6 ms·

The newspapers went to court asking for broad relief (unlisting from google results), instead of putting in place proper META tags and /robots.txt to direct wha

by dexen 15y ago

The newspapers went to court asking for broad relief (unlisting from google results), instead of putting in place proper META tags and /robots.txt to direct what may be, and what may not be indexed and cached. The court handed them just as much of the proverbial rope as they asked for. Google's web crawlers asked the WWW servers to GET, were served with HTTP 200 OK, found no prohibition in /robots.txt and so followed the standard protocol. Note Google Web Search and Google News use separate bots (Googlebot and Googlebot-News) to give website owner full control.

reso 15y ago
I can't decide whether I find things like this hilarious or disturbing. They could have fixed it with engineering, but they were either so uninformed or incompetent that they tried to fix it with a lawsuit.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Or maybe one incompetent overrode them all. Manager: Evans, get in here! Why are our news articles all over The Google? Evans: Um, sir, they index our - Manager: I don't want to hear your technical mumbo jumbo! Get legal on this to get it fixed YESTERDAY! Evans: There's no need, it's literally a 5-minute fix, I could just add an entry to robots.txt while the coffee is brewing... Manager: What did I just say about mumbo jumbo? Get out of here, and send in Stevens from Legal on your way.
  - Toady 15y ago
    Again, the lawsuit was over Google News' display of lead paragraphs and other excerpts from articles. It didn't pertain to the general search engine.
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      The lawsuit may not have, but the ruling certainly and explicitly does.
      - ToadyCensored 15y ago
        That's incorrect. The court's ruling specifically pertains to the use of article content in the Google News aggregator and its storage in Google's cache. There is no mention of simply linking to articles in the search engine, nor would there be reason for one since the lawsuit was over the use of copyrighted article excerpts, not hyperlinks. What Google is doing is akin to the punishments Microsoft used to dole out in the 90s, such as increasing Windows OEM licensing fees or threatening to revoke licenses entirely. Google is playing a dangerous game in monopoly-conscious Europe.
    - xiaoma 15y ago
      Google uses separate crawlers for its search engine and its news service. Blocking the news service really would have been a trivial edit to their robots.txt file.
- Toady 15y ago
  The lawsuit was over the use of lead paragraphs in the Google News aggregator, not the general search engine. Google is intentionally misinterpreting the verdict of the lawsuit in order to punish those who might challenge the company. Remember that Google also defied the court order to publish the result of the lawsuit on its Belgian sites, so it's obviously not afraid to thumb its nose at the courts. "Nice online newspaper you've got there. Hate to see something happen to it."
  - derleth 15y ago
    > Google is intentionally misinterpreting the verdict of the lawsuit in order to punish those who might challenge the company. Even if we stipulate this, how is that bad? Should Google be forced to deal with companies that screw with it? How far do you want to take that idea?
    - Toady 15y ago
      You're asking me how it's bad that Google is using a strong-arm tactic to punish content-owners who sued it? Surely, I don't need to answer that question, especially with Google's monopoly troubles in Europe. Google should let things be, respect the decision, and move on. I'd also like to mention again how incredibly lame it is that my comments are being voted down in this discussion. All I did was correct people who assumed the lawsuit was pertaining to ALL search engine links. I'm at a loss as to what I wrote that warrants negative votes.
      - rhizome31 15y ago
        Didn't you notice every second link here is about Google? It's not permitted to say anything bad about Google here.
      - derleth 15y ago
        > You're asking me how it's bad that Google is using a strong-arm tactic to punish content-owners who sued it? Yes, I am. If you sue someone, can you really expect them to be nice to you afterwords?
Toady 15y ago
The newspapers went to court asking for broad relief (unlisting from google results) They went to court over Google News copying excerpts from their articles, such as the lead paragraphs, and displaying them in the Google News aggregator. The lawsuit didn't pertain to the general search engine.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  That might have been the intent of the newspapers, but that wasn't the court order their lawyers got them.
  - Toady 15y ago
    That's incorrect. You can read the ruling for yourself: http://www.copiepresse.be/pdf/Copiepresse%20-%20ruling%20appeal%20Google_5May2011.pdf http://www.copiepresse.be/pdf/Copiepresse%20-%20ruling%20app... The decision was pertaining to the use of lead paragraphs and other excerpts from copyrighted articles in the Google News aggregator. It didn't refer to plain links in the general search engine. I see that my comments in this discussion are being voted down for pointing this out, which is bizarre. I'm simply stating the truth and correcting posts that mistakenly assume the lawsuit was in reference to ALL links in the search engine. Voting me down is incredibly lame. I believe that Google is deliberately misinterpreting the decision, likely to remind content-owners that Google controls their source of online revenue and to therefore back off. Google has a history of being defiant with regards to this lawsuit, ignoring a court order to publish the court's decision on their Belgian websites, so they would surely have no problem doing something retaliatory under the guise of following the court's decision.
    - narcissus 15y ago
      OK, so I read the PDF you linked to. Page 48, under the heading "V. ENACTING TERMS", point 3: --- Begin Quote --- Reforms the challenged judgment to the extent that it ordered "Google to withdraw from all its sites (...) all the articles, photographs and graphic representations (...)"; Ruling again on this point only, reforms the injunction as follows: Orders Google to remove from the Google.be and Google.com sites, more specifically from the "cached" links on "Google Web" and from the "Google News" service --- End Quote --- (There may be some errors in the copy above and please excuse my pathetic formatting). See the thing is you are arguing about what the lawsuit was about, which is different to what the judgment was. It says there in black and white "to remove it from all sites". Or am I just reading that wrong?

