Discredit Google...? - the hacker's best friend?

[circusboy]

Hi Doug;

You had an earlier thread about discrediting Google...

I love Google and still use it despite what I'm about to show you... but, (this may be restating things) I think most who are believed to be 'discrediting' Google are only voicing their concern regarding Google's method of handling the whole SEO issue. (re: http://www.google.com/webmasters/seo.html )

It wasn't very smart how they seriously over-generalized our whole industry. To some, I'm sure it bordered on slander (if they just had've mentioned a name!)... I'm also quite sure their legal department didn't have a chance review the advisory either. Anyone reading it - who didn't know me and how I conduct business - would say I was a Google criminal because; I have a guarantee, I'm a one-man operation, and my clients link to me! All that said, it did help me to somewhat understand what they're actually looking for - indirectly (so that I may continue to 'ethically' offer my services).

I think a more appropriate way of handling the problem would be to simply issue a press release THAT CLEARLY TELLS PEOPLE HOW TO PROPERLY STRUCTURE THEIR WEBSITE. Not like now - it's hidden away, for people to 'find' - MAKE IT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. That way, those that should be 'at the top', will be. Most sites that SHOULD be at the top of Google aren't because of simple design flaws! It was wrong to vilify people who are trying to make an honest living (using experimentation and information they're not even sure is credible, because Google has never said so!).

Anyway, here's some info that I'm sure a few may find interesting... maybe Google should look into the 'ethical mirror' - and do a little shop cleaning themselves... YES, GOOGLE IS FALLIBLE!

Using some 'advanced' search features that Google publicly makes available... type this into the search bar - and prepare to be amazed... (without quotes) "allintitle:Index of / admin".

Or, for even more fun... try searching "confidential document doc" (do a little digging).

Or, even better yet, try "top secret, site:mil"

...play around even more, using your imagination....

This is hacker heaven!!!

(see more in the 'whitepapers' section - item #3 - of the flash site at www.penetrationtest.com - and 'fantomas' newsletter this week )

I mean really. What is 'ethical'. It is obviously: subjective.

I wonder how long it'll take to implement a few lines of code that fixes that bug? I think it would be ethical to do it right away - but that's just MY opinion.

There's more... some wierd and funky goings-on with the Google caching system - enabling 'position-jacking'! But that'll have to wait for another post...


In closing, I think it would be ethical for Google to issue a set of CLEAR guidelines (an industry 'standard' as it were) for all of us peons to live by - as not to be sent to 'Google Hell'.


Again, I love Google. I just don't like what they did - to us.

Work WITH us Google - not AGAINST us...

Remove your dark viel of secrecy - be more open to communication - you may avoid outgrowing yourself.



circusboy

www.3ringstudios.com

[apeuro]

It wasn't very smart how they seriously over-generalized our whole industry. To some, I'm sure it bordered on slander . . .

It's exactly the same as a travel website posting tips on how to avoid being pickpocketed when you go on vacation to Europe. No one is suggesting that all Europeans are pickpocketers, it's just that when you're in Europe it's prudent to take certain steps to avoid being pickpocketed.

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by circusboy
This is hacker heaven!!! And it has been for a long time... But all search engines do this, and it's not the search engines themselves that are fallible - it's the sites that publish their "secret" data, totally unprotected, on a publicly accessible Web server for everybody to read (including search engines).Originally posted by circusboy
In closing, I think it would be ethical for Google to issue a set of CLEAR guidelines (an industry 'standard' as it were) Google Webmaster Guidelines (http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html)

[circusboy]

Thanks guys;

Apeuro - not even close.

Do the travel websites go on to say... "Look out for Europeans that are alone, who say they are friendly, who drive a taxi, who wear blue hats on Sunday - they WILL pickpocket you."? NO - it's understood around the world that there are risks wherever you travel, and those sites are reminding you of that risk. Which is my point... it's already general public knowledge.

