I don't think Bluefind has been penalised just for growing too quickly. I believe that Bluefind has been taken out as it might have been posing as a threat (not a major threat, but a threat nevertheless) to Google. There was some speculation that Bluefind were looking at introducing a search engine at some stage. If I were Google, I wouldn't help promote my competitors, would I?? And if growth was a problem, then big sites like Yahoo, Macromedia, Adobe would have been banned ages ago. They all must get hundreds of new links every day. Re the co-op, I do believe that sites which are a part of the co-op could be penalised at some stage which is why I am not a member of the co-op. Google could have a problem with the co-op because of the fact that you register on one site and overnight, get links from hundreds of sites (5,000 is it?). This is essentially the same structure used by link farms and Google could come down on the co-op if and when they feel like it. So, sites using the co-op can either stay and enjoy the growth and milk it while it lasts. Or, market the sites themselves but have a slower growth rate. I have chosen option B 'cos I know that although growth might be slower this way it would be permanent.
Directories that grow while not serving the public's need to be directed will all die eventually. Google sorts these slowly but surely.
Some interesting theories on Bluefind. As far a being banned, I don't think the majority of sites have anything to worry about with regards to getting links too fast. The sites that have had the problems were PR8. The number of quality links required to get a PR8 these days is mind bogling and probably very expensive. Link churn would probably be a greater concern in the short run, especially if you rely on Google traffic. MSN and Yahoo don't seem to care. The co-op can help some sites but it will hurt others.
"I can't see Google taking out a threat like that. Thats unethical." Perhaps. Didn't they refuse to list kazaalite because kazaa complained? When they should have said "hey... we're a search engine, we spider pages, take it up with the owner of the page." http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=789
If I were Google, I would definitely NOT HELP my competition flourish using my resources. Bluefind was getting bigger based on a high PR (Google PR) and perhaps getting heaps of traffic as well (Once again, from Google). And at the same time, threatening to encorporate a search engine which would have provided (tried, at least) competition to Google. No wonder Google turned off life support. I would have done the same. Would you help a business grow only to give you competition??
Antitrust laws exists to prevent companies from eliminating all their competition. Just because a company has the power to squash its competition like a bug doesn't mean they can legally and morally do it. I have no idea if the laws have quite caught up with the speed of the internet.
I guess the word "glitch" comes in handy for these sort of issues. We didnt ban Bluefind there was a computer glitch, no illegal activity here.
That's the point. Bluefind was/is a directory. But, there was speculation that they were going to introduce a search engine which might have given a bit of competition (not much though) to Google.
That seems a bit silly as if you search for "search engine" on google they have LOTS of competitors listed. Why don't they just black ball all of those guys? Something doesn't make sense..
Google is King of the SEs. I don't think they worry one bit about any of the smaller ones that pop up and then vanish. I don't think they even worry about Yahoo or MSN.
I agree with Web Gazelle. Bluefind would grow a thousand times and still not be any threat to Google.