest rated, totally random, etc ), this would make it harder for site spammers to know which algorithm to be targeting.

The Wahbulance is on it's Way (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597230)

I refuse to even click the link. This site, based on what I see here, deserves anything bad that happens to it. Millions of sites see their traffic rise and fall every day. And none of them take up our valuable time to post a sniveling bitch about it to the front page of Slashdot.

Re:The Wahbulance is on it's Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17598128)

Yep. Cry me a friggin' river. This guy whines and moans because Google de-indexed them for hosting spam and porn links, when it was HIS fault for not properly protecting the forum system. By properly protecting, I mean requiring users to register before posting, or using CAPTCHAS, or basically any form of security besides what they had before.

And don't give me that "Google is teh evil monopoly" crap either. Any reasonable search engine will remove poor-quality sites from its index. That's just how the world turns, buddy.

Well.... (1)

Awod (956596) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597254)

That'll teach em'.

Yuor siute sucks and it is lame, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597368)

i DONT CARE asbout your sioUHT6E B ECASIE DIT HAS NO COPOL GAMES ANZD HOT l33tness
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like fucking your mom,

Google = Advertisement (1)

RJBuild1088 (968537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597424)

Could they have prevented this? I think so. But let's face it: Google results are a great way to advertise on the internet. Do you find the products you're looking for on banner ads from other sites? I always use google to search for products and services that I want to find online.

It's back... (1)

jonfr (888673) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597464)

Good news somebody, it's back on google.

Opinions are like diapers... (2, Interesting)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597506)

I don't care f'r Google for personal reasons undisclosed, so I don't use their products.

They're not MY de facto site, nor do I consider TFA any more than fanboy buzz. Just like other search engines we've used over the years of 'net usage, they're just the one on top right NOW. Give it 10 years. They might be the next big monopoly, or the next Webcrawler.

Personally, I prefer the meta-search engines; more baskets means more eggs.

do not feed Google -- hosts file (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597832)

This is part of my hosts file:

127.0.0.1 google.com
127.0.0.1 adwords.google.com
127.0.0.1 pagead.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 adservices.google.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com

Go figure!

Re:Opinions are like diapers... (1)

Dave Parrish (1050926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598148)

Thank you. Google is not the only search engine out there, and if people would realize that, it would not hold this ungodly power over things.

Ceases to Exist, but... site is now on Slashdot? (4, Interesting)

popo (107611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597614)

See the irony?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your lame site is getting more traffic than its ever received in a single day.

Which means that you've just been depending on Google too heavily for too little in return.

Digg it. Sig it. Promote the hell out of it.

I'd say this is a non-story, but the irony is that it was ultimately a wonderful short term solution to the author's issue.

Google does *not* own the Internet unless you depend solely on Google.

Re:Ceases to Exist, but... site is now on Slashdot (1)

Torvaun (1040898) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597830)

Google does *not* own the Internet unless you depend solely on Google.
Even then Google doesn't own the Internet, it just owns you.

Re:Ceases to Exist, but... site is now on Slashdot (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598254)

Even then Google doesn't own the Internet, it just owns you.

      All your cookies are belong to us!

Of course, google has already re-listed them... (4, Insightful)

jafo (11982) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597680)

In the comments are some strings that one writer of theirs expects to find on their site when searching google, but didn't. I just searched for the "jgoodies data binding" and their site comes up the 7th top level listing on the first results page.

It seems to me that google worked perfectly here. When 50,000 spam and phishing messages were posted to that site, the ranking of it went way down. When they cleaned them up, the site ranking came back.

What, would the site owners have google preserve their site ranking even though the content on the site went in the toilet? As a google user, I'm quite happy that google de-listed these folks for a bit, because otherwise these and other searches would have been severely polluted.

Sean

Re:Of course, google has already re-listed them... (1)

ralphdaugherty (225648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598162)

What, would the site owners have google preserve their site ranking even though the content on the site went in the toilet?

