Image

Google Purges The People's Cube Worldwide

bystander
Comments don't show on Matt's blog the first time you post until he approves it, so let's pack that conspiracy theory away

huh?
Why would he aprove it just to later delete it? Other posts on that thread reference the deleted post.

bystander
he didn't approve it and delete it later, if you made the comment it will appear to you (and no one else) until it is approved.

Huh?
bystander wrote:he didn't approve it and delete it later, if you made the comment it will appear to you (and no one else) until it is approved.

Again:

Other posts on that thread reference the deleted post.

User avatar
wow wrote:You got seriously busted. LGF already has a retraction:
https://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog ... _Cube&only

That's not a retraction - especially that Matt Cutts didn't identify hinself to LGF as a Google employee. That's called Google's attempt at damage control.

I just posted a comment on LGF about it:

That's interesting -

Looks like the mighty Google started danmage control. Who is Matt Cutts? Just a regular blogger? No, he's an engineer at Google, and the retraction should have also mentioned that.

A few points if I may:

1. Google answered LGF but not me, whom they purged and who first asked them several times for the explanation.

2. I had expected from the start that in the even Google does anser, it will be about small irregularities that are inevitable when you build the site with your own hands. The sites linked from the Cube were the sites I built myself, and so I felt it was my right to promote them for the time being until they get picked up by the search engines. In no way it can be described as spamming or link farming.

3. Matt Cutts who gets paid by Google is not only a concerned party here, he is also NOT being intellectually honest - he has just removed a comment under his own explanation on his blog - a very valid comment explaining "invisible keywords" caused by Google's deficiency in factoring meta keywords - but I busted him by copying that page and making a screenshot of it. Why would he remove that post unless his motives were not pure intellectual inquiry - but damage control for his bosses?

or
@Red Square
Don't you notice the eccentric nature of the comment on Matt Cutt's blog that you say was removed. Anyone who follows Matt Cutts blog knows that every time Matt posts about keyword-stuffing, that person makes that exact comment you posted over and over with bolded letters, many smiles, exclamation marks, large caps. Matt Cutts moderates his comments (like you also do).

And well, it does not really matter why that comment was removed regarding this issue. Matt Cutts have posted similar info in the past about other sites in an attempt to help them get reincluded in google; he was simply doing the same here. He has done it many times in the past - so again, you are not being singled out, he is simply responding to your open letter, and what people have been saying about this.

Now, if you follow Matt Cutts instruction and do a reinclusion request, and over time you are still not reincluded in Google's index, then I will personally voice with you that google is targeting conservative web sites.

K0modo Dragon
And you, Red Square, haven't answered the question as to why your hidden keywords and links were clearly irrelevant to the content of your site. Or why you removed comments linking to the cache of this site not once, but five times. What you did was not "invisible meta keywords" -- it was spam and poorly concealed attempts to fool, not enhance the ranking algorithms.

To quote the very famous Russian author Mikhail Bulgakov: "Pokaysya, Ivanych, tebe skidka viydet !" (Come clean, Ivanych, they'll reduce your sentence if you do!")

-----------------------
It's tough out there for a troll, isn't it? I removed your posts because they were lies and exaggerations. Point at one keyword that was irrelevant. Point to one site that is questionable. "spam?" "clearly irrelevant?" "poorly concealed attempts to fool?" You're trying too hard. Something's fishy here...

-- Red Square

Stahanovets
K0modo Dragon wrote:Wow, Red Square, you are seriously sleazy. For the fifth time now, you just removed a comment with a link to the cache of your site that shows clearly you are lying.

Let me repeat that post: Here's a cacheof your site, made by Yahoo:


This cache was clearly made after this topic has already been started. Yet, should one turn off the CSS Stylesheets, one can clearly see the spam keywords at the bottom.

You stuffed the page with spam keywords and links to questionable sites (relationshiplink.com tatyanazb.com buyonlywithus.com vitalypainting.com...)? There's not even a question as to why you were removed. If Google didn't counter spam like yours, it would never be able to get reasonable search results.

And the fact that you removed the comment with the link to the cache makes you even less credible.

Could you explain why there is not a question about removing the site? What is wrong with vitalypainting.com?

Image
It comes up on Google...

Kom0do Dragon
To respond to your question: no, I am not affiliated with Google, and I have been affiliated with their rival, Microsoft, in the past.

The link's too long? Here's a shortened version of it that doesn't distort the page:

https://tinyurl.com/o5tdh

This link has nothing to do with Matt Cutts: it's YAHOO's cache of your site, which shows, sans CSS Stylesheets, that you've been stuffing your page with irrelevant keywords and links. Forget Matt Cutts -- what you did is obviously against Google's rules, and the rest is just your attempt at self-hype. The verdict once again: sleazy.

HopeSeekr
Vitalypainting is merely undetected atm. Just wait, I just reported it myself! Hah!

find other sites like this, please do all of us honest SEOs a favor and report it via

Google SPAM Reporter
https://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html

Thanks.
"https://www.xmule.ws"

----------------------
Further down this thread Comrade HopeSeekr has proved to be a fearless progressive spammer, hack, and extortionist fighting for the Greater Good™. Just keep reading, it all comes together.

- RS

Stahanovets
Kom0do Dragon wrote:https://tinyurl.com/o5tdh

This link has nothing to do with Matt Cutts: it's YAHOO's cache of your site, which shows, sans CSS Stylesheets, that you've been stuffing your page with irrelevant keywords and links. Forget Matt Cutts -- what you did is obviously against Google's rules, and the rest is just your attempt at self-hype. The verdict once again: sleazy.

So, if you consider that thepeoplescube.com contains irrelevant invisible links, don't include those irrelevant links in search results. Why eliminate the site?

wow
Looks like there is a concerted campaign, with several people monitoring different sites simultaneously, posting and emailing disingenious retractions non-stop, and immediately sharing information. Are you guys all sitting in one room? And is that room by any chance located at Google headquarters?

Ha! No, this is just fun. Tracerout the ip addresses, ok?


Posted at LGF:

Red Square:

The fact remains that you are a spammer and tried to deny it at first. Then rushed to change your site. Too late, there is a cache.

<a href="https://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p= ... 1&.intl=us" target="_blank">link</a>

So tell me again, who is trying to do damage control?

An informed visitor.
You broke the rules and you got caught. You were additionally stupid by calling them out in public over it. You can't defend yourself by referring to Google as “evil”. The word you should be using is “moron” – to describe yourself. You are not a victim, you're a dumbass. This is point where you should crawl back under your rock.

-------------------
Is this another Google employee providing belated customer service? Where were you when I was trying to figure out what happened?

You must have learned customer relations from the best practices of comrade Che himself.

-- Red Square


Image

User avatar
Talk about intellectual honesty and removing "incorrect" posts -

Your Matt Cutts or whoever manages the blog had just removed the most reasonable comment under his own post - but - voila! - I still had the window open and made a screenshot of it.

Click on it if you want to see a bigger image.
Image

Now, why would they do that, hm?