Alan - thanks for the link, but I already knew it was there - maybe Google should put that link on their home page. My point is that 98% of OTHER web designers don't know it's there. If Google - or some other ingenious search engine - were to make that information public through a press release (rather than bash our industry) - a lot more would be accomplished for the better of everybody, mostly the end user. I'm sure it would result in much higher quality search results, since many of those that Google currently overlooks are very valuable websites - BUT THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY'VE DONE WRONG - or that there is even a solution!! And try getting an answer from Google if you have a problem!!! Good luck.

Any other business operated this way WILL fold in no time...

More than half of my SEO business is consulting to large web design firms who have NO IDEA about these guidelines. Why? - Because God selected the CHOSEN FEW to do SEO and has revealed the 'Google Secrets' - NO. It's because this information is not public knowledge... If it WERE public knowledge, the unfortunate sites that currently get overlooked (or ranked lower) would be structured properly and ranked appropriately.


Alan, you've suggested the the end user of the internet is responsible for their secure data (much like people who don't use firewalls), well I think it's also a responsiblity of the software developers (including search engine bots) to "provide air bags and seat belts" in their programming. Or at least, they should make it public knowledge that you NEED seat belts, or how to install your own... Why hide it somewhere back in the manual were very few will see it...?



circusboy

www.3ringstudios.com

[Alan Perkins]

circusboy, you saidOriginally posted by circusboy
In closing, I think it would be ethical for Google to issue a set of CLEAR guidelines (an industry 'standard' as it were)I then provided a link to the very page where they have issued these guidelines, and you respondedthanks for the link, but I already knew it was thereMaybe you should have posted the link, instead of asking for it? :)Alan, you've suggested the the end user of the internet is responsible for their secure data (much like people who don't use firewalls), well I think it's also a responsiblity of the software developers (including search engine bots) to "provide air bags and seat belts" in their programmingYour opinion. I don't share it. IMO, if you publish a book containing your top secret information, then allow that book to be distributed around the libraries of the world, you might expect the public to read it.

[circusboy]

Put down your dukes, Alan! :)

Anyway, thanks for the suggestion, I've implemented both your and my ideas - I have a CLEARLY MARKED link to that page on my home page - check it out - www.3ringstudios.com - I'm soon going to add it to most other pages as well... I challenge everyone else to do the same. (I get 400 - 500 unique visitors/day - mostly web designers - this should help spread the word.)

BTW, I never asked for the link, I asked that Google make it easier for everyone else to access that information.

If it wasn't clear before (apologies), perhaps this will help...

GOOGLE SHOULD ISSUE A PRESS RELEASE WITH THAT INFO - LET THE PUBLIC KNOW (the public has total faith in Google right now - they'll listen). ALSO, PUT THE LINK RIGHT ON THE GOOGLE HOME PAGE WHERE IT IS VERY APPARANT - TO EVERYONE.

About the security issue..., bad analogy. I'm sure most website administrators are not intending to have their secret information "be distributed around the libraries of the world". What if you didn't even know that you were allowing the public to read your secret documents - because your publisher didn't tell you?

And look at what you're implying... that it's NOT the responsibility of developers to provide safe and secure software??? Do you really think that?


circusboy

[Alan Perkins]

:)
Originally posted by circusboy
About the security issue..., bad analogy.Good analogy IMO. :)I'm sure most website administrators are not intending to have their secret information "be distributed around the libraries of the world". What if you didn't even know that you were allowing the public to read your secret documents - because your publisher didn't tell you? Then you're a chump. Robots only read what people can read. If you are publishing secrets to your publicly accessible Web server - even if you disallow polite robots reading them using robots.txt - people and/or impolite robots are going to read them. Wise up. The problem isn't the robots reading these secrets, it's the people publishing them.And look at what you're implying... that it's NOT the responsibility of developers to provide safe and secure software???Different question. IMO a search engine need be neither safe nor secure, but it should fully disclose if it is unsafe or insecure.

[Quadrille]

circusboy, two points

1. I am not quite sure what you are asking for ... you are not seriously suggesting that Google reads all its own data and applies censorship, to protect careless webmasters. Are you?

Because, as you know, that is simply not possible.

2. I am not sure why you are so offended at Google, and so keen to knock chips off them ... you happen to belong to one of the dirtiest industries the world has ever known, not your fault, and I am not suggesting (nor is Google) that every operative is corrupt and dishonest, and I certainly do not suggest (nor does Google) that you are anything less than ethically perfect.

