Re: old sites playing dirty tricks

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 06:24:50 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> __/ [wd] on Sunday 23 October 2005 05:55 \__
>
>> I'm seeing old sites that have been around for many years that are on
>> the same exact IP address and they are obviously just different domain
>> names with nearly the same content except optimized for location.
>
>
> I usually think of Palm and other large companies when that observation
> gets discussed. True, they are optimised for location, but there is plenty
> of repetition too.
>
> I pointed out Palm because often I end up landing in a page that does not
> serve me with what I have sought. Instead, there can be a single site with
> pages that are delivered depending on the country where the visitor re-
> sides.
>
> These site regionalised 'mirrors' are very much like porting/forking of an
> application rather than extension of the trunk. Imagine yourself Firefox
> being sub-divided to "Cool Surfer Edition", "Asian edition", "Censored
> Edition" and so forth... need we speak of Windows Vista which will come in
> 7 editions?!?!?! Windows inheriting that Linux terribly messy 'model' of
> distributions?

7 editions of VISTA? I can picture it already...

* demo (free Enterprise edition for 30 days)
* quickstart edition ($69, includes paint and notepad version 12)
* Student edition ($119, includes Wordpad 12, and $20 off MS anti-spyware)
* Home edition ($169, includes minesweeper 12 and two new card games)
* Professional edition ($249, allows networking of up to 3 computers)
* Developers edition ($599, includes Monad)
* Enterprise edition ($1199, for small business)


>> I'm not even sure if Google can automatically detect
>> hidden text very well because I see it everywhere. It is a bit frustrating
>> when you are trying to do things legitimately...
>
> Nobody can detect mirrors. I once spoke to a professor about our
> 'almighty' plagiarism detection system and he admitted it was more of a
> scare factor. You can /suspect/ a mirror, but rarely have any certainty.
> If you can't tell which the original source is, as in the case with the
> WWW, you cannot penalise (safely) either.

Are you saying that in the case of duplicate sites Google can't tell which
one is the original?

I don't think Google can detect a lot of things. I've seen some really
strange SEO out there. You would think Google would penalize a site for
having a single period or underscore as the link text 15 times on a page...

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT Who said it first ? "Its all done with mirrors"
    ... Partridge (readable on Google books) gives us: ... mirrors" you can push it back quite a lot further. ... but I'm pretty sure not to Sir ACD - and google seems to ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: Information about superluminescent diodes (SLD)?
    ... > When you google make sure you google in the web section, ... I found quite a bit in the web google section 11K hits ... > laser diode the end mirrors are abscent in the sld. ...
    (sci.optics)
  • Re: Amount of forwarded traffic
    ... Thx, you are aware that this is usenet, google just mirrors and ... gives you an interface to read/post. ... with google, it isn't theirs, but a public newsgroup. ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Hobbes welcomes XGA206
    ... XGA206 joins the Hobbes OS/2 Archive and its mirrors: ... Search for "XGA" ... Google has immediately noted the greater exposure: ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights" by Roderick T. Long http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html (there are various mirrors if you google it...) ... As their entire ideology is stolen and misapproriated from others is it any wonder that they have absolutely no respect for other people IP. ...
    (comp.programming)
Loading