__/ [ www.1-script.com ] on Sunday 18 June 2006 06:41 \__
> John Bokma wrote:
>
>> "Now Google and the new BigDaddy crawler is showing an even more
>> idiotic
>> preference when indexing and ranking subdomains."
>
>> "Another domain owned by the same person, t1ps2see.com, has
>> between 1.7
>> and 2.4 billion indexed pages and an Alexa ranking of under 2,000?
>> after 4
>> weeks."
>
>> http://merged.ca/monetize/flat/how-to-get-billions-of-pages-indexed-by-
>> Google.html
>
>> Also:
>
>> http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=97090
"Thank you, Mr. Bokma. Now we'll have to kill you/" *smile*
How long can this be kept quiet? Wouldn't you have thought the world should
know by now? I'll submit Dmitri's thread to Digg. We'll see what happens...
Okay. here's the 'stub':
http://digg.com/technology/Google_Chokes_on_SPAM
,----[ Google Chokes on SPAM ]
| Evidence: billions of spammy sites get indexed, many genuine sites are
| being dropped.
`----
And yes, I made a mistake there: Should say "pages", not "sites".
> Well, I'm glad the word got out and it wasn't only in a Webmasterworld
> article that got killed. Let's see what the semi-official (as usual)
> reaction is going to be.
I suppose that the Google Sitemaps argument (namely "site;" is broken) can be
used as a defence. Could they have deliberately said that the hide a certain
truth? Was The Reg right after all...?
> Doesn't it strike you as weird that Matt Cutts happens to be on vacation
> just now? Well, maybe the guys got smart and read his blog where he said
> that he is departing for vacation. Funny thing though - to pull it off now
> they needed to start spamming three weeks ago when Matt was happily still
> working at his anti-spam post. Has he been packing then or what?
[partly sarcastic /] Vacation = "Nothing to see here. I'm moving along."
> One thing I'm worried about is the backlash when Google will now kill all
> the subdomains (Wordpress.com seems to be the first victim) because they
> cannot filter out bad ones.
I told Matt to restrict submissions. I didn't/don't know it gets/got spammed,
but the initial, invites-only method prevented it from becoming Blogspot
2.0. I guess that greed for growth gets in the way, so within just a few
months, there were 100,000+ subdomains.
> Pretty nasty story indeed.
>
> Another observation of mine: the guys that pulled it off got greedy. This
> is the only reason they got caught. They could have happily cashed in on
> this flaw for months if not years had they limited the number of
> subdomains per domain to, say, modest 10 millions... If they did, no one
> would notice (Google included) or make such big deal out of this.
Thanks for the link. At least it begins to appear more obvious that the
problem is not at our end and there is no true update involved.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:45am up 51 days 12:59, 12 users, load average: 0.22, 0.28, 0.37
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
