Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    April 18th, 2005
    Posts
    81
    Angry Someone at Google sniffing around my site
    If you do cloaking, beware of random visits from 72.14.194. range.

    I was wondering who is messing around with my site with randomly generated referrers and when I traced their ips, it all point to;

    OrgName: Google Inc.
    OrgID: GOGL
    Address: 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
    City: Mountain View
    StateProv: CA
    PostalCode: 94043
    Country: US

    NetRange: 72.14.192.0 - 72.14.255.255
    CIDR: 18
    NetName: GOOGLE
    NetHandle: NET-72-14-192-0-1
    Parent: NET-72-0-0-0-0
    NetType: Direct Allocation
    Comment:
    RegDate: 2004-11-10
    Updated: 2006-01-13

    What a bunch of idiots. No wonder their SE sucks.

    I have banned the whole block of addresses now because obviously they are not visiting my site but just checking for spamming, as if I need to do that.

    In all the 2 years or so that I have registered the site, I get so little traffic referred by google, I don't think I even need the visit from googlebot much less an idiotic spam-checker.

  2. #2
    Affiliate Manager Allen Nance's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Colorado River, Bullhead City AZ
    Posts
    1,604
    A Little hostile for the New Year there Vaisg.

    You didn't get the note from above?

    Love thy Google and Google will love back.

    Happy New Year

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    April 18th, 2005
    Posts
    81


    I admit I am a bit harsh but Google is anti-affiliates, so there is no need to be nice to them. At the end of the day, the way they demote all your sites (which equals to your hardwork) is rather unforgiveable.

    The other one you guys need to be aware of is Name Intelligence or whois.sc or domaintools.com. These guys fake their user agent as Googlebot just to get pass your rewrites. They are close neighbour of the original Googlebot range thus you may not even be aware that their visits are not from Google.

    OrgName: Name Intelligence, Inc.
    OrgID: NAMEI-1
    Address: 12806 SE 22nd Place
    City: Bellevue
    StateProv: WA
    PostalCode: 98006
    Country: US

    NetRange: 66.249.0.0 - 66.249.31.255
    CIDR: 19
    NetName: NAMEI-NET-002
    NetHandle: NET-66-249-0-0-1
    Parent: NET-66-0-0-0-0
    NetType: Direct Allocation
    Comment:
    RegDate: 2004-03-02
    Updated: 2004-05-14

    Oh well! Happy New Year!!

  4. #4
    Full Member Tech Evangelist's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 16th, 2005
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    374
    Google is rumored to be using teams of college students to visually check sites in question, so trying to block IPs is probably not going to do much to keep Google out. It's possible that what you are seeeing are visits from that group.

    Google is not real good about giving sites the benfit of the doubt. Blocking Google IPs probably just assures that your sites will not be listed at all in Google.
    There's good, fast and cheap. Pick any two.
    [url=http://www.topranksolutions.com]Phoenix SEO[/url] :: [url=http://www.tech-evangelist.com/category/affiliate-marketing/]Affiliate Marketing Tutorials[/url]

  5. #5
    ABW Ambassador Snib's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,303
    First, Google doesn't hate affiliates. They just dislike low quality, spammy sites. Unfortunately many affiliates create sites like this. Second, I don't see why you need to ban Google representatives. It sounds like you've got something to hide. When you say cloaking do you mean you're showing different HTML results to Googlebot versus humans? If so, they've got good reason to visit your site. Google doesn't allow that.

    - Scott
    Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all transgressions.

  6. #6
    ABW Ambassador kaizen's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    666
    I agree with Snib, although Google's algo has a peculiar sense of the distinction between spammy and worthwhile sites at times. I've seen far too many quality sites, affiliate and otherwise, shunned.
    We did not change as we grew older; we just became more clearly ourselves.
    ~Lynn Hall

  7. #7
    http and a telephoto
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,708
    If you do cloaking,
    I think this needs to be defined better... link cloaking? Page cloaking?
    Deborah Carney
    TeamLoxly.com BookGoodies.com ABCsPlus.com

