Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
528 bytes added ,  23:27, April 15, 2007
no edit summary
Line 162: Line 162:     
:::Sorry, I should have been more clear. That "something else" could be anything at all, or even nothing. Their content is our content, and Google's bots are crawling their URLs. So ''any'' Google search which returns one of our pages ought to return one of theirs too. The only question is how high up their results get. I've already seen a couple on the first page of a search. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:::Sorry, I should have been more clear. That "something else" could be anything at all, or even nothing. Their content is our content, and Google's bots are crawling their URLs. So ''any'' Google search which returns one of our pages ought to return one of theirs too. The only question is how high up their results get. I've already seen a couple on the first page of a search. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::: I don't think this is the first time anyone has thought of this.  I would expect Google's search engines to recognize this scam and filter it fairly soon.    But if not, the perpetrators are using our name without our permission and I think that violates our intellectual property.  We'll have them explain themselves to a judge if they want to persist in this.  Also, we can tell their ISP and it will stop intellectual property violations that use its machines.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,500

edits

Navigation menu