Live data from Hacker News

We Have Been De-googled

studiobriefing.net

31–40 of 82 posts

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#31
All in all this affair is fishy.

However, it's not the first time we hear from google cancelling adsense accounts and cut all communication. I know it's the user's responsibility to make sure his stuff is clean, but most the time the user has no f*ing clue what stuff he did/does wrong.

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#33
Its ridiculous to assume that a popular newsletter and site which had been running for 15 years would be "left with no alternative but to shut down" because one search engine won't index their content. I don't buy that for a second. Does ALL their traffic comes from organic search?

Also, as someone else pointed out this company's meta tag structure is awful. They've clearly invested no time in trying to optimize their site for search engines.

This is a ploy to get media attention. Why am I contributing to the probelm?

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#34
post #18

Caution, monopoly at work.

Before Latin American countries privatized their telecom companies, it would often take weeks or even months to get a new phone line. Despite being owned by the government and not operated to generate a profit, a monopoly service resulted in extremely poor service.

I think it's a good comparison to Google. The big G can say "We're not being evil!" all it wants. But the fact is that it has a near monopoly on search engine advertising which allows it to treat its advertisers awfully. Imagine a radio station randomly pulling ads without a proper explanation. What would happen? The radio station next door would get the ad dollars.

Try calling Google Adwords phone support (trust me it exists, my friend works there.) You won't find the number listed on their site. I googled and found it on some obscure forum. I was answered with a teleprompt, asking me for my adwords customer number. I'm not a high roller (couple hundred bucks a month) so after the system identifed me it dropped my call. I had to use their crappy email system, where I was answered by a cut-and-paste response that didn't answer my question.

I've had no trouble reaching Yahoo and MSN's search engine marketing groups by phone.

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#35
post #17
post #7

Is the title perhaps vague or misleading? studiobriefing.net appears to have been delisted, not IMDB itself. Saying 'we', given the domain, kind of implies IMDB - I appreciate it's a quote, but it's out of context.

Which begs the question as to why this is on imdb at all? Is imdb syndicating their "film news"?

http://begthequestion.info/

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#36
post #17
post #7

Is the title perhaps vague or misleading? studiobriefing.net appears to have been delisted, not IMDB itself. Saying 'we', given the domain, kind of implies IMDB - I appreciate it's a quote, but it's out of context.

Which begs the question as to why this is on imdb at all? Is imdb syndicating their "film news"?

Raises the question. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Modern_usa...)

Though I guess I should give up at this point.

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#37
Probably, someone with money contacted Google and asked them to do it. StudioBriefing did news articles about the entertainment industry, so it probably had pissed off some company or other high-rolling entity.

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#38

Probably, someone with money contacted Google and asked them to do it. StudioBriefing did news articles about the entertainment industry, so it probably had pissed off some company or other high-rolling entity.

What is "probable" about that theory?

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#40
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which begs the question as to why this is on imdb at all? Is imdb syndicating their "film news"?

http://begthequestion.info/

That site, and implicitly, your post, are negligent of the fact that things with precise formal meanings often creep into the realm of being figures of speech. When someone says, "It doesn't follow that..." they don't mean, "there exists no proof which verifies A -> B" they mean, "that doesn't make sense".

There is certainly a place for precise terminology, but it's not necessary in casual conversation.

Post reply on HN