Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Have Been De-googled

studiobriefing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#41

Post by meatbag »

zachware wrote: post #27

Have they checked website optimizer? Google isn't a call me and let's talk about it company. It has very efficient and streamlined tools to help people figure out what is wrong. There's a good chance there is an indexing problem that could easily be rectified if they just check webmaster tools. (PS. Ditto on the misleading URL)

I can't comment on "efficient" or "streamlined" but I would echo this recommendation to at least create a Google Webmaster Tools account before complaining to the Internet at large.

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#42

Post by jules »

idlewords wrote: post #35
aditya wrote: 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/

It's easier to change what the minority thinks it means than what the majority thinks it means.

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#43

Post by scott_s »

wheels wrote: post #40
idlewords wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your example and "begs the question" are different cases. In your example, when people say "it doesn't follow that" they mean one can't draw the following conclusion from what has been said. That's the same meaning as in the technical sense. The only difference is that in a technical context, there's a whole lot more evidence backing up the statement. It's a difference of degrees, not fundamental meaning.

On the other hand, "begs the question" is a logical fallacy in the technical sense; it means someone has assumed what they were trying to prove. It has no relationship with "raises the question." They're not trying to say the same thing.

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#44

Post by jxcole »

rbanffy wrote: post #29
Readmore wrote: post #28

I had the same sort of thing happen to my blog. Google refused to show my ads due to 'landing page or ad quality' but I couldn't ever determine what the problem was or get anyone to review the site after that. If Google has an achilles heel it's definitely lack of customer service.

Same with my blog. It appears on search, but one day they decided something fishy was going on with the ads and simply terminated the service. The automated e-mail said I could appeal and the appeal resulted in a "yes, it pretty much was something fishy" automated message. No further information, just silence and a warning that they would ignore messages about this subject from that point on. AdSense needs competitio…

I don't know if this helps, but a search for adsense competition (on google no less) brought up the following:

http://www.associateprograms.com/articles/208/1/Adsense-Comp...

Which has a list of different things like adsense you could use. Out of curiousity, is there any reason why you can't switch to using these companies for advertisement? I can see how google has a complete monopoly on ad-words, but surely adsense is a free market.

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#45

Post by joblessjunkie »

I'm not surprised, and I'm glad Google has cut them off.

Every article I checked on studiobriefing.net appeared to be a direct, word-for-word copy of an article also found on contactmusic.com. This is easy to verify just by cutting and pasting sentences from the articles into Google.

Google is extremely vigilant against such blatant content duplication + ad spam, and for good reason: it muddies search results, dilutes advertising value, and really pisses of the original content provider.

Will any of us miss this parasitic, ad-ridden web site?

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#46

Post by aarongough »

joblessjunkie wrote: post #45

I'm not surprised, and I'm glad Google has cut them off. Every article I checked on studiobriefing.net appeared to be a direct, word-for-word copy of an article also found on contactmusic.com. This is easy to verify just by cutting and pasting sentences from the articles into Google. Google is extremely vigilant against such blatant content duplication + ad spam, and for good reason: it muddies search results, dilute…

Can you verify that studiobriefing.com is copying contactmusic.com's content and not the other way round?

I don't have a vested interest either way, but I would be interested to know what your method is for proving that one site is copying the other instead of vice-versa...

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#47

Post by jsdalton »

nailer wrote: 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.

Did the title get edited or something? It seemed absolutely clear to me, and I don't even see IMDB mentioned anywhere?

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#48

Post by meatbag »

All of the articles I've seen thus far on studiobriefing.net are scraped verbatim from another source, assumedly celebrifi.com. This is against Google's terms of service, and this activity is likely to result in a ban. Instead of whining about how Google is persecuting an innocent website, these guys should have an honest discussion among themselves about what they are trying to do with the website and why their activities might have pissed off Google. Or they should hire competent in-house SEO help. For a 2k monthly retainer, I might be available, as long as I can telecommute (I don't want to move to SoCal).

There's usually a reason for Google bans. It's best to address this reason directly and honestly instead of stirring up drama. If the entirety of HN became consumed with righteous indignation, Google still wouldn't reinclude a low-value affiliate spam scraper site.

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#49

Post by nailer »

jsdalton wrote: post #47
nailer wrote: 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.

Did the title get edited or something? It seemed absolutely clear to me, and I don't even see IMDB mentioned anywhere?

Yes, the domain was originally imdb.com.

Re: We Have Been De-googled

#50

Post by Semiapies »

aresant wrote: post #18

Caution, monopoly at work.

Every time I see both a complaint about Google's ad policies and learn any facts about the case beyond whiny blog posts, it somehow turns out that the complainer broke the rules of the agreement - and often quite flagrantly.

This case certainly doesn't break the trend.

As a web-geek, am I supposed to feel bad that someone failed to game the system?

Post reply on HN