Oh, yeah, I'm sure that's what they were doing. My point was a) that they shouldn't have claimed that the whole thing was a bad data push and left it like that, b) banned like 13 domains and then claim it was "fixed", and c) if they were doing manual bannings (as seems to be the case), done a buttload more in a much shorter time period. What I found wasn't extensive in depth searching, it was a pattern I noticed and 2 hours worth of looking around. Plus, you have to factor in the only thing I have access to is less than top 1000 stuff... there's gotta be thousands of times more than what I saw that only they can view. -Michael
Well, that's hardly "your" point. It's been made in a dozen threads here, dozens more on other forums, and probably hundreds of blogs over the past several weeks.
Ah, I see. Where? I'm not doubting that you'll find discussions about what's been going on this past week, mind you, just guessing that you're probably lumping all of the discussions together as being "the same thing". -Michael
You are a little arrogant, aren't you? Among many others, I have been posting those same observations for a lot longer than a week, for example in response to blog entries by Matt Cutts going back to at least early May. Two quick examples: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=86819 (May 20) http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=85615&page=2 (May 17) Do your own search for more. You'll find similar posts by me and many many others going back earlier that that at DP and on other forums.
What you just posted has this to do with what I was talking about: 1) Both you and I were referring to Google 2) I quoted someone who works for Matt in my article, and mentioned Matt. 3) Somewhere along the way, the spam issue got tied loosely in with the site: command. Other than that, unless I'm missing some serious issues, what you posted to prove that what I was saying has been talked about many times before is unrelated to what I was saying. Btw - being right != being arrogant. -Michael
vandemar is just a vain attention seeking asshole and wana be moderator also, he proves this everywhere he goes and he is a tag on thread spammer, he has always done this everywhere he goes! Mike tell us how you came up with a duplicate issue to Nintendo's original thread then worked with Daz to spam Digg with the same story to garner attention and traffic and see your name in the lights? PS: I like those comments where she said you were a cute single guy, you and her getting married now?
...as if this was something you discovered and pointed out to the rest of us mere mortals. I responded as follows: Your reply to that? I then gave just two (of many) you examples of posts going back a lot further than a week: And now you say: Let me be the first to say, "Huh???". You ARE reading this thread, aren't you? And what you post in it?
He has no idea what he is talking about, he is a second class coder that makes bad SEO Tools and is here for attention to spam Nintendo's thread and try to "Make a name for himself" by stealing Nintendo's concept and recreating the same thing over again and spamming Digg with it for traffic with his "partner" Daz! They got "The Scoop" you know, not Nintendo or The Hoff, but Mike and Daz have it now!
The first thread you pointed out discussed the relationship to sites being deindexed to the site: query. The second had to do with deindexing, Matts statement that the deindexing had to do with linkings, and the fact that Google appears to be broken since Big Daddy. Please don't point to the actual posts again and say they're related, you did that in the original post. I'm asking HOW are they related? Is my summary of those two posts wrong? Also, you asked me if I'm reading this thread and understanding what I'm reading. This thread is about the recent spam attack. The two posts you gave as examples had nothing to do with this thread. Unless, of course, I missed something. -Michael
Actually, wait. I think I see where you might be getting confused... are you thinking that Google was blaming the bad data push as the reason for the site: command being broken? -Michael
Since when is creating a bot to do some research, which presents a nice layout of facts, being arrogant? All Michael did was come up with a way to show the scope of the problem. When he showed me the results, I thought it was interesting enough to blog about. I'm sure if one of the "big wigs" out there had done the same thing, like DaveN just off the top of my head, it would have been big news. Frankly, I think it is interesting to be able to see actual results rather than just theory, which is what all of us operate on 99% of the time. I don't see why anyone has to claim they said something first or not. Who cares? Michael created a quick tool to show a large problem. I, for one, am grateful to be able to see the list, so that we have something real and tangible to discuss. I'd be just as happy if another 10 people created another 10 tools to show even more of these things. It's not a matter of who does what better, first, quicker, whatever. That's just childish. Thanks, Michael, for spending the time to highlight the problem in a clear manner.
I think we are doing our best to forget about this guy, sorry he is associated with you, that is your problem to deal with Daz! It seems to me that you are trying to high jack Nintendo's story to create attention for yourself, you don't have to be so blatant in doing it though!
Thank you Donna, and that you again for giving me a place to post the article. I don't think that minstrel was calling me arrogant for writing the article. I think he was calling me arrogant for assuming that my points were different from what he and others were saying in earlier posts. I actually still believe that he was talking about something other than what I was, but I still could be wrong. -Michael
It's plain to everyone what your game is Vandemar, just look at your signature! Find another story to hang your hat on man, get lost!
Btw, minstrel, are you like, pissed off at me for not seeing how those threads you posted relate to what I was saying? Or did you understand what I mean? It wasn't meant to be an attack on you, or an attempt to steal someone else's discussion as my own. I honestly do believe that I am the first person to show that even though Google said the spam was fixed (spam, not the site: command, or the deindexing of sites), not only is it still out there, there are millions and millions of pages of it. They had tried to play it off like, "oh, that one site that was found, that was actually only 55,000 pages, not billions". -Michael
You are the latest and greatest and the first Mike, ya man! If not for you this story would not be what it is today, thanks man!
Hi guys, great thread... till last few pages... ohh, going back to the topic... beat Google?!. yeah this guy tried... but how about many of others who doest not want to make 5 bil/mil pages but keep it low, let say 10,000...100,000? Nobody even notice them... so lets do some math: 1 guy with 5,000,000,000 pages or 500,000 guys with 100,000 which leads in total of 50,000,000,000 pages? my point is that many people use this approach but they keep it on safe level... I guess that guy was drunk and forgot to adjust a loop counter in his script…