But Google is right to point out that most of your fellows are not providing the service they promise, and, what they do offer is mostly available free, for a few minutes work.

The fact that you post here, in this particular forum, suggests you are above the rip off brigade, but you are unwise to suggest your industry is as clean as you.

If you really have any doubt, instead of searching for ways to discredit Google, just take a glance at your competitors web sites ... they mostly discredit themselves!

For the sake of all here, I emphasis that I am NOT suggesting that ALL are corrupt, and nor does Google. But the evidence is there that a very large proportion are. Sorry, but it really should not come as a surprise :(

[circusboy]

Well guys, I never said anything about being perfect or anything close to it, and in fact, have in the past divulged my SEO faults on this forum (since and currently being cleaned up - didn't know any better, before).

Nor am I saying our industry is 'clean'... what I'm saying is that there is a more effective way to solve this problem, than bashing US - and it is to make this information more publicly available. Public knowledge of proper optimization will clean 'us' up.

Are you guys going to post a link to the Google guidelines on your home page? It would really help the situation. Sure, you might lose a bit of business, but there are some lazy people out there who'll get you to do SEO for them (seeing how simple it is).

Quadrille - About point 1 - If Google can detect if I'm using 'spam' SEO techniques - then surely they can implement a snippet of code that looks for a few choice keywords, like 'Top Secret', 'Confidential', or "Index of / admin" and autoresponds the webmaster warning of the risks. Or even easier, maybe a clear warning on their new URL submission page - SOMETHING that warns the 'chumps' out there. Because as we all know, there are very few administrators who know all this stuff - just look at the results.

About point 2 - I am not offended by Google, they haven't called me a chump or anything, I just offered my opinion that there was a smarter way to produce the results they are looking for. And as for "taking chips off them" - I'm just sharing knowledge that I just learned. Perhaps by revealing these pitfalls - I've helped someone else ('chump') who didn't know any better.

circusboy

[circusboy]

Why are you guys acting like 'Sergei's Bodyguards'? - LOL :)

Don't be so offended about what I've said about Google. Like I said, I'm just revealing some information I thought would be interesting to some, and it just might HELP another.

Did you not read the positive things I said about them? I love Google. It is definitely the best all-round search engine... there's just some stuff people should know about the system - to protect themselves.

circusboy

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by circusboy
I am not offended by Google, they haven't called me a chump or anythingI hope you're not offended at me, either. No offense intended, anyway. Just giving you my perspective. You asked "What if you...", the "you" being generic. I answered "Then you're a chump" - the "you" still being generic. :)

I still disagree that Google or any other search engine (or even ALL search engines) need to take it upon themselves to warn you about the content you have published to your own Web site.

Perhaps by revealing these pitfalls - I've helped someone else ('chump') who didn't know any better.That's the idea of the forums, and it is important that people find this out one way or the other. I guess the main problem is that the thread is called "Discredit Google...? - the hacker's best friend?" when it should be called something like "Warning - don't publish your private information to a public Web server", and be in this forum (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=9).
Why are you guys acting like 'Sergei's Bodyguards':) I'm defending search engines in general, not Google in particular.

[mrguy]

Think I'll chime in on the security issue:

IMO if a webmaster is putting top secret docs in an area that can be accessed by the public be it a robot or browser, then that person needs to learn more about how the web works.

Google can not program to compensate for peoples ignorance.

The very first thing I learned about when I became a webmaster was security and how to keep things safe.

As far as the guidelines go, I think they could of been better written but again, if your a webmaster, then it is your job to seek the information out. It is not Googles job to put it in your face and hold your hand through the whole process.

People are resposible for their own actions. If you choose to optimize a site for Google, then it is your responsiblilty to learn how to do it. It is not Googles to teach you.

IMO

[Matt B]

Originally posted by circusboy
Are you guys going to post a link to the Google guidelines on your home page? It would really help the situation. Sure, you might lose a bit of business . . .