Red, I have the answer! Their overlord in Beijing won't let them. I wonder if any of these trolls are old enough to remember Tiennamen Square? Probably not. "Do no evil" Hardy Har Har! Why didn't this Cutts person indentify who he worked for from the start? Hardly professional and not what I'd call customer service. Damage control yes, customer service, no friggin' way. A response last week would have been nice, but I guess Google employees only work 9-5 and they all have the weekend off. And yes, we bitched. We're also a business, who wouldn't? I guess maybe we should all bow down to Google like Google bowed down to Beijing. Hey when you're top dog the whole world is your fireplug (Except the ChiComs of course).
Now I'm no computer idiot savant, and I've seen a bunch of posts of that ilk today, but if I owned a company like Google I'd at least generate a warning email of some sort before purging, that's just common courtesy wouldn't you think? Something like "Hello, there is a problem with your site, you have 5 business days to respond"....oh, there's that nasty capitalist word "business" again. Instead, it's poof, you're gone! Does this make sense? Again, maybe it's not possible, I'm no geek, but if we could put a man on the moon, I'm sure Google could create a program to give fair warning. Laugh as you will, I don't care. This site did have spam problems a week and a half ago, we thought the problem was solved, apparently not.....maybe human error on our end, but I'm not convinced of that either...again, from what I've read, millions of sites with spam are overlooked, it's funny Google found us.
One thing Google can't purge from the public domain. They're ChiCom ass kissers.

Laika

K0mod0 Dragon
Stahanovets wrote:Could you explain why there is not a question about removing the site? What is wrong with vitalypainting.com?
Image It comes up on Google...

The only thing wrong with it is that it's entirely irrelevant to this site. Red Square can say all he wants about "helping" search engines with "invisible meta keywords", but the truth is, humans can instantly recognize if these "meta keywords" are relevant to the site or not. The hidden links are a nearly one-to-one copy of the web portfolio of this web design company: https://www.sitexpress.net/ -- the site of a struggling actress and a realty agency are hardly relevant. As far as keywords go - well, let's see, among the more relevant ones, there are 'nude' and 'naked', and 'pix' -- hardly "helpful" by any standard. And the rest of the keywords that are relevant aren't necessary, because they appear in the actual content. So no matter how much talk there is about "invisible meta keywords", the truth is -- it's all junk. What's worse is that instead of being respectful to the search engine rules, the creator of the site decided to use his blatant violations to produce more hype around his creation.

--------------------
I own sitexpress.net - and I also know better what keywords are relevant to this site - they all are. And what's so blatant about it? Too many exaggerations and too much zeal for an objective observer, no? Just admit you're on a mission, comrade - и брось звездеть своим ребятам.

-- Red Square

Kom0do Dragon
Stahanovets wrote:
Kom0do Dragon wrote:https://tinyurl.com/o5tdh

This link has nothing to do with Matt Cutts: it's YAHOO's cache of your site, which shows, sans CSS Stylesheets, that you've been stuffing your page with irrelevant keywords and links. Forget Matt Cutts -- what you did is obviously against Google's rules, and the rest is just your attempt at self-hype. The verdict once again: sleazy.

So, if you consider that thepeoplescube.com contains irrelevant invisible links, don't include those irrelevant links in search results. Why eliminate the site?

Some invisible information search engines collect might very well be relevant: things like ALT tags on images, and all sorts of other meta-information. But the real counterpoint to your question is: why include the links and keywords if they are invisible in the first place? Search engine and this site are both private entities, and they make their own rules. Google clearly states what their rules are and they abide by them. This site violated Google's rules, and was removed. That's the bottom line.

Ultimately, I seriously doubt Google would even consider introducing a secret censorship program: it just won't be cost-effective. When they censor something, they do it publicly, as in the case with China. It's not a great move, but they are honest about it.

Publically? Get you facts straight, they were outed. Ask any dissadent from China. By chance, are you related to Neville Chamberlain?

Laika

Stahanovets
K0mod0 Dragon wrote:The only thing wrong with it is that it's entirely irrelevant to this site. ...(snip)

Fine, don't show links in search results that you judge as irrelevant to this site. Why eliminate the site altogether? It is a popular site. Diversity of opinion and thoughts, you know. Humorous too.

User avatar
K0modo Dragon wrote:And you, Red Square, haven't answered the question as to why your hidden keywords and links were clearly irrelevant to the content of your site. Or why you removed comments linking to the cache of this site not once, but five times. What you did was not "invisible meta keywords" -- it was spam and poorly concealed attempts to fool, not enhance the ranking algorithms.

To quote the very famous Russian author Mikhail Bulgakov: "Pokaysya, Ivanych, tebe skidka viydet !" (Come clean, Ivanych, they'll reduce your sentence if you do!")

I had explained it in an earlier comment:

The several "irrelevant" sites linked from the Cube were the sites I had built myself, and so I felt it was my right to promote them for the time being until they get picked up by the search engines. In no way it can be described as spamming or link farming. Many sites, including Google, have links to non-related sites for commercial purposes (e.g., AdWords). I just made the links invisible so that they wouldn't distract from the content. Hey, it's my site! Would it be more acceptable to you if the links were visible? If they were, how would that change anything?

I had suspected that if Google were to start damage control, it would send its engineers to pick on irregularities that every hand-created site has (as opposed to Blogger, of course, which is owned by Google). These are small fries and a distraction from the main question - why was the Cube singled out.

I'm sure you Google guys can forever come up with excuses and provide plausible technobabble. They pay you well, don't they? Well, me - I'm just doing this in my spare time in addition to a regular job and raising a family - trying to make a little side income on selling Cubes and T-shirts - but the
Great Google says: "Don't do evil!" - and shuts me down selectively.

"Come clean, Ivanych, they'll reduce your sentence if you do!" - the quote refers to you Googlebots more than it refers to me. I have nothing to hide except the keywords which your engine can't read otherwise. Please pay attention that all of those keywords were relevant to the site's content. That's why your accusations of spamming are kinds slanderous.

Komod0 Dragon
Stahanovets wrote:
K0mod0 Dragon wrote:The only thing wrong with it is that it's entirely irrelevant to this site. ...(snip)

Fine, don't show links in search results that you judge as irrelevant to this site. Why eliminate the site altogether? It is a popular site. Diversity of opinion and thoughts, you know. Humorous too.

Neither Google, nor any other respectable search engine can take your word for it. This site may very well be popular, but it needs to be verified independently (imagine if Google judged site popularity from the visitor counter data submitted by the sites' creators !). Such verification is no easy matter -- Google's (as well as other search engines') precise algorithms are extremely complicated and not shown for the outside world to see (it is their business, after all.)

Why eliminate the site altogether? As I see it, it's a matter of principle. To reach for an analogy: universities have honor codes that expel students who cheat on exams. You can argue -- why such harsh punishment -- the student just cheated on one little exam, and he's otherwise a good student. But the university is a private entity, and it's up to them to decide the severity of the punishment. They feel that a student who held an unfair advantage over others taking the exam violated a fundamental trust invested in him, and does not deserve to be a student anymore. As long as it's not done in secrecy and described clearly in their rules, it's fine. And if you feel the policy has to change, well, lobby the university, get a job there, but asking why certainly won't help your cause. Same holds for Google.

wow
You can try to tar the messangers of facts all you want but <a href="https://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p= ... 1&.intl=us" target="_blank">fact remains that you were spamming.</a>

------------
Anyone with a clear mind can see that all my keywords were relevant, including one occurrence of "naked" and "nude" since I featured nude "peace" protesters who have been out there for a while if you haven't noticed. And that "spamming" is a blatant exaggeration of the fact that a handful of sites that I had built myself were linked to this site. Think of it as AdWords that Google uses for profit.

What next, calling the monitoring of suspected terrorist phone calls a "domestic spying program"? What will the world come to then?

