2 ms·

DETAILS: On July 3, our website was blocked the 1st time. This was justified (although I disagree with the immediate punishment): it was an old Drupal 7 site t

DETAILS: On July 3, our website was blocked the 1st time. This was justified (although I disagree with the immediate punishment): it was an old Drupal 7 site that was installed in 2011 and, because of budget constraints, rarely received security patches. For years, it had the Drupageddon and Drupalgeddon exposures. Not surprising it was infested with malware. This is when I got involved (volunteering my time & skills). The website was rewritten as a static site (virtually unhackable) using Hugo on Netlify. On July 26, we were unblocked. At 1am ET this morning (Aug 1), we were blocked by Google again! The new (Hugo) website had one link to the old (Drupal) website (now with a different subdomain) so users could access content we had not yet migrated to the new website. This link was the reason Google gave for blocking us. I read Google's notification at 6am and immediately removed the links and requested a review via Google's Search Console. At 9am, Google said the review had failed, our website was still blocked, without any additional information. Search Console still says the bad link is to the old website's subdomain. I verified my Hugo source files: there is zero instances of the old website's subdomain name. At 10:30 I submitted another request for review and am still waiting for a response. Their request pop-up says "Warning! Requesting a review of issues that weren't fixed will result in longer review cycles" so I may be waiting a longer time. (BTW, anyone with inside Google connections, help would be appreciated)

dragonwriter 6y ago
So, it's your complaint isn't, as you initially presented it, that you were unfairly listed as a badware site, but instead that you were rightly listed once, asked to be delisted after incompletely dealing with the problem, rightly failed the subsequent review, but this time you really did deal with it?
- BareNakedCoder 6y ago
  Huh? The key point here is I don't think Google should block any website without providing some warning an an opportunity to fix the issue before imposing an immediate punishment. What if google.com search engine linked to a badware website? Should it be immediately blocked until fixed pending a review? No, of course not. Do onto others as you would have others do onto you.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The key point here is I don't think Google should block any website without providing some warning an an opportunity to fix the issue before imposing an immediate punishment. This isn't punishment, it's end-user protection of the same type as other anti-malware tools. And the protection fundamentally cannot work if operated in the way you suggest. To use your criminal justice analogue you've not only confessed to the crime, but confessed to continuing the crime while seeking pre-trial release, after an evolving series of denials.

dragonwriter 6y ago

So, it's your complaint isn't, as you initially presented it, that you were unfairly listed as a badware site, but instead that you were rightly listed once, asked to be delisted after incompletely dealing with the problem, rightly failed the subsequent review, but this time you really did deal with it?

BareNakedCoder 6y ago
Huh? The key point here is I don't think Google should block any website without providing some warning an an opportunity to fix the issue before imposing an immediate punishment. What if google.com search engine linked to a badware website? Should it be immediately blocked until fixed pending a review? No, of course not. Do onto others as you would have others do onto you.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The key point here is I don't think Google should block any website without providing some warning an an opportunity to fix the issue before imposing an immediate punishment. This isn't punishment, it's end-user protection of the same type as other anti-malware tools. And the protection fundamentally cannot work if operated in the way you suggest. To use your criminal justice analogue you've not only confessed to the crime, but confessed to continuing the crime while seeking pre-trial release, after an evolving series of denials.