Here is a small bit of text about why Google might have taken your pages offline. The article is misleading in the title because it deals with more than just being banned by Google -- it also deals with accidentally taking your own site off Google's search.
Although it is basically informed, it makes a very serious error: it claims that Google respects robots.txt, but in reality, Google does NOT. This has been documented by thousands upon thousands of websites. Technically, Google SHOULD respect robots.txt, but it doesn't.
I have been banned by Google before in 2002. I invented the CSS technique that's now called the Image/Flash replacement technique. But I did it to manipulate the information and text that Google presents to the searcher in their search result. Image/Flash replacement is motivated by ensuring the accuracy of search results -- it's a grey area between what I was doing and what Image/Flash replacement does. But Google at the time didn't think so. Due to the popularity of Image/Flash replacement, it has since changed its mind. I was definitely ahead of my time.
The second thing the article gets wrong is that Google DOES NOT ban spammers. Why the heck should it? The line between a legitimate business using email marketing and spamming is way too thin. If it did, every single viagra seller on the internet would be gone from the database. And in any case, most spammers don't have websites. When was the last time a Nigerian spammer directed you to one?
TimYang.com ::: The Geek Blog
BlogThis!
Tuesday November 23
Getting banned by Google
Here is a small bit of text about why Google might have taken your pages offline. The article is misleading in the title because it deals with more than just being banned by Google -- it also deals with accidentally taking your own site off Google's search.
Although it is basically informed, it makes a very serious error: it claims that Google respects robots.txt, but in reality, Google does NOT. This has been documented by thousands upon thousands of websites. Technically, Google SHOULD respect robots.txt, but it doesn't.
I have been banned by Google before in 2002. I invented the CSS technique that's now called the Image/Flash replacement technique. But I did it to manipulate the information and text that Google presents to the searcher in their search result. Image/Flash replacement is motivated by ensuring the accuracy of search results -- it's a grey area between what I was doing and what Image/Flash replacement does. But Google at the time didn't think so. Due to the popularity of Image/Flash replacement, it has since changed its mind. I was definitely ahead of my time.
The second thing the article gets wrong is that Google DOES NOT ban spammers. Why the heck should it? The line between a legitimate business using email marketing and spamming is way too thin. If it did, every single viagra seller on the internet would be gone from the database. And in any case, most spammers don't have websites. When was the last time a Nigerian spammer directed you to one?
http://www.pandia.com/features/banned.html
Comments
Tim Yang © // Email Me // XHTML 1.1 // CSS valid // 508 Passed // My PDF resume