Not only did I send the link to my clients, I may publish it on my company's web site. The guidelines that Google recently published are very similar to my marketing literature. So close, in fact, that it helped me gain new clients. Concerns and advice that I gave earlier are now published by Google, giving me more credibility as an expert in Web Marketing and sealing many deals.

I don't see Google's guidelines as a slap in the face to the SEO industry, I saw it as confirmation that my company and I are on the same track and doing things right by Google. So did my clients.

Also, if a webmaster is careless enough to allow information to be unprotected then it is a company's responsibility to get it corrected and get a new host or webmaster. By your definition, Google would be a babysitter, not a search engine. Either way, any search engine can turn up the same results, so why is it Gg's problem?

There are still companies that obviously do not know that PDF's are indexible either, and how many press releases have been published about that feature?

[Advisor]

mrguy pretty much summed up my feelings on this matter...

Why should Google or any search engine have to explain how things work to people?

If you want to put info on the Web, learn how to do it right and make stuff secure that needs to be secure. Google is now bad because they don't tell people how to do this? Puhleeze!

And they're also bad now because they don't give out SEO secrets? Double puhleeze!

Learn SEO the way we all did. FIGURE IT OUT! If you're waiting for Google to give you the rules, then you really are a chump. And like Alan, I am not speaking about anyone in particular, just the collective "you" who need to be spoonfed.

Guess what it all comes down to? Same thing as everything else in life...plain old fashioned common sense! How did so many people grow up to have so little of it?

Jill

[Matt B]

Originally posted by Advisor
Learn SEO the way we all did. FIGURE IT OUT!

Jill

Amen, Sister !

[circusboy]

It scares me how you all are missing the point.

"Learn SEO the way we all did. FIGURE IT OUT!" - What kind of CRAP is that?

What's the purpose of this forum then? So that a small clique of individuals can pat each other on the back? - NO. It is to help people. When a newbie comes in here looking for help, do you say "Learn SEO the way we all did. FIGURE IT OUT!" - NO. You help them. You even direct them to the very page I'm talking about. Why the sudden change of attitude?

It seems I've said a few things to p*** people off... so I'll try to make this a simple as possible, please state your answers:

Q1. Agree / Disagree:
This link on the Google home page would help out a lot of web designers / developers who currently don't know any better... or don't know that this document or its practices even exists. (I see they have it a few clicks from the AddURL page.)
Google Webmaster Guidelines (http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html)
(linked to http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html - NOT the advisory against SEO which is where I think some are getting confused).

Q2. Agree/Disagree:
If more web designers / developers knew how to properly structure a site (as stated in the guidelines), our 'black-eyed' industry would intrinsically get 'cleaned up' due to proliferation of proper knowledge.

Q3. Agree/Disagree:
If more web designers / developers knew how to properly structure a site (as stated in the guidelines), search engines could produce higher quality search results.

If you answer 'disagree' to any of these questions, what are your motives?

circusboy

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by circusboy
Q1. Agree / Disagree:
This link on the Google home page would help out a lot of web designers / developers who currently don't know any better...Agree that it would help, but disagree that it should be placed there. The vast majority of visitors to the home page are not designers / developers. Therefore, the link would be inappropriate there.Q2. Agree/Disagree:
If more web designers / developers knew how to properly structure a site (as stated in the guidelines), our 'black-eyed' industry would intrinsically get 'cleaned up' due to proliferation of proper knowledge.That's what we're trying to do here, and to a certain extent I agree it would be cleaner, if not cleaned up.Q3. Agree/Disagree:
If more web designers / developers knew how to properly structure a site (as stated in the guidelines), search engines could produce higher quality search results.Agree.If you answer 'disagree' to any of these questions, what are your motives?Truth. :)

[scottiecl]

What's the purpose of this forum then? So that a small clique of individuals can pat each other on the back? - NO. It is to help people. When a newbie comes in here looking for help, do you say "Learn SEO the way we all did. FIGURE IT OUT!" - NO. You help them. You even direct them to the very page I'm talking about. Why the sudden change of attitude?

If we didn't want to help people, we wouldn't be here. This forum helps a lot of people every day. That is the purpose of this forum. Take a little time to read past threads and you will see that the same questions are answered again and again and again.