-- Red Square

Stahanovets.
Kom0do Dragon wrote:
Stahanovets wrote:
Kom0do Dragon wrote:https://tinyurl.com/o5tdh

This link has nothing to do with Matt Cutts: it's YAHOO's cache of your site, which shows, sans CSS Stylesheets, that you've been stuffing your page with irrelevant keywords and links. Forget Matt Cutts -- what you did is obviously against Google's rules, and the rest is just your attempt at self-hype. The verdict once again: sleazy.

So, if you consider that thepeoplescube.com contains irrelevant invisible links, don't include those irrelevant links in search results. Why eliminate the site?

Some invisible information search engines collect might very well be relevant: things like ALT tags on images, and all sorts of other meta-information. But the real counterpoint to your question is: why include the links and keywords if they are invisible in the first place? Search engine and this site are both private entities 1, and they make their own rules. Google clearly states what their rules are and they abide by them. This site violated Google's rules, and was removed. That's the bottom line 2.

Ultimately, I seriously doubt Google would even consider introducing a secret censorship program: it just won't be cost-effective. When they censor something, they do it publicly, as in the case with China. It's not a great move, but they are honest about it.

Last time I looked, an hour or so ago, Google was a publicly traded company, not a private club. That is regarding (1).

As for the bottom line (2), well, we'll see. You think this was good PR?

or
@ Red Square
I was simply trying to help.

You can doing whatever you want with your site, but I was just offering hints if you wanted ot be included igoogle's index. I've seen sites get banned breaking google's rule whether intentionally or unintentionally, but after fixing things up and doing a reinclusion things go back to normal.

I don't think you broke google's rule intentionally. And you don't have to follow goole's guidelines if you don't want. But google also don't have to list your site, if you don't follow their guidelines. And though google is evil otherwise, this does not make them evil.

HopeSeekr of xMule
Well, I attempted to call every one afflicted by this to -- you know -- warn them that their pages all faced deletion becasue of the exact same stunt pulled on peoplescube.com, and all were nice and courteous except this one woman who said "The guy who designed my website is my friend!" and then ::click:: hung up on my face.

Since all of them have been warned, you might find this query interesting:
Link violating privacy of other people removed - RS

yes, 1000 pages from this "friend"...all suffering. Makes me sick!

-----------------------
I already stated that they were all sites I built myself. And yes these people are all my friends, including the real estate and the construction guys, and the struggling actress. Now, who's making whom sick is the question. If my clients are suffering it's only because this bleeding heart xMule have started calling their phone numbers he found on the websites, harassing them with the information about links on their sites.

Yes, they are my friends - and of course they already called me and told me about these calls - one even played me back the message, left with a sleazy, stuttering voice.

Here's the phone number he was calling from:

1-832-818-6464


Let's see if you like strangers calling you about this too.

-- Red Square


Maybe this person calling from a Houston, Texas cell phone would like to give his name too, since he's not a phone solictor and we have him on your son's answering machine, Red. What a bright person. And that's one helluva stutter. Must have never heard of the "Do not call" list.

Laika

Komod0 Dragon
Red Square wrote:The several "irrelevant" sites linked from the Cube were the sites I had built myself, and so I felt it was my right to promote them for the time being until they get picked up by the search engines. In no way it can be described as spamming or link farming. Many sites, including Google, have links to non-related sites for commercial purposes (e.g., AdWords). I just made the links invisible so that they wouldn't distract from the content. Hey, it's my site! Would it be more acceptable to you if the links were visible? If they were, how would that change anything?

I had suspected that if Google were to start damage control, it would send its engineers to pick on irregularities that every hand-created site has (as opposed to Blogger, of course, which is owned by Google). These are small fries and a distraction from the main question - why was the Cube singled out.

I'm sure you Google guys can forever come up with excuses and provide plausible technobabble. They pay you well, don't they? Well, me - I'm just doing this in my spare time in addition to a regular job and raising a family - trying to make a little side income on selling Cubes and T-shirts - but the
Great Google says: "Don't do evil!" - and shuts me down selectively.

"Come clean, Ivanych, they'll reduce your sentence if you do!" - the quote refers to you Googlebots more than it refers to me. I have nothing to hide except the keywords which your engine can't read otherwise. Please pay attention that all of those keywords were relevant to the site's content. That's why your accusations of spamming are kinds slanderous.

I wish Google paid me, I hear they've got great salaries. But I can testify on my W-2 form that they don't. I use their engine, although sometimes I switch to Yahoo, and even more frequently I bypass both and go directly to Wikipedia. That's about the extent of my relationship to Google. I realize it's my word against yours, but if you are willing to provide a copy of a document that verifies you aren't an employee of Microsoft trying to destroy Google, I'll present my identification, too.

If it were just a few links you were trying to promote, that wouldn't be a problem. But you had a whole dump of words that didn't form sentences, clearly stuffed keywords -- something they specifically ask you not to do.

Your paranoia is amusing, but anticlimactic -- nobody specifically targeted your site -- the amount of content Google has to sift through is staggeringly enormous, and your site was just one of probably hundreds, and likely thousands, deleted from the indices that day.

You could admit your mistake, clean up the site (you already did, as we see), resubmit it to the engine, and quickly get back up in the ratings; but gracious you are not.

Kom0do Dragon
Stahanovets wrote:Last time I looked, an hour or so ago, Google was a publicly traded company, not a private club. That is regarding (1).

As for the bottom line (2), well, we'll see. You think this was good PR?

1) A publicly traded company is privately owned by its shareholders. It's not a club, but it still makes its own rules about how it chooses to crawl the web and which results it chooses to include or exclude. The rules are made by engineers who depend on various heuristics to judge the relative relevance of results. That relevance is what Google's business is built on -- and they can't afford to lose it. If they deem that something decreases the relevance of the results (such as sites with stuffed keywords), they act in the best interests of their shareholders.

2) As far as bad PR goes, this was just bad PR for thepeoplescube. It exposed its owner for who he is -- a self-hyping hack who doesn't hesitate to violate rules, lie and create false controversy to increase his traffic.

User avatar
wow wrote:You can try to tar the messangers of facts all you want but <a href="https://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p= ... 1&.intl=us" target="_blank">fact remains that you were spamming.</a>

Anyone with a clear mind can see that all my keywords were relevant, including one occurrence of "naked" and "nude" since I featured nude "peace" protesters who have been out there for a while if you haven't noticed. And that "spamming" is a blatant exaggeration of the fact that a handful of sites that I had built myself were linked to this site. Think of it as AdWords that Google uses for profit.

Please stop exaggerating. What next, calling the monitoring of suspected terrorist phone calls a "domestic spying program"? What will the world come to then?

Jeff H
Why don't you set up a mirror site on Google's own Blogger?

John
Komod0 Dragon wrote:
Stahanovets wrote:
K0mod0 Dragon wrote:The only thing wrong with it is that it's entirely irrelevant to this site. ...(snip)

Fine, don't show links in search results that you judge as irrelevant to this site. Why eliminate the site altogether? It is a popular site. Diversity of opinion and thoughts, you know. Humorous too.

Neither Google, nor any other respectable search engine can take your word for it. This site may very well be popular, but it needs to be verified independently (imagine if Google judged site popularity from the visitor counter data submitted by the sites' creators !). Such verification is no easy matter -- Google's (as well as other search engines') precise algorithms are extremely complicated and not shown for the outside world to see (it is their business, after all.)

