Google bombing defense

[telephone]

Hey all,

There was an article in the NY Times today on google bombing's rise in the political arena. Anyone here know how to bomb-proof themselves, or combat it once it's been done?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us...gewanted=print

[stock_post]

There will be time when a new glue will be on top beating google.

I am one of those guys who wait for that.

Reading the article makes me think that is not very far.

Hi the new glue where are you..

Thanks

[trichnosis]

google will be life in future i didn't suprised.

[telephone]

Anyone out there have a technical response?

[Lexiseek]

Originally Posted by telephone

Anyone out there have a technical response?

Defend what against it? A ranking? How could you. It's a group of unrelated people that will do what they want.

Why would bloggers go after your term though?

[telephone]

it's nothing i have a stake in, i was just thinking about the way a politician or say a corporation might defend themselves from it.

in the article they mention:

It will be harder to manipulate results for searches of the name of a candidate who has already been widely covered in the news and widely discussed in the blogosphere, because so many links and so many pages already refer to that particular name. Search results on lesser-known candidates, with a smaller body of references and links, may be easier to change.

aside from the above, anyone have any ideas? let's pretend you fell into the latter category, of "lesser-known candidates, with a smaller body of references and links", and you were the subject of a google bomb attack. is there anything you can do online to reduce the effects of a google bombing after the fact?

[Nintendo]

Originally Posted by telephone

Anyone here know how to bomb-proof themselves, or combat it once it's been done?

I'm guessing cloaking. If it's Google, redirect to say an anti-democrat site.

[telephone]

Originally Posted by Nintendo

I'm guessing cloaking. If it's Google, redirect to say an anti-democrat site.

awesome. seems like cloaking is an answer to a lot of things.

if anyone has any other ideas, do tell!

[kerouac3001]

Originally Posted by Nintendo

I'm guessing cloaking. If it's Google, redirect to say an anti-democrat site.

yes and the anti-democratic site will report you as spam

[Dudibob]

lol, a robots.txt and then you can hide under a rock for the rest of time lol, there is no real defense against a Google bomb, unless you get Google to help you(!?!!!!!!?!?!)

[LinkBliss]

I would think that you can detect what the referrer is and if they searched for a particular term you could redirect them elsewhere?

I'm no php genius but this is what I hacked together some months ago as part of a script, see php resources/sites for more info.

$referparts[] = parse_url($_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER']);

echo $referparts[0][host];

Would this be the same as cloaking?

Eric

[kerouac3001]

Originally Posted by LinkBliss

Would this be the same as cloaking?

Yes, it's the same as cloacking

[FeldBum]

Originally Posted by telephone

Anyone here know how to bomb-proof themselves, or combat it once it's been done?

Bomb back. Remember what happened with the Google bombing for the word "Jew". It originally led to JewWatch, an anti-semitic hate site until a Google Bombing moved the Wikipedia entry to the #1 spot. Supporters of JewWatch bombed back, and Wikipedia supporters bombed back again and now it is a constant battle for the #1 spot.