6 ms·
If I was Google, I would have been really annoyed too: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rustybrick/3607264237/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/rustybrick/3607264237/
by anc2020 17y ago
If I was Google, I would have been really annoyed too:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rustybrick/3607264237/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/rustybrick/3607264237/
- lucumo 17y agoPerhaps, but they could've warned him to remove it, or at least told him when he asked for it after the fact. Playing a guessing game about some decision with a company that nullified a debt to you by said decision is a bit classless.
- modoc 17y agoHe was a domain squatter with text directing people to click on the google ads. He's violating the TOS at the time in multiple ways, and clearly isn't providing any value. Spending time holding the hand of every pissed off squatter/spammer isn't in Google's interest.
- lucumo 17y agoIt's not that hard to display a message "Your account has been banned because ...". That's all he asked. As for squatters... AdSense for Domains is probably making Google some good money. I too wished they didn't, but they did.
- axod 17y agoIt's not too hard for people to not flagrantly violate ToS. That's all they asked. Adsense for Domains is something advertisers can opt out of.
- DenisM 17y agoEven people you don't like have rights.
- litewulf 17y agoBut every time you tell people what they do wrong they can begin to figure out how the abuse detection works. What if the threshold is at 25 domains, so instead people start opening multiple accounts that run only 24 domains. By telling people what precisely got them booted they can start varying parameters to see what the triggering mechanism is.
- ori_b 17y agoWell, you could be sufficiently vague - "Your account has been terminated for domain squatting on domain http://i-squat-here.com http://i-squat-here.com would tell him why his account had been terminated, but wouldn't reveal any sensitive information. And google's contactability for valid issues does still suck, with some exceptions.
- cookieliaokai 17y agoFor singles .... I found a hot place where you can find your rich and sexy partner... Try your best to enjoy life..[========SugarBabyMeet.cOm ======] HOPE YOU CAN FIND YOUR LOVE
- litewulf 17y agoNo, the problem is really that information disclosure is very tricky. The very fact that you get the notice "you were domain squatting on X" is actually useful for exploits. Whats the line where Google considers something domain squatting? Lets say its domain squatting if you have less than 5 pages of content, simply create tons of accounts with varying levels of content. What if the signal is "has tons of domains", then run Adsense on tons of domains and see what the threshold is. (etc etc etc)
- lucumo 17y agoYou get only one try...
- 17y ago
- eli 17y agoThey could have, yes. Probably should have. But they're certainly weren't legally obligated to do so.
- cookieliaokai 17y agoFor singles .... I found a hot place where you can find your rich and sexy partner... Try your best to enjoy life..[========SugarBabyMeet.cOm ======] HOPE YOU CAN FIND YOUR LOVE
- Semiapies 17y agoSo, in other words, there was literally nothing on that page that wasn't a TOS violation. I've been sympathetic to other complaints about Google cutting off service without explanation. But in this case, in Google's shoes, I'd be struggling to give any response much politer than, "FOAD. If possible, DIAF."