Links censorship gets unbearable!

grumbler

First it was google (why on earth?!). Luckily stopped now.

Now it is mediafire... And even old valuable links have been censored, not only newly posted. What's the point? Is it something that new owners dictate?

And I don't understand why, say, mobiles.co.uk gets blocked while e2save/osps/cpw are fine? This makes absolutely no sense!

Why omio(.com) that is promoted by Martin in his artice?! If you don't want to lose the income, substitute the links with affiliated ones instead of killing them.

I have a feeling that this policy went out of control.

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

Hi grumbler,

This is a perfectly valid point. The list we've added to the filter actually comes directly from google itself, and it's fairly expansive (interesting it actually contained "google")! To understand what they are doing and why, there's a good article on this > HERE <

So from our point of view, we are trying to adhere to their guidelines so it doesn't negatively affect our search ranking, but I completely accept there may be some entries that are either too broad for us, or are perhaps a little over zealous from google themselves.

What I suggest is that if people let us know any that seem as such, but taking into account the article I've linked to, I will ask my techie team to have a look and make a decision on whether we can lift the filter on them. I can't promise they all will, as we need to protect ourselves and follow the guidelines, but we will certainly assess.

grumbler

MSE_Forum_Manager wrote: »

...To understand what they are doing and why, there's a good article on this > HERE <

So from our point of view, we are trying to adhere to their guidelines so it doesn't negatively affect our search ranking, ....

Thank you, but I don't understand how some links can violate copyright. Are you sure it was the correct link?

Or are you required to remove the links to the delinquent websites?

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

From what I understand, if the link has been reported to google as breaking copyright laws (for this read : piracy or similar), then that link makes their black list and other sites (like us) carrying links to them are negatively scored.

I'm coming at this from a non-techie perspective but I think this is correct:

1. JoeBloggs.net is being used to host bad material
2. JoeBloggs.net is reported to google numerous times for doing this
3. Google mark JoeBloggs.net down for doing it so often
4. We carry links to JoeBloggs.net
5. Google mark us down accordingly for search

Penalties vary based on content, but I *think* that's the basics. It's fairly new to us to, so there will naturally be some change and realignment, including us personally making judgement calls on some cases as I referred to before.

Does that help?

Apologies to joebloggs.net too, if it exists!

System

Do you notice the one major step missing in the processw?

Google checking back on the site on a regular basis to verify whether the 'ban' still stands.

Google starting to dictate the domains that can be mentioned?

[Deleted User]

oi i used to like joe bloggs jeans lol