Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer wrote:
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> dcqprt$2ern$2@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk">news:dcqprt$2ern$2@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
>>
>> Frankly, I don't think anybody reads these reports carefully. The time
>> spent
>> can be rather high. A process of reporting and proving proof is just not
>> worth it.
>
> 3-5 minutes to potentially take down an entire site?
I haven't filed a complaint myself, but I know somebody who has. I know of
two such case as a matter of fact. There is a lot of communication,
settlements and exchange of arguments involved. The sites will not be shut
down. Plagiarised content might be removed by the Webmaster after some
persuasion.
> Seems reasonable to me, if it works, mind you.
>
> Google Guy was reported to have said something about the fact that Google
> did not receive much critique from users about some modifications to
> algoritms, thus would not make correcttions. If this comment is to be
> taken seriously, it means that user reports do mean something to Google.
Modifications to the algorithms are a different matter. This must have been
related to penalty imposed on mirrors, which is one of the big challenges
that SE's are striving towards. To kill mirrors, you must introduce a new
protocol or new mechanism a la rel="nofollow". You will need some signature
(for example PGP) assigned to content and content will then be submitted
with the signature to SE's...
...But it's more complex than that because people mess about with content to
make it fuzzier and slightly dissimilar.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
