Doug Outs SearchGuild

68 comments

Seems Doug is still on the warpath. Reliable industry sources have just told me that SearchGuild was the latest victim.

I was lucky enough to receive a garbled answer phone message from Chris and Gurtie, seems they were in a rush to get to the airport...

We've got to flee before the fuzz catch up with us. We love you all and we'll send you a postcard and continue writing this blog from our hideout in Brazil.

They have posted a full confession on GreyHatNews before doing the honorable thing.

We'll miss you guys...

Comments

Running scared eh?

I can imagine.

Rumour has it that SG was literally quoting Google guidelines. Bloody scrapers!

Bad karma will get you lot. Even in Brazil!!!

pass me another pina colada

and register me with an Orkut account.... I'm sure I can find some way to scrape that ;)

Seriously - if a site which prides itself on outing spammers wishes to do so then I guess thats up to them, but they should be able to tell the difference between a redirect implimented to stop forum spam (and even robots.txt'd out) and framing a website for adsense purposes (or even between a forum and a blog), and if they can't then I have to question whether they should be outing alleged-spammers without checking with someone who knows what they're talking about first.

Anyway - make sure you pay the ransom before 2pm today Matt, or the page gets it......

The use of the frame from

The use of the frame from any originating site is plain annoying, though. Not spamming, just baneful. :)

And it's breach of copyright ...

... I suppose using 'nofollow' was too complicated for them?

yup.

I don't believe that nofollow had been invented when SearchGuild started, so at the time it was somewhat beyond our abilities to add it :)

We do of course say in the forum rules that if you find any content objectionable you may ask to have it removed. So far no one has objected to their site being framed in this way by us, least of all Google.

Anyway we do much much worse things than that - have you seen our 'screenshot-in-post' facility? I feel a special fire in hell being stoked for us as I type this.

Theft is still theft, even if there's no obvious harm

You did the same to one of my links:
http://www.searchguild.com/redir/o.php?out=http://www.seo2seo.com/articles/seo-hats.shtml - but I have a few lines of 'frames escape' javascript, so the frames get removed.

It's bad manners, and unnecessary.

You could provide a straight link; a broken link (eg add a space), or maybe leran to use 'nofollow'

But I have zero expectation you'll do it; horses for courses, as my old granny used to say.

Feh!

Quote:
... I suppose using 'nofollow' was too complicated for them?

We implemented the frames years before Google ever cooked up their nofollow scheme. The frames are plainly visible to all and we see no reason to run out and change our code every time the search engines descend from from the mountain top with fresh self serving linking schemes etched on stone tablets. Part of a good link drop deterrent is making it visible all comers which nofollow is not. Besides, I suspected they would pull a bait and switch on the nofollow tags and IMO Google and Y! later did.

Actually we were listening to the admonishments of GoogleGuy about not linking to Bad Neighborhoods. We just took his advice to heart.

I'm sure chris and Gurtie will be very happy in Brazil, if you are sipping enough umbrella drinks on the beach it does not matter how long it takes Orkut to load does it?

Sorry Quadrille,

But the thought of you teaching me about good manners is making me giggle, for some reason.

I believe theft (larceny) is

Quote:
The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner

That doesn't sound like what we're doing to be honest, I can't see that the owner is being deprived. Of what? How? You're surely not talking about our not passing PR are you?

a spade is a spade...

For the frame to become an issue now shows just how out of touch some people are. While they are fun to laugh at, IHY has little value beyond that.

Also, speaking of manners, I just wanted to say seo2seo is a minger twat.

But the thought of you

But the thought of you teaching me about good manners is making me giggle, for some reason.

I know what you mean Gertie

Pass the olives :)

...We love that Google

Quote:
...We love that Google policy page; if it was a russian bride we'd click "Buy Now" and pay a hundred quid for her contact details. ..

thank you! this is one of the funniest friday posts i have seen in a long time

Grammar, dear boy

Quote:
I just wanted to say seo2seo is a minger twat.

A bit harsh, but 'A' for effort. For future reference:

seo2Seo is a minger's twat

or

seo2seo is a minging twat

Not quite at NickW's level yet, but your willingness to practice on-forum is much appreciated by all us Brits. :)

Yeah

I would have said 'seo2seo is a fucking twat' myself.

Um.......

OT! Not that that is bad - per se - heh.

seo2seo's posting style reminds me of IHY's Quadrille BTW. Nice effort...

