161–170 of 203 posts
This is great news, but I have to wonder: How do you figure out which site wrote the original content?
I'm wondering based on what happened to Tarsnap last week, where hackzq8search.appspot.com outranked tarsnap.com on a search for "tarsnap".
this site has copied numerous sites on the net and though Google adsense was taken away, it still ranks well. No page is their own. All are copies. The link above is referencing a search for unusual pergola designs, of which my lens is first in search. It has copied my whimsical garden art, etc. These are mine and the rest are copies of other people's sites. Though they never seem to update their garbled text and offend with blown up pictures, they still continue to rank well in searches.... Simply Amazing and this situation has been ongoing for a year. Yes I asked them several times to take out the pages to no avail.
The whole site should be taken down. It's a joke.
here is their copy of my Whimsical Garden Art:
http://www.homebasedesign.com/whimsical-garden-art-ideas-for...
my lens that they copied: http://www.squidoo.com/whimsical-gardens-art
There are other sites they created and did the very same thing: homedesigndecorating.com hometrendesign.com onhomedesign.com hahoy.com
no original content, all copied.
MiaBellezza
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't just remove sites from their index. They will always be there. But if you think a different site should rank higher than these spammy ones, you should mention it and maybe someone can look at it. (I don't work for Google.)
I meant remove them at least from my front page.
Since Matt is responding here, I figured this is worth a shot, no harm in asking. Matt, would love a response from you if you get a chance, since the Webmaster Tools appeals process gives no insight whatsoever to our situation. Following on from one of the comments here, namely the idea that "value is in the eye of the beholder", I'd like to raise our own plight. I run a number of aggregator sites - the largest and o…
I have to second Niko's position here. Our main business model is "adding value through aggregation". We provide users in many markets aggregated content from a variety of publicly available sources on specific topics. While much of the content on our sites is technically "duplicate", so is much of the content on the NY Times. They syndicate content from the AP, as do many news sites. We do the same, and always take…
That said, I'd be careful of analogizing aggregators to wire services. The AP actually employs their own reporters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For [nstoolbar bottom bar] I see (from an incognito window): #2) stackoverflow.com/questions/3977343/nstoolbar-on-bottom-of-window #3) stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/nstoolbar #9) efreedom.com/Question/1-3977343/NSToolbar-Bottom-Window The #9 result is copied from stackoverflow.com/questions/3977343/nstoolbar-on-bottom-of-window, which is the same as the #2 result. This actually is really hard to do as well as Go…
For [nstoolbar bottom bar], searched from my logged-in window, a permalink to this comment is the top result. Um...
Since Matt is responding here, I figured this is worth a shot, no harm in asking. Matt, would love a response from you if you get a chance, since the Webmaster Tools appeals process gives no insight whatsoever to our situation. Following on from one of the comments here, namely the idea that "value is in the eye of the beholder", I'd like to raise our own plight. I run a number of aggregator sites - the largest and o…
IMO.You are kind of hiding the original source and do make it hard to find. Yes you show the source and your call to action is "Read More" but your site does not give the appearance of a news aggregator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole history of Google is trying to find algorithms that encode our philosophy and mental model of what we think users want. We've been discussing algorithmic changes with people online since 2001, when GoogleGuy would show up on webmasterworld.com to dispel misconceptions.
This algorithm change could come across as more editorial and less empirical. It's publicized as highly targeted ("slightly over 2% of queries"), responding to small tech discussion (Atwood, SO, HN, quality launch meeting), and seemingly rolled out in a short period of time. The media could easily boil this down to "a small number people felt sites they liked were under-ranked, so Google moved them up a week later."…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends what you think the goal is. I expect Google's goal with searching is to get you to the source data. What is the point in going to an aggregator for a query? Isn't that what google is in a nutshell? I'm not advancing a position, just genuinely posing the question. What role should aggregated results play in a search query if any at all?
I have often found myself landing on an aggregator for a particularly query that has been a helpful resource for related problems. Of course original content has priority, the original poster explicitly agreed with that and there are some site who do produce no value at all, but saying every site who purely uses other sites content are all ruining the internet is obviously very wrong, considering this is google we ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, I actually posted over here at HN a little bit before I did a post on my personal blog.
I'd like to mention that this is really an impressive way of working with the community Matt. Companies say all the time that they value their customer's opinions, but rarely do you see a grievance that's posted on a social news site being a.) initially responded to by the guy who's responsible for it, and b.) amended by that person and his team with a request for review. It's heightened my faith that maybe Google ca…