Instant Google Fame September 19, 2008 4:34 PM Subscribe
IdleObservationFilter: In one hour this thread became the #1 Google hit for its subject.
I don't disagree with the deletion (honest!) but I find it amazing that the tread became the de-facto reference for its subject almost instantly. I wonder how long it will remain in the index. And, as much as I am loathe to say it, it may be better for deleted threads to become really deleted because if it does stay accessible from Google deletion is kind of pointless.
I don't disagree with the deletion (honest!) but I find it amazing that the tread became the de-facto reference for its subject almost instantly. I wonder how long it will remain in the index. And, as much as I am loathe to say it, it may be better for deleted threads to become really deleted because if it does stay accessible from Google deletion is kind of pointless.
So, FWIW, I also found it with much shorter phrases. But yes, it will not apply to many questions.
I thought nofollow only applied to links so wouldn't the article itself stay in the index? Or is this page-level metadata? Or are you saying that you re-write the RSS feed and once the link is gone from there it'll also drop from the index?
I'm honestly curious how it's going to disappear from Google without scrubbing it off of AskME permanently like in the old days.
posted by GuyZero at 4:45 PM on September 19, 2008
I thought nofollow only applied to links so wouldn't the article itself stay in the index? Or is this page-level metadata? Or are you saying that you re-write the RSS feed and once the link is gone from there it'll also drop from the index?
I'm honestly curious how it's going to disappear from Google without scrubbing it off of AskME permanently like in the old days.
posted by GuyZero at 4:45 PM on September 19, 2008
OMG! Google works!
posted by iamkimiam at 4:59 PM on September 19, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by iamkimiam at 4:59 PM on September 19, 2008 [1 favorite]
GuyZero: In the source for that page is <meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW">
posted by Pronoiac at 5:02 PM on September 19, 2008
posted by Pronoiac at 5:02 PM on September 19, 2008
The reasons for removing threads are usually pretty sensible and - IMHO - reduces the noise to signal ratio by a fair whack. What Google does is somewhat irrelevant, unless Matt decides that Metafilter has an obligation to Google in relation to deleted threads.
Also, to have discovered this suggests you searched for that specific phrase (on preview: variations on that phrase as well). Why would you do this?
posted by panboi at 5:03 PM on September 19, 2008
Also, to have discovered this suggests you searched for that specific phrase (on preview: variations on that phrase as well). Why would you do this?
posted by panboi at 5:03 PM on September 19, 2008
Wait wait wait. Since when did illegality become a reason for AskMes to be posted? Seriously.
posted by DU at 5:07 PM on September 19, 2008
posted by DU at 5:07 PM on September 19, 2008
So...pitchfork time, or no? I'm confused.
GuyZero, you're such a drama queen.
That should get the kindling going.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:14 PM on September 19, 2008
GuyZero, you're such a drama queen.
That should get the kindling going.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:14 PM on September 19, 2008
Often when reading an AskMe question, and just out of interest in the subject, or to clarify an answer I am writing, I will Google it. I can't count the number of times that very question comes up as the top result.
OK, so I did count, and it's 1,071 times, so far.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 5:24 PM on September 19, 2008
OK, so I did count, and it's 1,071 times, so far.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 5:24 PM on September 19, 2008
This is a classic example of extraneous details ruining a question. If he'd just asked "How do I open this mystery lock? [image]" the AskMe would probably still be up.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 5:34 PM on September 19, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by EndsOfInvention at 5:34 PM on September 19, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm completely in sync with this AskMe being removed for illegality/sketchiness.
But then I have to wonder why THIS one is still up?
posted by misha at 5:56 PM on September 19, 2008
But then I have to wonder why THIS one is still up?
posted by misha at 5:56 PM on September 19, 2008
Damn you Google!!!! DAMN YOUUUU!!!!!