by dexen 15y ago

reso 15y ago

I can't decide whether I find things like this hilarious or disturbing. They could have fixed it with engineering, but they were either so uninformed or incompetent that they tried to fix it with a lawsuit.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
Or maybe one incompetent overrode them all. Manager: Evans, get in here! Why are our news articles all over The Google? Evans: Um, sir, they index our - Manager: I don't want to hear your technical mumbo jumbo! Get legal on this to get it fixed YESTERDAY! Evans: There's no need, it's literally a 5-minute fix, I could just add an entry to robots.txt while the coffee is brewing... Manager: What did I just say about mumbo jumbo? Get out of here, and send in Stevens from Legal on your way.
- Toady 15y ago
  Again, the lawsuit was over Google News' display of lead paragraphs and other excerpts from articles. It didn't pertain to the general search engine.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    The lawsuit may not have, but the ruling certainly and explicitly does.
    - ToadyCensored 15y ago
      That's incorrect. The court's ruling specifically pertains to the use of article content in the Google News aggregator and its storage in Google's cache. There is no mention of simply linking to articles in the search engine, nor would there be reason for one since the lawsuit was over the use of copyrighted article excerpts, not hyperlinks. What Google is doing is akin to the punishments Microsoft used to dole out in the 90s, such as increasing Windows OEM licensing fees or threatening to revoke licenses entirely. Google is playing a dangerous game in monopoly-conscious Europe.
  - xiaoma 15y ago
    Google uses separate crawlers for its search engine and its news service. Blocking the news service really would have been a trivial edit to their robots.txt file.
Toady 15y ago
The lawsuit was over the use of lead paragraphs in the Google News aggregator, not the general search engine. Google is intentionally misinterpreting the verdict of the lawsuit in order to punish those who might challenge the company. Remember that Google also defied the court order to publish the result of the lawsuit on its Belgian sites, so it's obviously not afraid to thumb its nose at the courts. "Nice online newspaper you've got there. Hate to see something happen to it."
- derleth 15y ago
  > Google is intentionally misinterpreting the verdict of the lawsuit in order to punish those who might challenge the company. Even if we stipulate this, how is that bad? Should Google be forced to deal with companies that screw with it? How far do you want to take that idea?
  - Toady 15y ago
    You're asking me how it's bad that Google is using a strong-arm tactic to punish content-owners who sued it? Surely, I don't need to answer that question, especially with Google's monopoly troubles in Europe. Google should let things be, respect the decision, and move on. I'd also like to mention again how incredibly lame it is that my comments are being voted down in this discussion. All I did was correct people who assumed the lawsuit was pertaining to ALL search engine links. I'm at a loss as to what I wrote that warrants negative votes.
    - rhizome31 15y ago
      Didn't you notice every second link here is about Google? It's not permitted to say anything bad about Google here.
    - derleth 15y ago
      > You're asking me how it's bad that Google is using a strong-arm tactic to punish content-owners who sued it? Yes, I am. If you sue someone, can you really expect them to be nice to you afterwords?

Toady 15y ago

The newspapers went to court asking for broad relief (unlisting from google results) They went to court over Google News copying excerpts from their articles, such as the lead paragraphs, and displaying them in the Google News aggregator. The lawsuit didn't pertain to the general search engine.

Symmetry 15y ago
That might have been the intent of the newspapers, but that wasn't the court order their lawyers got them.
- Toady 15y ago
  That's incorrect. You can read the ruling for yourself: http://www.copiepresse.be/pdf/Copiepresse%20-%20ruling%20appeal%20Google_5May2011.pdf http://www.copiepresse.be/pdf/Copiepresse%20-%20ruling%20app... The decision was pertaining to the use of lead paragraphs and other excerpts from copyrighted articles in the Google News aggregator. It didn't refer to plain links in the general search engine. I see that my comments in this discussion are being voted down for pointing this out, which is bizarre. I'm simply stating the truth and correcting posts that mistakenly assume the lawsuit was in reference to ALL links in the search engine. Voting me down is incredibly lame. I believe that Google is deliberately misinterpreting the decision, likely to remind content-owners that Google controls their source of online revenue and to therefore back off. Google has a history of being defiant with regards to this lawsuit, ignoring a court order to publish the court's decision on their Belgian websites, so they would surely have no problem doing something retaliatory under the guise of following the court's decision.
  - narcissus 15y ago
    OK, so I read the PDF you linked to. Page 48, under the heading "V. ENACTING TERMS", point 3: --- Begin Quote --- Reforms the challenged judgment to the extent that it ordered "Google to withdraw from all its sites (...) all the articles, photographs and graphic representations (...)"; Ruling again on this point only, reforms the injunction as follows: Orders Google to remove from the Google.be and Google.com sites, more specifically from the "cached" links on "Google Web" and from the "Google News" service --- End Quote --- (There may be some errors in the copy above and please excuse my pathetic formatting). See the thing is you are arguing about what the lawsuit was about, which is different to what the judgment was. It says there in black and white "to remove it from all sites". Or am I just reading that wrong?