Back on-topic. How's the weather in Rio, Gurtie?

IQ exceeded by shoe size?

seo2seo's posting style reminds me of IHY's Quadrille BTW

I was "outed" by a member of this forum's 8 year old daughter a year ago - go check.

Not that it was ever a secret, but you guys love a conspiracy ...

IQ exceeded by height - in metres

That doesn't sound like what we're doing to be honest, I can't see that the owner is being deprived. Of what? How? You're surely not talking about our not passing PR are you?

So as well as not coping with 'nofollow', you've never heard of copyright theft?

Are you *sure* this is the industry for you?

... And I'm outa here. Too

... And I'm outa here.

Too long in the same thread as you slimeballs, and I need to take a shower ...

aaah bless

so sensitive :)

Thanks for asking Wit, the weathers great but I got sand in my Mai Tai and had to have an emergency triple tequila to recover.

Can we just ignore,

Can we just ignore, seo2seo/quadrille/Andrew of whatever his name is – it’s obvious he’s only here to troll as his own website says
"The troll posts a message, often in response to an honest question, that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group."

(btw i used nofollow as his site links to his forum which looks like its on a link selling network)

Is it just me

Or has TW returned to its former glory since DaveN stepped on?

(by that I mean, more mudslinging, namecalling, british insults, and generally entertaining, timewasting threads which offer no educational value whatsoever. y'know, bollocks)

he he he

A Friday knock 'em, sock 'em on TW.
A gorgeous Spring day in NYC.
An inspiration to sip caipirinhas later on.

All is right with the world.

She's a Witch!!

Man this reads like a Monty Python act.

IHY implies Search Guild a witch and now their peasant want to burn it...

heeeeeeeeelp

there's a man chasing me with a large set of scales and a duck.....

(ya gotta know Monty Python and I'm not explaining it to anyone who doesn't....)

Bah

I fart in your general direction.

DG - There's no need...

...to drag the French into this :shock:

__

Silly English kaniggits.

oi!

come over here and say that you coward.... I'll bite your ankles....

Minger?

I love Brit insults. They're so quaint. But I have no idea what a "minger" is. Should I assume anal sex is involved? That seems to be the case more often than not.

Anyway, back to the supposed controversy at hand. I just searched around and couldn't find a policy from Google regarding the republishing of their content. I think if anyone were to find such a page it would end the argument (and the fun, I'm afraid).

My guess would be that, since many of us have quoted G's policies in the past, they don't have a problem with it as long as we credit them and link to the relevant page. Framing G's page without adding advertisements, blocking it from spiders, including the page's URL and putting the URL right next to a close button which takes the page out of the frame... it seems to me that nobody's doing any harm to anyone. If this is a question of stealing PR, it didn't work (shame on you, Gurtie).

In other words, I'm afraid this is just a big fat nothing. If somebody wants to see if Matt Cutts wants to comment on this, and he actually responds that this specific example is something of which he and/or Google disapproves, I'll eat my nonexistent hat.

Erm....

I found it: http://www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html

Quote:
Things You Can't Do

You can't (and agree not to) do any of the following:

* Display a Google Brand Feature as the most prominent element on your web page;
* Display a Google Brand Feature in any manner that implies a relationship or affiliation with, sponsorship, or endorsement by Google, or that can be reasonably interpreted to suggest editorial content has been authored by, or represents the views or opinions of Google or Google personnel;
* Display a Google Brand Feature on any Web site that contains or displays adult content, promotes gambling, involves the sale of tobacco or alcohol to persons under twenty-one years of age, or otherwise violates applicable law;
* Display a Google Brand Feature in a manner that is in Google's sole opinion misleading, defamatory, infringing, libelous, disparaging, obscene or otherwise objectionable to Google;
* Display a Google Brand Feature on a site that violates any law or regulation;
* Frame or mirror any Google page (including the page that appears in response to a click on the Google logo or Google search box); or
* Remove, distort or alter any element of a Google Brand Feature.

Someone should probably request clarification on this. You can get written permission from them to use their content and trademarks, but I'm not sure that would include permission to frame pages.

However, I wonder how many SEOs have Google's logo on their site without written permission. From http://www.google.com/permissions/

Quote:
When Do I Need Permission to Use Google Brand Features?

The short answer is, almost always.

All of Google's trademarks, logos, web pages, screen shots, or other distinctive features ("Google Brand Features") are protected by applicable trademark, copyright, and other intellectual property laws. If you would like to use any of Google Brand Features on your website, in an advertisement, in an article or book, or reproduce them anywhere else, you must first receive Google's permission. We've tried to make this process as painless as possible.

