Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Punishes Self for Cloaking

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the slap-their-own-wrists dept.

amyrick writes "eWeek is carrying a story about Google's response to March 8th's cloaking accusations. Rather than justify the shady practices as some exception to their rules, Google removed the pages from their indices, and are requiring the pages' maintainers to revise the pages and reapply for indexing. Though the existence of the cloaked pages at all is somewhat questionable, at least Google has responded with integrity and consistency."

8 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. Nice to see... by kebes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's nice to see that Google:

    1. Actually tries to follow the "don't be evil" thing.

    2. Reads slashdot.

    1. Re:Nice to see... by lowrydr310 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Google's public perception is one of integrity, and that it one big reason people like them.

      I like Google because their homepage isn't littered with ads and other junk. I was initially attracted to them becasue of their simplicity - a nearly blank webpage with one single graphic and a few links to other features. I like how MSN copied their style.

      In addition, many of my friends and family prefer Google over anything else because on a dial up connection, you don't need to wait 10 minutes for a whole page of graphics and banner ads to appear. I am more likely to click on Google's text ads in the search results because they're usually not obnoxious.

      This makes me think of why I like NPR over other radio stations - their 'ads' are usually spoken in a normal tone. It's one person saying "This show paid for in part by Chrysler" or whatever company, as opposed to some silly script with obnoxious voices. I can even tolerate some of the ads on the Howard Stern show - those that are read by Mr. Stern himself.

  2. More about "Google Guy" by xmas2003 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    An occasional poster to the Search Engine Forum is someone named GoogleGuy, who is real ... at least according to the Google Blog itself.

    Check out his comments on the affair which echo the EWeek article, but provide a little more detail.

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  3. Problem with Search Appliance by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apparently the original problem was caused by the Google Search Appliance identifying itself with the string googlebot, similar to the general search sit bot. The support section of the site was setup to return additional keyword information to the internal search appliance and "accidently" returned the same info to the regular googlebot.

    Of course, it's nice to hear they're making themselves fix it before relisting themselves.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  4. What old informal self? by gandell · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You mean this old Google?

    Or perhaps this one?

    --
    Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
  5. Could it just be PR? by stubear · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Though the existence of the cloaked pages at all is somewhat questionable, at least Google has responded with integrity and consistency."

    Wow, they removed the pages that were discovered. How many more are there and have these been cleaned up as well?

  6. There is no longer any such thing... by talksinmaths · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...as critical thinking. Didn't anyone see this posting from the March 8 comments?

    --
    Don't you have someone you'd die for?
  7. Re:Understanding Complaints by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Thing is, I know businesses that take an evil route - screw customers, don't worry about recommendations and retention because there will be another sucker along soon, just keep aggressive marketing going.

    On the other hand, there are businesses founded by people who whilst they wanted to make money, also had an interest in creating something. In many cases, they fostered a positive culture.

    I've worked in organisations that turned from evil to good. Rather than being dishonest with customers, they decided to be more transparent with them. As well as being easier to work with, it paid off.

    I don't think such decisions are down to someone taking alternate profit views, they are far more about the attitude of the person in charge. Are they a cynic about the world, or positive about it?