Why eliminate the site altogether? As I see it, it's a matter of principle. To reach for an analogy: universities have honor codes that expel students who cheat on exams. You can argue -- why such harsh punishment -- the student just cheated on one little exam, and he's otherwise a good student. But the university is a private entity, and it's up to them to decide the severity of the punishment. They feel that a student who held an unfair advantage over others taking the exam violated a fundamental trust invested in him, and does not deserve to be a student anymore. As long as it's not done in secrecy and described clearly in their rules, it's fine. And if you feel the policy has to change, well, lobby the university, get a job there, but asking why certainly won't help your cause. Same holds for Google.

Are you blind or something? Keeping all those hidden keywords is blatantly breaking Google's guideline. Plain and simple they don't care what your site is about just like me. You broke the guidelines you get delisted. Thats all there is too it.

Don't go complaining about how Google is evil and this and that crap. They delisted BMW's Germany website for a period of time because they had hidden keywords. They don't care if your a big wealthy empire or a small poor website no the corner of the internet.

They have to maintain the integrity of the search database and by people like you who use hidden keywords can alter search results to be less accurate.

So quit bitching about Google and how they don't like what your site is about.

User avatar
Talk about intellectual honesty and removing "incorrect" posts -

Your Matt Cutts or whoever manages the blog had just removed the most reasonable comment under his own post - but - voila! - I still had the window open and made a screenshot of it.

Click on it if you want to see a bigger image.
Image

Now, why would they do that, hm?

Tell me is this post irrelavant all you savants? I'd like this parsed please. I'm wondering why this hasn't been attacked yet but it's been posted 3 times?

Laika

HopeSeekr of xMule
Simply, no one is willing to help a blackhat noobie figure out the rudiments of proper SEO when we perfectly well know that you'll simply help your own oblivious clients out for a profit. I'll teach you all i know for $500 an hour, minimum 4 hours, tho. 20 hour course, talking fast.

----------------
Now this is a perfect example of a spammer parasitising on my website - he is harassing my clients offering them to pay him $50 bucks for fixing fictional problems (his number is 1-832-818-6464 - please call anytime!) - and at the same time being so self-righteous about my attempts to promote them. And you're blaming me?

-- Red Square

Stahanovets.
Kom0do Dragon wrote:
Stahanovets wrote:Last time I looked, an hour or so ago, Google was a publicly traded company, not a private club. That is regarding (1).

As for the bottom line (2), well, we'll see. You think this was good PR?

1) A publicly traded company is privately owned by its shareholders. It's not a club, but it still makes its own rules about how it chooses to crawl the web and which results it chooses to include or exclude. The rules are made by engineers who depend on various heuristics to judge the relative relevance of results. That relevance is what Google's business is built on -- and they can't afford to lose it. If they deem that something decreases the relevance of the results (such as sites with stuffed keywords), they act in the best interests of their shareholders.

2) As far as bad PR goes, this was just bad PR for thepeoplescube. It exposed its owner for who he is -- a self-hyping hack who doesn't hesitate to violate rules, lie and create false controversy to increase his traffic.

Look, you have a way with words, I take my hat off. A publicly traded company is privately owned by its shareholders. What do you think the words 'publicly traded' mean if it is all about privacy?

I think you deserve a spot here at thepeoplescube.com, there is a section Ask A Leader, seems like a nice fit.

And your style - you accuse site owner of lie, sleaze, you call him a self-hyping hack (did I miss other insults?) - it is so nice and polite, shows good upbringing and education.

User avatar
I'll say this and I'll say it again. Google was notified immediately. If a timely response was dispatched, all of this could have been avoided. You trolls seem to have no problem with that do you? Google's just too big to care about the little guys, right? Do you understand timely? And if we really are paranoid, as some of you think, there's plenty of precedent, ask any Chinese dissident.

or
It's true that google should have responded faster. But that problem is not unique to this site. Many webmasters have complained that google takes too long to respond. So even in that, this site was not singled out.


Are you saying beyond a reasonable doubt that no human could have possibly removed the site last week?

Laika

Comrade Murdock
You know, I find websites with hidden keywords all the time on Google.

As in every day, multiple times, I find websites with hidden keywords. Tons of them, and it pisses me off because most of the time the hidden keywords are for things not related to the site in question.

Yet those haven't been deleted, they're still there, months later.

Yet The Peoples Cube was deleted only for that reason?

Yeah, and monkeys will fly out Saddam's butt at the next part of his trial.

Anonymous Coward
The best thing for your clients is if they read this thread; may we hope they are not banned tomorrow.

----------------------
Anonymous Coward has the same IP (68.90.60.156) as the xMule guy - the same spammer, sef-promoter, hack, and now harasser and extorter who is calling my customers and sends them emails demanding to pay him $200 or else they will be removed from all search engines. Notice that the email below was sent 3.5 hours prior to posting this message. First he sent the backstabbing messages and then he came here to gloat. Real classy. But again, the customer was my friend.


From: [email protected]>
To: [removed]
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:36:05 -0600
Subject: URGENT: Site about to be delisted from Search Engines!

Hello.

Your site is associated with peoplescube.com in a way that *will* get it banned, possibly as soon as tomorrow, from Google, Yahoo, and MSN search engines if immediate action is not taken to correct the illegal way in which your site was designed. I can do this for the nominal fee of $200 but you must contact me immediately!

Email or call me (832-814-9118), and visit mattcutts.com/blog for more information on the peoplescube.com blacklisting.

Theodore R. Smith
TSoft Solutions

Nice going, progressive activist from a P2P file-sharing site "https://www.xmule.ws" under a slogan: "To promote freedom and fight fascism."

So this is how you fight fascism, eh? Father Stalin, Beria, and Yezhov would be proud to have such an assistant. Who knows, even Goebbels might have offered you a raise if he knew of your clever techniques.

-- Red Square

or
I'm saying that I think however it was removed that it was because google's guidelines were broken, not because of censorship. I'm personally totally against google's censorship practices in China. But they do say when and where they censor. In the US, they remove sites only after a DMCA(Digital Millenium Copyright Act) request, when a company legally request a site be taken out for copyright reasons, and google displays a disclaimer on that when that happens. This is not the case for this site, since a search for it does not display the DMCA disclaimer.

You would have to ask a google employees if sites that break their guidelines are manually or automatically by their algorithms(I think its a combination).

One more thing, I notice sometimes that some conservative and Christian website owners that believe google is censoring them is usually a result of safesearch filtering. Safesearch is a preference you can enable on goole to filter out pornographic or adult content, and I usually have it on. Like for my Christian site, I notice a few of my pages don't show up when I have the safesearch filter on, when I turn it off it shows up. I guess some words on those pages triggers the safesearch filter.

User avatar
It was a one in a billion chance Doc. One in a billion, maybe a trillion.

"Frank Costanza" on Seinfeld.

Cheaters Never Win
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, till I saw this with my own eyes - right from Yahoo. You're a cheat and a disgrace. You're not protecting people with your propaganda. How can you be calling them evil when you're the one practicing evil yourself.

My eyes have been opened.

------------------
So touching. So pious. So phony. So typical and predictable. Is this a parody or is this for real? Considering the amount of barking moonbats on the site today it's probably yet another failed impostor. How many have we seen here before... A formerly cynical "independent" has become a pious "progressive" overnight, upon witnessing a heinous injustice done by an evil reactionary overlord Red Square to a small, defenseless, and progressive Google.

- RS

Stahanovets
John wrote:
Komod0 Dragon wrote:
Stahanovets wrote:
Fine, don't show links in search results that you judge as irrelevant to this site. Why eliminate the site altogether? It is a popular site. Diversity of opinion and thoughts, you know. Humorous too.