Shame shame shame

oh Qwerty

you ruin all the fun!

Actually I doubt Google will be upset, if you do an image search they do, erm, exactly the same thing. But then again Google do evil now as well so.....

PR was the only thing I could think we were being accused of removing from the rightful owner, since we deny robots access to those pages so theres no SE presence in our name of their content, and any actual visitor clicking on them would see it was obviously another site, wouldn't they?

But I am only short so my IQ is clearly very low and without a member of IHU to tell me what exactly we're stealing I get all confused.....

But anyway, spamming is all about intent so if we meant to steal stuff and accidentally didn't doesn't that still count? pretty please? I'm enjoying life on the run.....

heh

Quote:
However, I wonder how many SEOs have Google's logo on their site without written permission.

what? like this you mean?

Sorry

You could tell me what "minger" means if you want to go back to the fun part.

I think we need to get some clarification from Big G if we actually want to know whether this practice is OK. If they say you can't frame their pages, does that mean you can't do it even if you make it absolutely crystal clear that 1) this is Google's page, 2) you can pull it out of the frame any time 3) your framed version of their page isn't being indexed?

LMAO

I can tell Doug isn't on the same page but is he on the same planet?

FYI, for you people that don't know British slang, it's easy enough to look up the words in the dictionary, what a concept.

see that flying pig?

Google? Crystal Clear? You think?

Its not really about Google to be honest - all links inserted into posts are dealt with in the same way. Its just that that happened to be the one quoted. It would be nice to hear Googles comments but they don't rule the net and they definately don't have the final say on what is or isn't acceptable to everyone else :)

Anyway - minger

Hmmm

I just don't get how someone can say this is wrong but this is ok?

With all the thread flaming aside, it is an interesting topic. When does something turn into copyright infringement? Google has consistently won cases that allow them to cache a page? Why should Tiger Sushi be held to a different standard? Again, not taking sides here, but I find it odd that those who are against the framing and such don't mind it when search engines do it.

We'll see if Google really...

...gives a sh*t about this non-issue as soon as SearchGuild's home page PR drops from 6 to 0. Until then: let he who is without sin cast the first yada yada...

Back on-topic: did you swim with the Amazon dolphins yet, Gurtie?

Yep, when Ask did it, fine.

Yep, when Ask did it, fine. When Google plays with our images and cached pages, okay. And why even bring up About framing off-site pages?

But when a sitting-on-a-low-fence SEO does it, well, there just has to be something evil behind it.

Doug should relax

IHY needs to take a chill pill on the searchguild frame redirect.

SearchGuild has been online well before nofollow was introduced... But that isn't the point.

The point is if ANYONE could do link drops, then why would you want your site linking to whatever spammer showed up that moment? This was the entire reason Google introduced the nofollow tag... because sites like Searchguild were forced to use tactics such as framed link outs in order to save themselves from getting spammed right and left.

SearchGuild is one of the most respected SEO forums out there... and for Doug to out it just because he feels that any link drops go into a framed window is bad needs to go on vacation or something.

Doug Needs to

I think Doug should move his focus into reality shows like Survivor or Big Brother or other type "high drama" shows. Maybe he could finally be good at something.

Reality

Quote:
I think Doug should move his focus into reality shows

Didnt he win on "The Biggest Loser"? Damn, where are those before and after pics?

On Google's AdSense for

On Google's AdSense for Search program they try to add a Google logo to your site for you by default. It direct links to Google, thereby allowing your users to bypass your comissioned search box. Thoughtful, no doubt.

More than default

I believe you're required to leave it there. You can't use their search if you remove the logo. But I don't have a problem with that. Apart from the logo, there's the choice to search the web or to search your site, and you can make your own site the default.

I make almost nothing on the ads in the SERPs for on-site searches, but I don't care. It's a free search engine.

Of course you don't have to use it, but I think Atom's free version displays ads too.

You can also have the search

You can also have the search box say "Search Google" on the form button and not need to publish the Google logo (and give them free traffic).

I didn't know that. Thanks.

I didn't know that. Thanks.

FYI, for you people that

FYI, for you people that don't know British slang, it's easy enough to look up the words in the dictionary, what a concept.

Indeed Bill - but for a true insight into British slang - the urban dictionary is hard to beat.

