Is Google Abusing its Power?

[JJMcClure]

There is no charge to start a thread on a topic you want to talk about.

Seems a bit silly to have to start a new thread for a question that arose out of this discussion, which has run it's course, and which is aimed at you specifically. I guess if you wanted to explain your fixation on Google you would have done it already. Think I'll just live with my assumptions and go back to nursing my hangover.

[JJMcClure]

I think I need to clarify my point here.

I understand your point about Google 'stealing' content and it is a conflict and a legally/morally hazy area, no doubt about it. But, Google aren't the only people doing it, all search engines do it (hence my question about the fixation on Google) and also, without doing it there probably wouldn't be any search engines so isn't it a necessary evil? They do provide the means for you to prevent it happening although content can sometimes fall through the cracks as happened to you which was unfortunate.

[benitez17]

I think I need to clarify my point here.

I understand your point about Google 'stealing' content and it is a conflict and a legally/morally hazy area, no doubt about it. But, Google aren't the only people doing it, all search engines do it (hence my question about the fixation on Google) and also, without doing it there probably wouldn't be any search engines so isn't it a necessary evil? They do provide the means for you to prevent it happening although content can sometimes fall through the cracks as happened to you which was unfortunate.

Google is a fixation at times in this area because they are the biggest SE and they are generally the most innovative (I believe they are the ones who came up with image search as we know it today). You mention that there are something like 2000 search engines in an earlier post, but in reality, there are 2 that most people care about (since Bing is now used for Yahoo! search).

A search engine can index pages and provide them as results without basically scraping the page like Google is doing for dictionary results and their latest implementation of image search. There should be a symbiotic relationship between the search engines and content providers, but if Google continues to move in the direction of taking content from websites without delivering page views, there will be a revolt.

[JJMcClure]

if Google continues to move in the direction of taking content from websites without delivering page views, there will be a revolt.

If Google ever get to a point where they're just a huge scraper site (of the kind that they themselves dissaprove of and try not to index) and being listed on Google doesn't actually get visitors to your site then I'll be the at the head of the queue to block the Google bot.

I have no problem with them doing what's best for their users and their business as long as it's good for me too.

[Clinton]

If Google ever get to a point where they're just a huge scraper site... and being listed on Google doesn't actually get visitors to your site

The former is already true and they are testing the waters with the latter. They no doubt know they can push that theft (of webmaster content/traffic) quite far without triggering a huge backlash of robots.txt blocks.

[benitez17]

If Google ever get to a point where they're just a huge scraper site (of the kind that they themselves dissaprove of and try not to index)

For images, they are already there in my opinion.

I have no problem with them doing what's best for their users and their business as long as it's good for me too.

No argument from me.

[Clinton]

For images, they are already there in my opinion.

I discovered something else today.

Suzzicks says here that when it comes to mobiles Google shows a "transcoded" page.

When this happens, the search engine will show the full search engine listing for the mobile-unfriendly page (like normal), but when you click on it, they will automatically take you to a temporary url that represents a ‘transcoded’ version of the page you requested, (rather than delivering you to the actual page listed in the search results). This temporary transcoded page actually lives on a subdomain hosted by the search engine, and shows a scraped version of the page you requested.

If you want to opt out of giving Google a free copy of your content (which I do with the noarchive meta) do you also have to opt out of this transcoding separately via a cache-control no-transform header? Anyone knows?

[JJMcClure]

If you want to opt out of giving Google a free copy of your content (which I do with the noarchive meta) do you also have to opt out of this transcoding separately via a cache-control no-transform header? Anyone knows?

If you don't want take advantage of this route to market you can do this - If you do not want Google to transcode your web page (took me about 15 seconds to find that, it's worth bookmarking GWC if you have a regular requirement for info like this Clinton)

[Clinton]

Thanks Rich, that's useful to know. (Route to market? LOL. Is that what they're calling it nowadays?)

Seriously, though, if the onus falls upon me to do something to block them from taking liberties with my intellectual property do you have a handy bookmark for how a webmaster can run a decent, useful website without this Gorg trying to take his stuff? I mean, I block them taking images, block them reproducing my content in their cache etc., and now find they've invented some new way of nicking my content - transponding - which they didn't bother to tell me about!

[JJMcClure]

Thanks Rich, that's useful to know. (Route to market? LOL. Is that what they're calling it nowadays?)

Seriously, though, if the onus falls upon me to do something to block them from taking liberties with my intellectual property do you have a handy bookmark for how a webmaster can run a decent, useful website without this Gorg trying to take his stuff? I mean, I block them taking images, block them reproducing my content in their cache etc., and now find they've invented some new way of nicking my content - transponding - which they didn't bother to tell me about!

Different strokes/requirements I guess. My view is that my site is being prepared for a specific mobile viewing platform, therebye giving me exposure to a whole new segment of my potential market, and I don't even have to do anything. Outstanding.

I have a symbiotic relationship with Google. Yes, they take my content without asking but the end result is that they send me visitors and I make a living so I let them do it and we're both happy, they need me, I need them, and they have a superb brand that my customers are familiar with which shortcuts a lot of marketing requiremetns for me, why would I mind that?