Google red cards Privila for gaming search engine Google has removed Privila sites from its index after the firm was caught attempting to hoodwink the search engine giant. Chicago-based Privila has built "portals" designed to have relatively high search engine ranking scores while presenting nothing but ads. The firm's modus operandi involves buying sites after the original …
but i thought google insisted that they never drop anything from their database, it's all automatic down to the algorithms - so it must just be pure chance that it got dropped from their results right after someone made a public announcement about it
unless you are trying to say that the "don't be evil" mighty wonderful google... lies?
Mock Shock!
This is a company that says that because they're not a *medical* company, HIPPA doesn't apply to them so they can do what they like with a patient's medical data.
That point aside, Google could have refined their algorithms to catch this kind of fraud and then suppressed publishing them. So they're "dropped".
The blue face guy because you have to understand the concept of capturing the data and not showing it can look like things are "dropped" to a lay person. ;-)
Quality guidelines - basic principles
* Make pages for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."
Source: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769
Google have dropped many other sites in the past. Remember BMW two years ago?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/06/bmw_removed/
They make it quite clear that they're happy to remove anyone who tries to cheat their system.
I don't believe I've seen Google say that the HIPPA didn't apply to them, that was the World Privacy Forum.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/google_health_records_private_launch/
Apparently Google is the new 'hate-due-to-success' company. These guys kick out some domain-sniping, spamming bastards who clutter up search results with crap, and people go, ZOMG GOOGLE IS TEH EVILS!!@@!
Meanwhile, if any article about gamed search results comes up, the same people cry bloody murder, pan google for incompetence, and demand that it be fixed.
I give up.
So they killed indexing for a domain snatcher. Good!!!
I absolutely hate trying to get to some site, only to be greeted by "... where you want it, when you want it" search pages. A good friend of mine lost her domain name because of one of these suckers. Ah ... I believe it was Dotster. Is it coincidence it sounds like GANGSTER? I don't think so... ;)
Richard Clayton first wrote about the Privilia link-spam network in August 2007 (http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/08/30/the-interns-of-privila/ ) and again in September 2007 (http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2007/09/03/mapping-the-privila-network/ ).
Google were entirely happy to index it and present it as relevant content for over six months despite the fact all sites in the network carried identical content specially to draw search engines to the links.
I am sure that the fact these pages also carried Google ads - making money for google - was of course wholly irrelevant to Google's decision to carry on indexing Privila after the network's workings became public knowledge.
I am equally confident that Google have now deliberately dropped these link spam networks, and I am 100% sure it is not the case that they just don't show up because of the blank results Privila now serve up to Googlebot and other search engines.
#include "large-pinch-of-salt.h"
All good search engines will filter and rank results. There's a lot of crap out there. Generally speaking they will try to present the most relevant results first - and Google never claimed, as far as I know, that they would present absolutely everything on the web that could imaginably match your query, so some potential results will be missed out for a wide range of reasons.
Also, all search engines will occasionally index crap and present it as a relevant result, especially if it has been crafted to suck in the search engine. This crap might stay indexed and be presented as a relevant result for a while - this doesn't necessarily mean Google are deliberately indexing it for the ad revenues (though I don't have all the facts and I wouldn't entirely rule it out). It could just be that nobody noticed for 6 months.
I'm not a big Google fan and have some doubts about their data retention, but let's not overdo the Google-bashing here. This is not exactly the most evil thing they do. Also, if we all move over en-masse to bashing Google, who's going to carry on the good work of bashing MS? :)
I don't see why people object to Google choosing to drop, block, suppress or otherwise inconvenience a spammer.
My own experiences have led me to dread searching for anything mainstream, particularly if I'm in a hurry, simply because I seem to be a magnet for these sites. I am fed up of wanting an answer and instead having a pile of ads, another search site, or whatever thrown at me, and if Google can get rid of the blatant trash, I'm happy.
I freely admit to being a firm disciple of Google, although I am wary of them deciding to be evil after all, but even after dropping my biased viewpoint, I can't see a downside to them blocking this stuff.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