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 5:57 PM on September 19, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 5:57 PM on September 19, 2008 [3 favorites]
If a mefi thread is the the first hit, you must acquit.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:14 PM on September 19, 2008
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:14 PM on September 19, 2008
cortex: don't taunt the google, you'll make it angry.
posted by aubilenon at 7:02 PM on September 19, 2008
posted by aubilenon at 7:02 PM on September 19, 2008
wow, first page of results for "cable box lock". Mefi's sauce is strong.
posted by potch at 8:05 PM on September 19, 2008
posted by potch at 8:05 PM on September 19, 2008
and it's gone now. Way to Go go go google!
posted by blue_beetle at 10:05 PM on September 19, 2008
posted by blue_beetle at 10:05 PM on September 19, 2008
<meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW">
Not that I can think of any alternatives, but isn't it a bit of a leap of faith that all search engines necessarily behave themselves and do what robots.txt tells them? Add to the fact that there are people who archive deleted threads from Metafilter, and link to those deleted threads, thereby giving spiders access to that content.
posted by Dave Faris at 11:01 PM on September 19, 2008
Not that I can think of any alternatives, but isn't it a bit of a leap of faith that all search engines necessarily behave themselves and do what robots.txt tells them? Add to the fact that there are people who archive deleted threads from Metafilter, and link to those deleted threads, thereby giving spiders access to that content.
posted by Dave Faris at 11:01 PM on September 19, 2008
I don't know anything about these Google spiders but I wish Virgin Media would come and replace my plastic Cable TV box with a nice lockable metal version. Not only is the damn thing wide open, it's also infested with snails.
I'm guessing that the snails see how slow my broadband speed is and mistake the bandwidth for one of them. But I really don't want no snail jism in my broadband, thank you very much. I mean, even this very comment might have been humped by a snail before arriving here. How icky is that?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:51 AM on September 20, 2008 [2 favorites]
I'm guessing that the snails see how slow my broadband speed is and mistake the bandwidth for one of them. But I really don't want no snail jism in my broadband, thank you very much. I mean, even this very comment might have been humped by a snail before arriving here. How icky is that?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:51 AM on September 20, 2008 [2 favorites]
No Dave, that's not how it works. Even if a million sites links to the deleted Ask it won't be in the index because the deleted Ask *itself* contains noindex. It doesn't matter how the search engine got there, the page won't be included.
posted by Rhomboid at 3:09 AM on September 20, 2008
posted by Rhomboid at 3:09 AM on September 20, 2008
but isn't it a bit of a leap of faith that all search engines necessarily behave themselves and do what robots.txt tells them?
You're probably bothered that it makes a lot of SF irrelevant. Were our youths all lies?
Oh noes, robots attack! Lieutenant, send them the robots.txt (Content: noattackkthxbi) via the PanGalacticGargleBlaster* WiFi. Shit, now how do I fill the remaining 400 pages? Suddenly, a nefarious sabotage puts the PGGB WiFi out of commission! Thealiens robots invade!
*sponsor
posted by ersatz at 4:11 AM on September 20, 2008
You're probably bothered that it makes a lot of SF irrelevant. Were our youths all lies?
Oh noes, robots attack! Lieutenant, send them the robots.txt (Content: noattackkthxbi) via the PanGalacticGargleBlaster* WiFi. Shit, now how do I fill the remaining 400 pages? Suddenly, a nefarious sabotage puts the PGGB WiFi out of commission! The
*sponsor
posted by ersatz at 4:11 AM on September 20, 2008
Not that I can think of any alternatives, but isn't it a bit of a leap of faith that all search engines necessarily behave themselves and do what robots.txt tells them?
It's not a leap of faith with the big guys—it's in their interest to respect robots.txt as a standard. It'd be a scandal for Google if they suddenly just stopped paying attention to that.
We don't leave the deleted threads up with the impression that no one will ever see them; we expect people might go looking for them, and that's okay. Every great once in a while there's a compelling reason to raze something from the database, but that's really really outlier stuff.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:30 AM on September 20, 2008
It's not a leap of faith with the big guys—it's in their interest to respect robots.txt as a standard. It'd be a scandal for Google if they suddenly just stopped paying attention to that.
We don't leave the deleted threads up with the impression that no one will ever see them; we expect people might go looking for them, and that's okay. Every great once in a while there's a compelling reason to raze something from the database, but that's really really outlier stuff.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:30 AM on September 20, 2008
^^^ this answer is useless without examples
posted by dirty lies at 5:20 AM on September 20, 2008
posted by dirty lies at 5:20 AM on September 20, 2008
Examples aren't possible because that requires finding something that no longer exists in the database. And the only easy way to do that is by traveling in time and retrieving it from before it was deleted, which would lead to the sorts of simultaneity parodoxes that mathowie is already cleverly exploiting to get new pages up to the top of Google within moments of being posted.
