When Your Site Ceases To Exist 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."
Never heard of them before, so nothings' changed (Score:5, Insightful)
Javalobby? Another slashvertisement ...
Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (Score:4, Interesting)
http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=javalobby&s
http://www.ask.com/web?q=javalobby&qsrc=0&o=333&l
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=javalobby&ei=utf
http://www.google.com/search?q=javalobby&rls=com.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they'd maintained their site properly, it wouldn't have happened.
Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (Score:5, Informative)
How many days after a site has been transformed by hijackers/forum spammers/whoever into a pile of crap should it come off the top of googles search results? A day? A week?
60 days but you can request reinclusion sooner with Google Webmaster tools [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What the guy story in the story claims is that his site ceased to exist, and dropped off Google's indexes.
I'm not going to waste time looking up various search terms and see where they place his site, but obviously it's in their index, so his main argument falls right there.
Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (Score:5, Informative)
They probably mean that they used to show up when you searched for "Java", but because the spambots created so many outgoing links they lost their PageRank and now you have to search for "JavaLobby" to get them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. That a Java site not having as bad spam problems has likely gained notability to Google at the cost of this one.
2. That his site should be back in case he fixes his problems at the next Google spidering, at least if Google is consistent here, and I don't see why they shouldn't for the best of their search index.
Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Never heard of them before, so nothings' change (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a "community forum" it should be able to weather not being listed by google ... right?
After all, how many people ended up on slashdot via google as opposed to word-of-mouth?
Google isn't the be-all and end-all. There's no "live by Google, die by Google." If you've got something good, people WILL tell others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: rankingg vs. utility (Score:2)
Fair enough ... if it has the answers, people will go to it no matter where google places it.
What gets me is how self-feeding all this infatuation with being on the first page of google has become. I'm not dissing google - I use it dozens of times a day at work - but the intrnet is much more than pagerank.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't say for sure, but maybe he's connected with some moron that phoned me the day after Christmas !!! about a domain I registered for someone else (obviously looked up my contact info via whois), and got pissed off when I told them that they don't need help gaming the search engines.
Is his phone number 425-882-8838?
BTW - if anyone else has been phone-spammed by these c*ck-gobblers at internetadvancement, please get in touch with me so we can file complaints about abuse of the information in the wh
Re:Google needs to do more of this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, anyone stupid enough to buy SCOX deserves what they get ... but I notice the #1 article is boston.com (Boston Globe) - the same people who did the hatchet job on Peter Quinn for advocating ODF for Massechussetts [groklaw.net]
We know who was behind THAT one ... Microsoft. And of course they're behind the SCOX stuff ... perhaps this is just another Team99 tactic?
What's the problem...? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's the problem...? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 si
Re:What's the problem...? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, I know a lot of people who Google first to find the link to the website (i.e., type "CNN" to go to the CNN webstie). Some people are too lazy or ignorant to type out the full URL.
Man, I thought it was bad when I lost 50 places... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Man, I thought it was bad when I lost 50 places (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
What Google Giveth, Google Can Taketh Away [lot42.com]
I should have submitted it for a slashvertisement.
Re: (Score:2)
Posting on slashdot gets me a few hits. Google refuses to show all of my site: only the front page, and the forums despite submitting a sitemap per the google specs.
Any
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I made a proposal in the W3C AC forum a week ago that would kill linkspam. So far I have not managed to
Re: (Score:2)
Should have linked this the first time. For more details on this scheme, see my personal blog [blogspot.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The Quick Fix (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Not proofreading gives it that "authentic slashdot editor" feel.
They have a script called "PudgeThis.pl" that takes every 3rd article and inserts a random error/non-factoid/dupe/non-sequiteur before it can be posted. Its the "magic sauce." It helps that it is written in perl - and that the original author was drunk as a skunk at the time.
Of course, on slow news days, they change the parameters from every 3rd article to twice per article ... which expl
What problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's their own fault... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or delay letting Google see recent forum posts... (Score:2)
That gives you some elbow room.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that presenting pages to Google that are different from what regular people would see is already a breach of the terms of being listed by Google, and it's already resulted in sites being de-listed. (ie. If Google can't see what other people would see, how is it supposed to index and rank it appropriately for its
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
But the essence of your post seems to be that it's the website operator's responsibility, which I don't think
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You don't even have to code it yourself depending on what forum you're using. There are literally DOZENS of p
Re: (Score:2)
This is worked around with an audio capitcha. Since users have access to two different choices for proving themselves as human, it is more than enough to cover most cases. In the rare event that a person is audially and visually impared, most likely there will be a helper that can answer the capitcha for them.