  8. #8
    Affiliate Manager Allen Nance's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Colorado River, Bullhead City AZ
    Posts
    1,604
    Quote Originally Posted by loxly
    I think this needs to be defined better... link cloaking? Page cloaking?
    Actually, Im telling Scotty to cloak the dammed Enterprise.
    Signup Now for our KiteandWind affiliate program exclusivly at Shareasale.
    * 7% + Bonus - 365 return days
    * 2nd Tier Signup Bonus - Parasite Free - Auto Deposit Merchant
    * Free Datafeed - PopShops- Performance Cash Bonus

  9. #9
    Affiliate Manager
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by vaisg
    Google is anti-affiliates
    There's a world of difference between anti-affiliate and pro-SE-user.
    Richard Gaskin
    Developer of WebMerge: Publish any data feed on any site
    http://www.fourthworld.com

  10. #10
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    Goofle sniffed around my newest merchant site, too, same way.

    My immediate thought was to make a setup that'd show them a page that said something like "Don't just stand around here gawking, BUY something!!" But I wasn't going to be bothered implementing anything special for a thing like that.

    Banning them came to my mind, too. When a peeping Tom is spotted, the first reaction is to close the drapes. It doesn't matter if there's nothing to see; the very fact that Tom is peeping is the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tech Evangelist
    Blocking Google IPs probably just assures that your sites will not be listed at all in Google.
    That's the only reason I didn't go ahead and ban those IPs.

  11. #11
    ABW Ambassador Snib's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Leader
    Banning them came to my mind, too. When a peeping Tom is spotted, the first reaction is to close the drapes. It doesn't matter if there's nothing to see; the very fact that Tom is peeping is the problem.
    Whos to say they're up to no good? Maybe it's just a Google employee looking for something to buy.

    - Scott
    Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all transgressions.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    April 18th, 2005
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Snib
    Whos to say they're up to no good? Maybe it's just a Google employee looking for something to buy.

    - Scott
    You're arguing for the sake of arguing. They are actually using different referrers and user agents to test a single page.

    Anyway, what is considered high-quality? A shopping site with randomly generated contents from various datafeeds? Against a single merchant affiliate site doing original reviews? Surely you jest!

    If Google do not like people to mess with their SE then they should stop messing with people's site which they hardly send any traffic. That is so hypocritical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snib
    First, Google doesn't hate affiliates.
    Thats something for you to realise eventually.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snib
    Second, I don't see why you need to ban Google representatives.
    Why not. I don't need their traffic, I have enough trouble with bots already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snib
    It sounds like you've got something to hide. Google doesn't allow that.
    Like I say, I don't care what Google allows, I ban sneaky bots.

    I don't need to reply to such comment but...

    You don't use rewrites? Like getting the search term and doing a site search or just redirect back to main rather than showing 404? Do you know that your old information are still cache if you show the dumb bot 404?

    Show them enough 404s and creating enough supplementals and you will be eventually be granted a sitewide demotion. Meanwhile, you can continue to twiddle your thumb while waiting for Google to send you traffic.

    Soon after, what is your content becomes others with just a single update.

    I don't like these kind of anxiety, so I don't care if Google sends me any traffic at all. Not everybody depend on them for traffic. I don't at least.

  13. #13
    ABW Ambassador Snib's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,303
    Quote Originally Posted by vaisg
    You don't use rewrites? Like getting the search term and doing a site search or just redirect back to main rather than showing 404? Do you know that your old information are still cache if you show the dumb bot 404?
    Rewrites like this are fine. It just sounded like you were doing the black hat type of cloaking where you alter your pages depending on who is viewing them.

    - Scott
    Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all transgressions.

  14. #14
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    27
    Actually, the IP address range you mention is home to the Google Web Accelerator. You're probably seeing visitors that use it.

  15. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 15th, 2010, 02:04 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 11th, 2009, 06:20 PM
  3. Is Google sniffing glue...?
    By Eathan in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 5th, 2005, 12:14 PM
  4. cyber sniffing
    By Adam Ward in forum Virtual Family and Off-Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 8th, 2004, 09:42 AM
  5. Replies: 220
    Last Post: November 10th, 2004, 06:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •