| Who | When |
Messages | |
|
|
|
Steve Bartree
|
5
|
 |
|
12-17-2002 04:25 AM ET (US)
|
|
Reading the whole article, I'm immensely impressed by the *delicacy* with which Google acts.
|
| jleader
|
4
|
|
|
12-16-2002 03:32 PM ET (US)
|
|
watermelonpunch, what does "my site [...] which I have tried to block Google with..." mean? Are you trying to get Google to not index your site? Have you looked at their FAQs on the topic at http://www.google.com/webmasters/3.html#removed ? I'm curious to hear what you tried and what the results were. |
| Zed Lopez
|
3
|
|
|
12-16-2002 02:01 PM ET (US)
|
|
>Google's in bed with all kinds of nefarious business practices.
Uh, OK. Like what?
|
| watermelonpunch
|
2
|
|
|
12-16-2002 10:16 AM ET (US)
|
|
They're already evil.
And sorry, no, I'm not a disgruntled webmaster. IN fact, every site I design comes up with high result ranking. Indeed, my silly personal site, which I have tried to block Google with, comes up anywhere from #2 to #7 on a search for MERELY MY FIRST NAME. So it's not sour grapes.
I call it how I see it.
Google's in bed with all kinds of nefarious business practices.
|
| Brian Carnell
|
1
|
|
|
12-15-2002 04:01 PM ET (US)
|
|
Taking Google's ad policy literally, an ad for a site dedicated to criticizing Nazi Germany would be evil.
Their use of "evil" is odd given that most of their decisions seems designed largely to minimize legal and public relations problems. But attaching the adjective to people who sell gun parts or criticize John Malkovich seems a bit extreme and likely to garner them this sort of coverage.
It's their company, but I'd prefer that Google simply comply with legal requirements and otherwise let its users make up their own minds about what is evil. As a supporter of John Malkovich, for example, I can't imagine why they think that people using their search engine are going to shrink in horror at an ad for a site that criticizes him.
|