      The nature of what is being talked about is that when you get dropped out of Google, no search hits list your site. Typing in your site URL results in "Your search did not match any documents."

      It is as if your site no longer exists, and it doesn't in Google.

      Despite the many guesses as to why this happens, there is no valid reason. It just happens, and your site generally reappears within a week or so.

  rd

That's why I clusty... (0, Offtopic)

bergeron76 (176351) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597706)

I'll clusty before I'll google. Clusty needs some tuning, but it picks up the far-web that google doesn't even parse.

It exists... (3, Funny)

xwizbt (513040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597766)

Try typing any mis-spelling of javalobby. Anything. Google offers you the alternative of 'javalobby'. They *so* do not recognise this website... so much so that they dare to *suggest* it as an alternative to a common mis-spelling of the forbidden site. Bastards! How deep does their vitriol run?

It's simple... Build a better search (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597796)

Build a search engine which reads my mind better than google does and brings me results which are more relevant. Perhaps something which learns what I want and what I don't.
 

Ask Matt! (5, Informative)

dekkerdreyer (1007957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597810)

If you would have tried doing even a little research, you would have found out that Google penalizes hacked sites [mattcutts.com] and even makes an attempt to contact the webmaster to alert them to the problem. Not only that, they'll relist you if you remove the spam.

1. Fail to follow even basic internet precautions standard since 1998
2. Whine loudly on Slashdot when search engine behaves as advertised
3. Get lots of new traffic
4. Profit

Snowboarding2.com (2, Interesting)

Solokron (198043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17597866)

This has occurred with Snowboarding2.com as well. It use to offer a subdomain feature where snowboarders could create their own website. A spammer used a few subdomains and had cialis and other drug links placed to it all over the net. The subdomain service was ended a year ago and all of those subdomains have timed out for over a year as a result yet the site continues to be sandboxed by Google. A site that was on the first page of Google results since '99 is no where to be found. There is a difference between showing up on page 10 and being sandboxed completely. You can type in snowboarding2.com itself into Google and the website itself does not even show up. Google has been contacted several times regarding this and nothing has been done. A link campaign was also performed to overpass the amount of bad links with good links and that search term to no avail. With the recent Google update it is now a PR0 website when it was a PR5 for a very long time.

Overdramatic (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598000)

I think that the article is overdramatic, and maybe a bit of self-promoting.

According to ALexa [alexa.com] (look at Reach), they dropped by roughly a factor of 2 to 3, from 100 to 150 per million, depending on the base period chosen, to about 50 per million. A factor of three variation in site traffic over a few weeks is large, but it's not the end of the world.

OLD NEWS And already rectified (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17598040)

This happened days ago, and they're already back in the google searches. If I had to guess I'd say they were only out of searches while Google had the cached copy of their site that contained all the trash. Why direct people to porn spam when they ask for Java?

The Freedom Watcher (1)

owidder (1034780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598050)

I'm glad that Google watches the Web so that we don't have to fear anything. See my small cartoon [typepad.com] . Bye, Oliver

Alex Chiu (5, Funny)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598076)

Join the club, Alex Chiu has been blacklisted by Google for years.

http://www.alexchiu.com/spread.htm [alexchiu.com]

A choice quote:

"Google controls 50% of the world's searches. This famous website is so controversial that it has been banned by the most popular search engine in the world 'Google'. That's right. You cannot find alexchiu.com in Google system. Some very important people don't want you to know about Alex Chiu. Alex Chiu is on more than 30 TV interviews, 250 radio interviews, and in business ever since 1996. Yet AlexChiu.com cannot show up on Google?"

How Google handles hacked sites (2, Interesting)

AftanGustur (7715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598166)


How Google handles hacked sites [mattcutts.com]

As it turns out, Google is very professional on this issue, notifying webmasters, putting timeouts on the "sandboxing", etc ..

Subject (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598192)

"Suddenly we no longer existed in the eyes of Google."

Then you should have gotten your shit together and been more proactive on the spam front.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>