We're talking razor thin margins of error here, and you DON'T want to mess it up.
posted by ardgedee at 6:09 AM on September 20, 2008
We're talking razor thin margins of error here, and you DON'T want to mess it up.
posted by ardgedee at 6:09 AM on September 20, 2008
It's a fun phenomenon that often when you're researching an AskMe question on Google, the first result is the very question. I guess it's just that it has a very high page rank and meets the various other requirements, like good titles and URLs.
posted by smackfu at 8:02 AM on September 20, 2008
posted by smackfu at 8:02 AM on September 20, 2008
If you think this is so bad/wrong, why did you explain to him repeatedly how break into his cable box?
Or are you now worried about your name being tied to this?
posted by jpdoane at 8:24 AM on September 20, 2008
Or are you now worried about your name being tied to this?
posted by jpdoane at 8:24 AM on September 20, 2008
Someone mentioned somewhere that there are spiders that go around looking for info with tags like that. You might be able to make that post a honeypot for them - if you even keep logs, that is - & then, um. I was going to suggest blocking them altogether in robots.txt, but that's likely useless for them anyway.
posted by Pronoiac at 9:00 AM on September 20, 2008
posted by Pronoiac at 9:00 AM on September 20, 2008
Uh, GuyZero didn't think it was so bad/wrong...it's simply that he didn't disagree with the deletion reason and was commenting about the speediness of Google indexing. You're confusing the intent of this thread with thinking he thought it was a bad question.
posted by jmd82 at 10:57 AM on September 20, 2008
posted by jmd82 at 10:57 AM on September 20, 2008
I've seen scripts designed to do that, Pronoiac— there are pages whose existence is indicated only by lines in robots.txt, or by an invisible-to-humans link, and if something starts spidering them, the spider's IP gets blocked, either at the webserver or at the firewall. AIUI this is usually for defense against “poorly written” bots rather than “malicious” ones.
posted by hattifattener at 11:09 AM on September 20, 2008
posted by hattifattener at 11:09 AM on September 20, 2008
I actually am ambivalent about the deletion. But I was concerned that if it did stay in Google then deleting it they way questions are deleted that it kind of was ineffective. But it did indeed get removed from Google nearly as fast as it got added which was a surprise to me. I always thought of Google's index as the roach motel of web pages. Anyway, minor crisis is minor.
sticky and full of gross cruft
posted by GuyZero at 9:10 PM on September 20, 2008
sticky and full of gross cruft
posted by GuyZero at 9:10 PM on September 20, 2008
sticky and full of gross cruft
Metafilter:
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:48 PM on September 20, 2008
Metafilter:
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:48 PM on September 20, 2008
cruft, crufty, cruftiness, crufts
They should name a dog show after that.
posted by netbros at 11:02 PM on September 20, 2008
They should name a dog show after that.
posted by netbros at 11:02 PM on September 20, 2008
I'm guessing that the snails see how slow my broadband speed is and mistake the bandwidth for one of them. But I really don't want no snail jism in my broadband, thank you very much. I mean, even this very comment might have been humped by a snail before arriving here. How icky is that?
I don't find that icky at all.
posted by sluglicker at 12:41 AM on September 21, 2008
I don't find that icky at all.
posted by sluglicker at 12:41 AM on September 21, 2008
But I was concerned that if it did stay in Google then deleting it they way questions are deleted that it kind of was ineffective
Ironically, by posting this thread, you created a link to it that won't be removed from the Google index.
posted by smackfu at 8:15 AM on September 21, 2008
Ironically, by posting this thread, you created a link to it that won't be removed from the Google index.
posted by smackfu at 8:15 AM on September 21, 2008
I once received about five channels of cable on the TV set in my bedroom. It wasn't even plugged into anything and had a standard rabbit ear antenna. The colours were inverted but that didn't matter because all I ever watched was Spongebob Squarepants, while drunk.
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:09 PM on September 21, 2008
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:09 PM on September 21, 2008
Oh, in a related issue, deleted threads still show up in the Contact Activity sidebar. Dunno if it should get updated too when threads are deleted.
posted by GuyZero at 2:15 PM on September 22, 2008
posted by GuyZero at 2:15 PM on September 22, 2008
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
1) Google indexes blog content available via RSS within seconds and at most, minutes after posting. You also searched for a long phrase in the title of the post, so that's why it's #1.
2) The question was up for a couple hours when Google first indexed it. Now that it is deleted, there is a nofollow, noindex on it. We'll have to wait for Google to revisit the thread, and after that time it will be removed from their index and that search result. I have no idea if that is later today, tomorrow, or a couple weeks from now, but we've done all we could to remove it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:37 PM on September 19, 2008 [2 favorites]