Neither Google, nor any other respectable search engine can take your word for it. This site may very well be popular, but it needs to be verified independently (imagine if Google judged site popularity from the visitor counter data submitted by the sites' creators !). Such verification is no easy matter -- Google's (as well as other search engines') precise algorithms are extremely complicated and not shown for the outside world to see (it is their business, after all.)
Regarding this 'extremely complicated', imagine that you talk to a programmer. Actually I am. We talk about Google, don't wax about other search engines and extremes.
Why eliminate the site altogether? As I see it, it's a matter of principle. To reach for an analogy: universities have honor codes that expel students who cheat on exams. You can argue -- why such harsh punishment -- the student just cheated on one little exam, and he's otherwise a good student. But the university is a private entity, and it's up to them to decide the severity of the punishment. They feel that a student who held an unfair advantage over others taking the exam violated a fundamental trust invested in him, and does not deserve to be a student anymore. As long as it's not done in secrecy and described clearly in their rules, it's fine. And if you feel the policy has to change, well, lobby the university, get a job there, but asking why certainly won't help your cause. Same holds for Google.

Are you blind or something? Keeping all those hidden keywords is blatantly breaking Google's guideline. Plain and simple they don't care what your site is about just like me. You broke the guidelines you get delisted. Thats all there is too it.

Don't go complaining about how Google is evil and this and that crap. They delisted BMW's Germany website for a period of time because they had hidden keywords. They don't care if your a big wealthy empire or a small poor website no the corner of the internet.

They have to maintain the integrity of the search database and by people like you who use hidden keywords can alter search results to be less accurate.

So quit bitching about Google and how they don't like what your site is about.

Another Google defender with good manners. This is not my site. Blind I am not, bitching I am not. Where is Google policy or guideline of this company owned by private investors? Post a link, will you?

They have to maintain the integrity of the search database and by people like you who use hidden keywords can alter search results to be less accurate.

Do you mean database integrity? In technical terms? Or what?Honest database?

Why do you single me out, by the way?

Can you express yourself coherently? "and by people like you who use hidden keywords can alter search results to be less accurate."

How do you measure accuracy of search results?

P.S. "That[']s all there is too it."

They don't teach grammar like they used to.

P.P.S. This "universities have honor codes" doesn't sound reassuring.


Ask Joe Biden about cheating at universities and honor codes....

Laika


User avatar
Our new progressive, truth-seeking, concerned visitors have also attacked me and the Cube on the LGF thread. Here's what I posted in response (just for the record):
------------------------------------------------
The fact remains that barking moonbats are out today smelling blood.

If I'm a spammer then Google Current is an unbiased and truthful news video service, just like Air America.

As for the chances of the Cube being banned for a paragraph of relevant keywords and half-a dozen links, Frank Costanza said it well on Seinfeld when he landed with his butt on a corkscrew-shaped pasta, "It was a one in a billion chance Doc. One in a billion, maybe a trillion."

I know it for a fact that Google had quietly killed "incorrect" web pages in the past. And when it comes out Google will find a million plausible technical explanations.

Part of Google's damage control is to attack and discredit the victim. Oh gosh, what does that remind me of?

All the Moonbats have landed on the Cube now, spamming, trolling, and insulting. Oh yes, I'm the evil one! One might think I sided with a murderous communist dictatorship to make money by suppressing someone's freedom! Oh wait, that was Google who did that. I had to restrict posting to registered users - it used to be free for all before. Oh well.

It's indicative of their motives and tactics that they never answered me directly - instead they first went on LGF and tried to discredit me before a much larger audience. They sent emails to Michelle Malkin - and maybe to others.

They also made LGF post a link to Matt Cutts's blog - apparently without disclosing that Matt works for Google. I have found out that Matt is not being honest when he removed a comment on his blog that have a good explanation of what was happening.

One of the moonbats from this site https://www.xmule.ws/ even called phone numbers on my customers' sites and was harassing them with threats to be removed from Google. One of the customers/friends played me his idiotic message. His phone number is 1-832-818-6464. Please feel free to call anytime.

This looks like a well-oiled smear campaign by a group of people who know one another. I have removed a lot of trolling posts but also left a few for reference. The last thing in a debate is to look for motivation and they did it a lot. But their motivation is something that can actually put everything in its place. Whatever it is, it's not a dispassionate scientific inquiry.

User avatar
Here's a sample from concerned HopeSeekr of xMule's website:



To promote freedom and fight fascism.

polls


* If Bush resigned and bin Laden made peace, would it be worth it? - 637 votes - open
* Do you, like Bush, think the Constitution is "Worthless Paper"? - 203 votes - open
* 9/11 Foreknowledge: Based on https://xrl.us/ig82 do you think some had warning of 9/11? - 99 votes - open
* Based on https://xrl.us/ibjn, has Bush lost it? - 100 votes - open
* Hurricane Katrina: Who's the bigger idiot? - 1716 votes - open
* Is depleted uranium... - 500 votes - open
* New site layout better or worse? - 399 votes - open

Dedicated to the preservation of rare cultural content.

You just don't see such gems every day. He must be a dedicated reader of Professor Kurgman's blog

$.$ Hally,

Look, the cube guys here can't beat a dead horse forever. The Party needs to move forward, even without the help of capitalistic stock markets, while it doesn't last. You may think Google is the answer, but what is it today compared to short selling tomorrow or a month ago?

Dialectically speaking, this situation cannot be explained dialectically. So, the lawyers perhaps should be consulted. Invisible CSS links in web pages being banned by Google engineers, Matt Cutts' posts, K0modo Dragon notes on hidden keywords and so on.

Like a known saying in Russian, <a href="https://lib.ru/ILFPETROV/author12.txt">"Иногда яйцам приходится учить зарвавшуюся курицу</a>", but who knows?

$200/pop or be blacklisted, eh?

nice intimidation and extortion ploy.
worthy of the Odessa mafia....
...except he got pwn3d.

what a fucktard.


User avatar
Yes, yes, we should come clean! Google has outed the Cube! Red's a masochist also. Hidden keywords....Just ignore Che-Mart, Stop Borat, FCBC, CFK, etc....and stop talking to the man behind the curtain! Red is so sly and evil only conservatives can notice the links on the left hand side of this page. He knew that the left never looks left (like deer which never look up upon hunters in tree stands) and deliberately placed them on the left hand side, besides only secret Cube members have special X-Ray glasses that you can view those POSTED links on the left side column. We are willing to sell these glasses to any liberal for $200 bucks a pop. It just wasn't fair!
As for his masochistic streak, it's a mile wide. He wanted all thoses clandestine keywords so he could hurt himself, since he has a vested interest in all those sites! Besides, Cheney made him do it and Karl Rove put a gun to his head.

(I'm sorry Red, I had a knock at the door at 3AM and a Stasi agent named Smith said I had no choice or it's off to the GulaGoogle......Zinoviev and Kamenev would be proud!)

User avatar
Google "the respectable search engine", as Commode-o Dragon stated seems to love child pornography more than letting the Chinese visit vile capitalistic and freedom oriented websites.

From Clusty a few hours ago:

https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060313/ap ... google_doj

User avatar
Let's have some more fun:

https://joi.ito.com/archives/2004/04/30 ... sults.html

See, this is nothing new. Most people didn't know about this until January 2006.