Minger: a male or female who fell out of the ugly tree at birth and hit every branch on the way down

It even covers asshat quite well. :D

There is literally NO court

There is literally NO court anywhere that would say another website can frame the content of another without permission to do so. Those are the facts. Nothing else matters.

What I really can't understand is why on one had Doug says the above yet another he says it is OK for Google do the same thing. I have read is 'justification' and it simply does not hold water. At times he says it ok cos Google allow you to opt out, and then on other times says expecting a site to opt out is the wrong way round, they should opt in.

I read whole thread and he successfully managed to not answer the direct question of why Google can abide by different rules!

So if a judge says it's ok...

Then it's ok right? Whether you are Google or Searchguild?

No, Doug says that it is ok for Google to frame your content without permission, but Searchguild can't. He believes this regardless of what the Judge said.

So, you can frame another page

So, you can frame another page huh? How insane is that?

Jeeesus, somebody tell these people how basic HTML works! Dang ignorants!

Well, I can help. It's easy + it's free. If you don't know about frames, here is all you need to read - one page only.

Goog

Goog doesn't use frames for the "cache" link. In stead they show you a copy of your page stored on their servers. Before display that copy has extra text inserted at the top of the page.

Had they framed you they would show your page -- unchanged -- from your own server. Now they show a changed version of your page from their server.

>> Atomz

Yes, Atomz display Google ads, but you don't get a rev share.

It is more ethical than technical...

Whether the content is displayed using 'HTML frames' or whether the content is simply framed - in the non-tehnical sense - is a moot point. It really is about whether one site can / should display another sites content whilst retaining the first sites URL in the browser.

Whether it is Google showing a copy on it's own servers or SG showing the current version within a frame makes no difference - it is still showing somebody elses content without asking.

Agree, but

..that wasn't my point.

Framing: Somebody arranges a conference call, you get to hear my voice live.

Google: A Google spokesperson will tell you what I said.

The Judge says that it is ok for Google.

No, Doug says that it is ok for Google to frame your content without permission, but Searchguild can't. He believes this regardless of what the Judge said.

You clearly have not read what the judge said.

The judgement (rightly or wrongly) lets Google off the hook for specific reasons. Those reasons do not apply to SG or most other folk. SG don't do caches, so far as I know.

Why not read what the judge actually said
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6050667.html

You're gonna have a hard time...

...searching for that particular judge, seo2seo. He may even have changed his mind after he bought himself a modem and really got online...

I did read the judge..

But that is not the point and I will tell you why.

If the Judge said that what SG were doing was 'ok' would Doug then agree that it was 'ok'?

If your answer is 'Yes' - then I will conceed the point.

If your answer is 'No' - then maybe you will 'get' the point :)

Search engines do frame pages

A result of a Yahoo image search for Threadwatch

I get it now..

Yahoo must have asked permision first, and Doug must have told them they could frame his content.

That must be it, right? Cos, as Doug says ;

There is literally NO court anywhere that would say another website can frame the content of another without permission to do so. Those are the facts. Nothing else matters.

Framing

I always suspected those SG guys were a dodgy lot. Obviously an international manhunt is called for to bring these miscreants to justice.

The search engine police will be called in:
Yahoo International Police and Enforcement! (YIPE!)
Google Office Of Beta Enforcement Resources (G.O.O.B.E.R.)

heheheh

If only...

Google had a Google Office Of Beta Enforcement Resources...

Saint Doug

There is very little on the net as funny as Doug and his Apostles polishing their halos

Evil Gurtie

I always knew that Gurtie was evil. No woman could ever be that amusing and intelligent without having some sort of evil streak. (As the men here at TW already know.) Nice to see that Doug finally caught her and Chris redhanded.

And cuddly................

Oops, did I say that out loud???

evil and cuddly?

I don't mind the public accusations of evil but don't say cuddly in front of people Wit - that'd ruin my mystique for sure.

You only have to...

call her the ____ster to realize that there is no cuddly side ;)

You Mean To tell me...

That SEG is gay? Oh man, first Brokeback Mountain now greyhatnews...

Lets sing together...
Y M C A,
Its fun to stay at the
Y M C A

Oh, wait, i just read past the headline

you'e just jealous

no sooner do I whinge about isos getting all the attention than.......

Gurties Demise

Has St Dougie sprinkled you with holy water yet Gurtie ? I see he has won the pure pants award ( http://www.threadwatch.org/node/6002 )

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.