People who want to get the "Quick Start to SEO" can find it in a number of books or search in any number of places on the web (including this forum)and get the basics. Not too difficult.

I don't think anyone is acting "like 'Sergei's Bodyguards'", they simply disagree with you. Why do posters resort to namecalling when the majority of people disagree with them?

[scottiecl]

on the agree/disagree... what Alan said :)

[MJR]

Oh my! That's all I'm going to say!

[Kal]

Originally posted by circusboy
Nor am I saying our industry is 'clean'... what I'm saying is that there is a more effective way to solve this problem, than bashing US - and it is to make this information more publicly available. Public knowledge of proper optimization will clean 'us' up. The only people Google were "bashing" in those guidelines were SEO's that use unacceptable or "unethical" techniques to attain high rankings with or without their clients' permission. Only spammers should feel legitimately threatened by Google's stance. All other SEO's should feel vindicated, IMO. Many of us in the forums obviously do feel that way and have been publicizing the new guidelines, writing articles about them, linking to them etc etc.

Originally posted by mrguy
Google can not program to compensate for peoples ignorance.
hear, hear! :cheers:

[Matt B]

Originally posted by circusboy
It scares me how you all are missing the point.

"Learn SEO the way we all did. FIGURE IT OUT!" - What kind of CRAP is that?
What's the purpose of this forum then? So that a small clique of individuals can pat each other on the back? - NO. It is to help people.
It scares me that you expect people to be spoon-fed years of wisdom with no effort or investment on their part. The old proverb frames your problem quite elegantly:
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, Teach him to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.
"The moral, as if it weren't painfully obvious, is that education is far more beneficial to the recipient than charity."

Education is the by-product of study, practice, testing, trial and error, etc. We can only offer advice and a little help.

[Matt B]

Corollary to the proverb:

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Try and teach a man to fish and he will give you one hundred and fifty three excuses why you should just give him another fish and quit bothering him about all of this "learning to fish" nonsense."

some days . . . . {sigh} :rolleyes:

[Advisor]

"Learn SEO the way we all did. FIGURE IT OUT!" - What kind of CRAP is that? It's not crap at all. Part of "figuring it out" is figuring out the best resources. There's plenty of good info out there -- including this forum -- that can help anyone who wants to figure it out, figure it out!
It seems I've said a few things to p*** people off... so I don't believe you've pissed anyone off. We're just discussing your posts!

And again, at least with my posts, they're not directed at you specifically, so please don't be offended by them. I'm not telling YOU specifically to figure it out.

Jill

[nitewing2]

LOL SEO guy, I've run into a few of THOSE!!


nitewing2

[Chris_D]

And the postscript to the corollary is

"Teach a man to fish, and he'll just end up in a boat on Sydney Harbour most Saturdays with his mates drinking beer...."

I think the best part of the new google rules is the encouragement by Google for SEO's to report SE cheating. How clever is that!!

Now, if google announced that every "ethical" SEO would also get a nice new google T Shirt, with 'Google spam POLICE' printed across the back of it, in exchange for every 20 spammers they reported - the index would be clean as a whistle in no time at all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kal]

:green: and I reckon that Doug would scoop the first shirt!

[Matt B]

I would hold out for a nice button down, nothing flashy, not too assuming; but a T-shirt for 20 spammers is pretty cheap, IMO. :D

[scottiecl]

If I could get a mug, I could turn in a few spammers. Maybe some Google pencils and a frisbee too.

[Dan0]

hacker's heaven? spammer's heaven too.

Try this search:
Usage Statistics for Generated by Webalizer

Better yet, this one:
Usage Statistics for Generated by Webalizer November 2002 Referrers

You'll see a lot of adult sites showing up as top referrers on many of these stats pages - that's referrer/link spam.

[Chris_D]

Hey Kal

Just noticed your 'Kal in her Christmas suit' avatar!! Well done!!

How long have you been changing avatars for different events?

<cheeky>
So when's your birthday?
</cheeky>

:)

Couldn't resist !!

Chris

[Kal]

:green: Well you missed my birthday (was in Sept) but we had a special party in the staff room. Only other mods got to see my birthday suit ;)