As the great forward-thinking philosopher Sun Tsu once said: "The ankles of Giants remain vulnerable to hammers in small hands"

User avatar
I wonder how Li Xinde is doing these days Google?

From the NYT: (of all newspapers)


Good actually.......For every Google there is a Sparrow:

https://news.com.com/Sparrow+tactics+ch ... 40804.html

Image

Comrades!

Just as Armand Hammer was the greatest communist-capitalist - and only American to have access to all the glorius Politburo members during Uncle Joe Steel's reign through Brezhnev the Sot's time and funded the creation of Accidental Oil - which in turned was part owned by Al G.'s family (allowing funding of their great rise to socialist-progressive political power brokers status), and just as Googlegulag stopped carrying The Peoples Cube links around the same time that it seemed to accomodate the progressive-communist Glorius Peoples Republic of China -
is ONLY COINCIDENTAL!
Googlegulag, with support of Progressive billionaire socialist and People's benevolent uncle George Soaring-high, is the vanguard in the creation of the Global Progressive Utopia. It is our kollektive duty to support them or it's off to re-education camp until we get it right -er left!

User avatar
If this were a mistake, "Google" would have civilly corrected it, and clarified with all those involved. The avalanche of technically-knowledgable Google-affiliated <b>hostiles</b> leads me to an old phrase I learned in interrogation class:

<b>The lady doth protest too much, methinks.</b>

Usually, the next phase in this process is the appearance of some men at Mr. Square's front door.

Does anyone worry that the predominance of one search engine is a bad thing? Is anyone desperate for another choice? The Googlites should take a crash course in history so that they might fully comprehend the crash course their stock will eventually take.


To make this very clear, and to ensure there's no confusion, misinterpreting or twisting of my words, I'm going to do two things:

1) I'm going to separate the facts in this scenario from the opinions and advice by labelling each post section as such.

2) I'm going to screen cap this, in case it should get deleted or the words should be manipulated, and put it up on my server for all to read, unedited and in its entirety.

FACTS

1) Although I found this site through Matt Cutts' blog, Matt has no prior knowledge, nor does he have anything to do with, this post or anything I have said in it. No one from Google does either.

2) Google has banned sites without political affiliation for the same reason that yours was banned.

Here are links to some of them from Matt's blog (one of which is a pretty major car manufacturer):

https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ramping- ... l-webspam/
https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/seo-mist ... way-pages/

3) Google has a clearly published set of guidelines at https://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html , and your site as it stands in the Google cache as of right now (and as wow pointed out earlier) clearly violates at least two of the basic principles (the first two) and two of the specific recommendations (#1 and #5).

While these aren't guidelines or rules that are set in stone, it is obvious that, should you choose to ignore one or more of these, you run the risk of being removed or not being included in the index.

4) There is no guarantee offered whatsoever as it pertains to Google Services (the umbrella under which all Google's offerings are found). To quote from their Terms and Conditions at https://www.google.ca/terms_of_service.html :

THE GOOGLE SERVICES, AND ALL MATERIALS, INFORMATION, PRODUCTS AND SERVICES INCLUDED IN THE GOOGLE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS," WITH NO WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER.
Therefore, they owe you nothing. They don't have to list any of us at all if they don't want to, and they can remove anyone for any reason they see fit (or if they wanted to, none at all.)

5) Google's algorithm catches the sites to be banned. Matt merely saw the explanation for it and posted it, as Matt does.

6) Google lists many pages and sites with controversial political and social viewpoints and ideas, some of which happen to trash their own company. While I don't endorse any of the content listed below (nor do I share any of these viewpoints), I do provide them as examples:

The North American Man-Boy Love Association
The Marijuana Party of Canada
The Ku Klux Klan<br>Google Sucks thread

If those guys can be in there for viewpoints and opinions that are, at best, out of the mainstream, then Google clearly has at least a partly open and objective mind to all viewpoints (at least as far as objective search goes).

OPINIONS AND ADVICE

The best part about political extremist groups is that they never see the flaws in any part of their logic, nor do they often see their painfully obvious violations of the Golden Rule. As my late grandfather used to say, "I-I-I-meme-I-I-I."

"Don't censor us! Let us be heard! Our voice is important too! Oh, and when we want to hear from you, we'll have to approve it first just in case someone with a clue might decide they wish to speak up and we can't handle it."

Why mod this board like that? What's the point? You're all about freedom of choice, speech, a view from the right...and there's nothing wrong with any of that. The problem is that you went too far and butted your ship right against the island of fascism. I'm surprised you're letting anyone post at all.

The keywords that you used to mainpulate Google (and by extension, MSN and Yahoo!) into learning what your site is all about by your own interpretation is a coverup for weak copywriting (opinion or otherwise). If your site were really about all of the issues you mentioned in the keyword stuffing attempt, there would be at least full pages devoted to each subject in the attempt itself. If the average user were to take a look at your site, (s)he wouldn't necessarily associate it with all of those "topics" mentioned in the keywords either. This is not a weakness of the Google algorithm, as has been suggested; as I pointed out earlier, it's a weakness in your copywriting.
======================================================
Tsk...tsk...tsk... how many times in an SNL skit do they mention comedy? Would it be funny then? How many times in a piece of satire do they mention that it is satire? Would it be good satire then? How many times in a political article do they mention it is a political article? Would that make much sense? Yet these are the things people are searching for "funny jokes", "political satire", "liberal humor site".... and on and on... the problem is not with the writing, the problem is the algorithm. Sure Google works if your selling mops, or mortgages, or shovels, but the dumb machine doesn't know a smile from a frown or any other subtly of human expression.

The weakness is in your lack of understanding of WTF you are talking about. -RR
======================================================

As far as your right to promote the sites you buried the links for, why not just post them openly on the opening page? If they're that useful and important, and derive a visitor benefit, why hide them? There is no good, sound, logical reason to do so. Trying to get them listed is fine...but you want them listed because you want traffic. So you're going to hide the links and not get direct traffic from them so that the sites can get indexed (hopefully) and you'll get indirect traffic. Great logic. Nope. Not a flaw there to be found.

Google isn't perfect. There are plenty of sites in there that spam and get away with it, and yours was punished for something other sites do quite a bit. But saying that is like saying "okay, the cops caught one bank robber and five others got away with it, so let's blame the cops." The root cause of the problem isn't the policing, it's the people committing the offenses.

You rolled the dice, you got burned. You might not have done it fully intentionally, or fully aware of the consequences, but it happened nonetheless.

So rather than sit there and rant and rave and shout from the rooftops and claim it's a Google conspiracy because you made fun of them or left-wing Google politics or any other weird theory you can come up with, step back and look at it from the other side of the coin and learn a lesson from it.

But I'm sure none of this will matter in the end, since it not only posts an alternative viewpoint, but one that at least has some grounding in fact.

Oh...and I seriously hope you do try to sue Google for loss of income, as you implied with the original post. It'd be one hell of a good laugh.

User avatar
it's a weakness in your copywriting.

I'd say it's a weakness of a humorless activist, to be so full of himself that he makes screenshots and copies of his own posts while failing to notice the nature of this site and the themes being discussed here.

Just for calling us fascists I should've removed this post but I'll let it stay as a memorial plaque of the boring, long-winded "progressive" stupidity and self-aggrandizement.