Failing
Pay (Score:3)
This is why people don't like monopolies much.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why people don't like monopolies much.
1) Google don't have a monopoly on search, unless you think 70-75% or so is a monopoly (I don't).
2) Search isn't everthing. Yahoo.com and msn.com were highly-popular websites, last I checked; people are free to advertise on them (and yes, I know appearing in Search results is free). Specifically for java-related issues (which is what TFA's website appears to be) there are various websites on which you can a
Is this normal? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
well, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative result types? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Wahbulance is on it's Way (Score:2, Interesting)
Opinions are like diapers... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Ceases to Exist, but... site is now on Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All your cookies are belong to us!
Of course, google has already re-listed them... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
It exists... (Score:3, Funny)
It's simple... Build a better search (Score:2)
Ask Matt! (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Overdramatic (Score:2)
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.
Alex Chiu (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Then you should have gotten your shit together and been more proactive on the spam front.
This Is An Easy Fix! (Score:4, Informative)
Idiots. (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially a vendor that you don't even have a contract with.
People act like Google is a public service, Google is a business and as a business there is no reason why they have to index your site.
Don's cry. Want a kleenix? (Score:2)
Let this be a lesson to all of us who have websites. Your sacrifice will not be forgiven. RIP
Javalobby: good riddence (Score:2, Informative)
Good riddence! I dared criticise Java and OOP there and it started a long involved discussion. When the discussion ranked too popular on their traffic ranking system, the editors yanked it. They couldn't handle Java criticism so they pulled a "China".
It feels good when censorship aholes get what they deserve. Cheers!
Focus on your real customers (Score:2)
Another question (Score:2)
When my host had to renew the subscription for the domain name, they didn't, even though I paid. Then someone "stole" the domain name when as it was free.
Now I had to buy another domain name (.com) and some a**hole put ads on my former domain.
Does anyone know what I can do to have google index the new one and give it the position my former domain name had ?
old news (Score:2)
Btw. it's javalobby.org, they're not for profit and sort of pay the bills with the advertisements. Just like slashdot. I've been a member of their site since 1998 and they're good guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Found an error there:
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, Goo
Re: (Score:2)
Just to play devil's advocate (Score:3, Insightful)
*You* are not the user of Google - You're the *product* sold by Google. The real users are the websites that are advertised by Google.
I don't know what % of the *on-line advertising market* Google controls, but if an anti-trust case were to be made (ie: advertisers have to play by Google's unfair rules in order to have an on-line presense), it'd be through that angle, not by allegedly controlling the "on-line
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
My main point was that Microsoft hasn't fudged page rankings on it's own site, to mis-represent it as the most highly ranked result.
My second point was that google's ranking for maps.live.com may have been artificially fudged down. Perhaps it has, perhaps it hasn't, I'm still extremely surprised by the sites ranked ahead of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Since this is the first I had heard of Microsoft's map site, I am not struggling with this so much. First, if you search for "map", it's at position six. Looking at the Alexa comparison [alexaholic.com], the Wayback Machine [archive.org] (compare with the one for Google Maps [archive.org]), and the Wikipedia history [wikipedia.org] for Microsoft's maps, this all seems appropriate to me.
And as the clincher, the SNL skit Lazy Sunday [wikipedia.org] mentions M
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, going a bit offtopic here, but whilest Google has the most userfriendly interface, the actual maps they present are pretty crap. MultiMap are a lot better, with scans of OS maps. Google's UK maps don't even have motorway junction numbers on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An Anonymous coward.
I'm fully aware of what this little back water of a country has to offer online and I would have thought it completely irrelevant to 98% of the planet browsing the web.
Re: (Score:2)
Msn shows up first.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=search&ie=utf-8&oe=
Obviously google are biased towards MSN since 70% (as quoted in the article) use the search engine placed next (google).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Definitely. Linux fanboys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)