Now back to the Google business. Even if I violated in some way Google's policies - "blatant" and "egregious" would hardly be the words to describe it. If you look at the matter objectively you will see that half of those few hidden links are explicitly present on the Cube anyway, as images. The other half leads to some small sites that I had built for my friends. These were not link farms promoting ranking for Cheap Viagra or Teen Porn sites that one would associate with "blatant spamming." The keywords that I was compelled to use to help Google steer visitors to the Cube were all relevant to the site's content. These were not "hot sex porn xxx boobs, Paris Hilton, etc." which you might call "egregious." Yet I was labeled as The Evil Spammer Who Got What He Deserved, all over the Internet. The glee and gloating on many a "liberal" blog in this regard was POLITICALLY motivated - while they merrily reported how this was *not* a POLITICALLY motivated suppression. Something's wrong with this picture, isn't it?

Some real, egregious abuse of the internet is out there - and you know it as well as I do - yet someone chooses to focus on the Cube's laughable irregularity. Chances of that happening automatically are equal to the chances of being struck by a lightning - especially that Google does not yet have bots that can detect hidden text. Hence my suspicion that it was a deliberate, manual removal. Not by Sergey Brin himself, but by someone whose ideology, which he apparently shares with Sergey, allowed him to feel the moral right to "correct" the reality by reducing my chances of being found on the web. Now please look into your own soul and tell me if you would be as zealous as you were in your last night's postings, if this were an environmentalist site, or a feminist site, or a gay-lesbian site, or an anti-war site that claimed they had been censored. You wouldn't - not with such eagerness and passion anyway, if at all. Your presence on this site is motivated by your politics. That also answers your question about the probability of someone using Google's power to suppress this site for political reasons.

And the next time you post, please make sure you close all the tags so I don't have to go in after you and clean up your sloppy typing.

-- Red Square

Damn. I love when idiots try to psychoanalyze me and miss completely. That's the first thing on this site that I've found that is actually funny.

My presence on the site has nothing to do with my political point of view (although if you must know, it leans very much toward the right). And my sense of humour is probably more twisted and dark than anything you'd ever see on here.

The reason that I screen capped your site is because of the possibility that you use the thin veil of humour (which, by the way, is generally funny...just thought I should point that out) to spout off your unique brand of political rhetoric. In other words, the satire is the facade, and the message is what lies within.

---------------------
[baseless insults deleted]

... But I kept your inane attempts at being funny.
I tried to hint at it before but I guess I must put it in caps:

THIS IS A HUMOR SITE!!!!!

So either be funny or go back to your important serious forum you're moderating and stop trolling here. If you will insist on your ramblings I'll simply ban you - which is what you would also do to someone trying to impose his rules on your site.

The next time you want to call anyone names please use this Party-approved tool for the progressive masses which you seem to be part of (forgive me if I don't take your word for you being a right-winger)

https://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=297

-- Red Square

P.S. I guess I'll have to change my name to Red Spammer from now on, and carry it proudly.

User avatar
SEFL -

Your IP says you're a Canadian, most likely Toronto.

We welcome international help, particularly in heckling imperialist American presidents when they come to visit, and demading that "Yankees go home!" But especially invaluable international help is when foreigners pose on US sites without identifying themselves as such and dictate to the people here what to write on their pages, how to think, and whom to elect. For reference please see our special department, Comrades In Europe Open Second Front

I guess if a site was using keywords in a way that Google disapproved of, it would make sense to demote the site. But when it flatly denies that the site exists, that's just too much.

First the selling out to China, and now I find out it does censorship in America too, if you don't play by the rules!

<img src="https://thepeoplescube.com/images/googcube.gif">

It's a great search engine, but not if I can't trust it's results :(


Excellent point Blogagog! NO information is available? Why not, "This evil site is guilty of spamming, move on, there is nothing to see here, do no evil, we repeat, do no evil." Wouldn't that be the truth, as all the appeasement trolls claim?
Nah...."No information is available." has a better totalitarian ring to it. Final, complete, never existed......airbrushed from the collective memory.
"Do no evil"........and they paid big bucks for that PR slogan.
Nice touch with the "in line" "off line". Bullseye!


Laika

User avatar
Am I a malicious spammer? Here's an analogy for you:
You get sent up for life to a federal prison for jaywalking.

How many times have you crossed the street when there were no cars, without even looking at the lights?

Imagine yourself doing that, while some sleazy bastard (perhaps your political opponent in the coming election) gets it on camera, reports it to the authorities, and blows the case out of proportion, portraying you as a dangerous offender who causes traffic accidents, drunk driving, road rage, and overturned SUVs. 40,000 deaths a year nationally! A group of hacks from his PAC jump on the bandwagon; get the press involved, the public gets bombarded with heart-breaking stories of mothers who got children kidnapped while crossing the road. The jury gets all mushy and you get sent up for life.

You tell your friends, "Wait, we were walking together, remember?" But your friends say, "We don't know you anymore. Go serve your life sentence, you child-murdering monster!"

And your smiling political opponent says from a TV screen "Dude, you were busted. Get over it," and he sends out glowing press releases about how he rid the world of a vermin such as you.

Commrades! As I sit with my podstakannik hot with Italian espresso (instead of the Motherland's Russian tea, one of my small indulgences as a party member) I notice that many trolling members of the 'praise G**gle' brigade have attempted to re-educate our Commrade "Red Square" as if to think that it was not HE plus others who sat on the board that devised breadline organization/redistribution among other systems that made Mother Russia what she is today!

I can't believe that these trolls have the unerring audacity to dicatate a set of dictates that have been dicatated by a Dictator who is G**gle! We, Commrades, the Party Elders have cornered the market (to use the capitalist pigs' own phrasing) on dictating. How dare these presumptuous shills proselytize to Red Square!

This is facism in capitalist's clothing, pretending not to be socialist! Take heed while I take notes. These trolls won't hold these ideas up to the shining light! Our re-education counselors will help them to do just this!

Web Site Files Complaint Against Google
Mar 17 6:36 PM US/Eastern

Google Inc.'s mysterious methods for ranking Web sites came under attack Friday in a lawsuit accusing the online search engine leader of ruining scores of Internet businesses that have been wrongfully banished from its index.

The civil complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose by KinderStart.com, seeks to be certified as a class action representing the owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google's Internet-leading search engine since January 2001. ...

https://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/ ... KG900.html

Apparently, tovarischei, Google and Blogger have been going after "spammers" in the Blogspot quadrant. Several blogspotters have had their blogs kidnapped and urls confiscated by someone calling himself SAM. Blogger says it is a spam thing, I think something else is going on.

User avatar
Hey, Google has the cube back in it's directory, I just checked it and it came right up!

Wow, the cube is back indeed! Is Matt Cutts going to comment on this?

Da, the implication of the intervention of re-education counselors of the US Ninth Distrikt was apparently enough to compel commitment to even this one time small reform from G@@gle.

Congratulations on your reinclusion into the collective, commrades!

Let us celebrate with a song!

User avatar
- Grab your Party approved life partner and sing with me!!

dum-dee dum dum PRAISE THE PARTY!!! PRAISE THE PARTY!!! Made them shake in there jack-boots!!! Now we are free from the sandbox to spread the progressive truuuuuuttthhhh. PRAISE THE PARTY!!! PRAISE THE PARTY!!! WE WONT STOP TILL TAXES ARE THROUGH THE ROOOOOOOFFFFFF!!!

But Comrades!!!! Google was only trying to protect the noble Pedaphile. I mean it was good for Ancient Greeks. Socrates once said there was nothing more beautiful than a young boy. This clearly shows that pedarasts are the more progressive of people. That is why we must protect them.

User avatar
In addition to links by comrade Stahanovets -

Web site sues over Google 'blacklist'

Search giant accused of wrongfully ruining scores of Internet businesses

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11883353/

https://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/03/ ... oogle?pp=1


Weird. The Cube is Back!!!!!!!! Glorious people's electronic revolution is back in the good grace's of Google.

Che Baabaabooie wrote:Weird. The Cube is Back!!!!!!!! Glorious people's electronic revolution is back in the good grace's of Google.
Victory!

Will we hear now from начальник транспортного цеха Matt Cutts?

Or is he in re-education classes?

User avatar
Stahanovets wrote:Will we hear now from начальник транспортного цеха Matt Cutts?

Or is he in re-education classes?

Who is Matt Cutts? All I know of is Non-Person MC who was sent to the gulag because of ignorance and blatant... never mind....

User avatar
Days after a few people had forwarded me Google's responses to their requests regarding The Cube, Google finally sent me a measured response that reads as if it was written by a lawyer: "While we cannot comment on the individual reasons your page was removed, we'd like to assure you that we do not alter our search results based on political viewpoint or ideology." But "the individual reasons" is the key to understanding the whole removal business. The devil is in the details, comrades!

From: <help>
To: "Red Square" <redsquare>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [#49864153] Re: Why did you block The People's Cube from Google?

Thank you for your reply. We understand your concern. Your page has been
blocked from our index because it does not meet the quality standards
necessary to assign accurate PageRank, as outlined in our Webmaster
Guidelines found at https://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html.
While we cannot comment on the individual reasons your page was removed,
we'd like to assure you that we do not alter our search results based on
political viewpoint or ideology.

That said, there are certain actions such as cloaking, writing text in
such a way that it can be seen by search engines but not by users, or
setting up pages/links with the sole purpose of fooling search engines
that may result in permanent removal from our index.

If you identify problems with your website and make the changes necessary
to comply with the guidelines mentioned above, please do not hesitate to
contact us.

Regards,
The Google Team

See other updates at the top of this thread

Google Team wrote:If you identify problems with your website and make the changes necessary
to comply with the guidelines mentioned above, please do not hesitate to
contact us.

Regards,
The Google Team
Sounds like a request for submission. Hmm, Google rules the world?

Image "Now they are asking not for respect but for submission. They want non-Muslims in Europe to live by Muslim rules."

Thanks, but no thanks, Google team.

P.S. Where is Matt Cutts?

User avatar
From Tiennamen Square in China to Time Square in New York and to Red Square in Moscow an information curtain has descended across the planet. Behind that line lie all the famous search engines of the internet; Google, Yahoo, and MSN. All these famous search engines lie in what I must call the Socialist sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Liberal influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Beijing.


YOU COULD BET IF WINSTON SPENCER CHURCHILL WAS ALIVE TODAY HE'D BE SAYING SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

It's strange reading comments such as "you broke the rules ..." and "Google has an honour system ...". These seem to assume that Google has some sort of legislative role on the internet and have some sort of moral right to dictate how people build websites. I obviously missed it when they were declared a standards body.

Now they do run their own company and have some latitude in how they run it, but they have become so large and pervasive a web entity that their behaviour does have a significant impact on others. This means that they really now have a responsibility to ensure that their behaviour doesn't needlessly damage other web denizens. Because of this it would be better if they at least contacted sites that they have problems with (except for the obviously illegal ones) before taking action. Their actions in this case, if they are based on hidden links and metacontent as they state, are clearly absurd. The keywords are relevant and there are a handful of hidden links - hardly a link farm. If they have a problem with such content then they should simply not index the hidden content. Also their responses to requests for information about this incident seem to indicate the sort of arrogance that used to be principally associated with Microsoft.

Google does seem to be losing the plot in the last year or so; they appear to be trying to be capitalists while still being "progressives". This will lose them a lot of what's left of their good will from the early days and they'll become just another search company (I write this as someone who started using them very early in their career when lots of other IT people would look blank when you mentioned Google). Their edge was really a mix of goodwill and technical aspects like the page rank algorithm and their repositories of data and how they indexed them. Other companies have examined these and are beginning to claw back Google's lead. A related point is that Google isn't necessarily the best search engine for, at least, some technical areas. As some posters have suggested people should start experimenting with other options such as aggregators or alternatives such as teoma.

Attention! Attention!
Comrades Beware! A massive subversive anti-progressive campaign is being waged by the vast-rightwing reactionaries identified as Bushler-Rove-Cheney-Hal I. Burton-Rush-Ann-Coulter cabal and *junta (*trade mark –Vital Gore).
In attempt to continue secret capitalist control of the world and complete befuddlement of all minds of the proletariat – it has launched malicious propaganda which is being spread via secret imperialist internet sources and making claim that Pple's search engines are performing inappropriate censorship of free approved speech!
Of course progressives would never perform non-party censorship nor stifle proper free speech! (All proletariat willingly reveal all their thought crimes and will voluntarily submit themselves for re-education upon first notice of any improper, unapproved thoughts –and will check themselves into local authorized communal re-education center (a.k.a. State and Private University) or face external exile to a Red-State not of its choice!).

Read and heed the likes of running dog counter-revolutionary propaganda such as this pernicious nonsense! (“The View From 1776 - https://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php ... _internet/)
This red-state radical slanders our Pple's Progressive internet search engines and providers with a pitiful attempt at capitalists' agitprop:
“It may be purely coincidental, but two traditionalist blogs have at roughly the same time been black-listed or threatened with disbarment from an internet service provider in what seems to be an arbitrary manner. “Alain's Newsletter” was informed by a search engine that it would not be included in sites referenced by search engine, because in search engine's opinion the site publishes “hate-speech”. No doubt – if A'sN was guilty of though crimes – our Pple's search engine has all authority to censor it as obedient proletariat will never think, let alone publish, any non-progressive or approved thoughts! Larry Auster's “View From The Right” was without warning deactivated by his website host suddenly and without warning on Friday morning March 17.
(Letter from Internal Security Thought Control Militia: “Hello Lawrence Auster; After discussing the issue with my comrade-supervisor, and based on your proper correspondence from ThoughtCop, we have decided to re-activate your account. However, beware comrade –once our Pple's Leader regains power from the illegal junta now occupying our government – such thoughts will mean a meeting with Black Maria and a long cold dark ride to S. Dakota or Arkansas!) “
Comrades – These kinds of things will not occur if you utilize the Party Approved internet and search engine resources: “ComInterNet” and “Gulag.com” (each mouse click sends a kulak to the konstlager.). Avoid the coming kolektivizations and purges and begin using only progressive and approved thoughts and actions now!

User avatar
I didn't make this up - it's the official Google China design. Honest!

Image
https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04 ... 2571.shtml

Google Debuts Chinese Brand Name

"I think it's arrogant for us to walk into a country where we are just beginning to operate and tell that country how to operate."

"We believe that the decision that we made to follow the law in China was absolutely the right one."

- Google Inc. CEO Eric Schmidt

User avatar
WorldNetDaily:
https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50323

Google dumps news sites that criticize radical Islam
Search giant axes another news page,
calls terrorism discussion 'hate content'


Search engine giant Google has cut off its news relationship with a number of online news publications that include frank discussions of radical Islam – the New Media Journal becoming the latest termination, as its owner just discovered...

Read more...

At the bottom of the page there's an excellent collection of links to other Google-related stories of information suppression and manipulation


 
POST REPLY