[Off topic:] Google says we no longer exist.

_{William Dembski

September 20, 2006

Off Topic}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

www.uncommondescent.com no longer comes up on Google searches, though it still comes up on Technorati searches. No action was taken on this blog to block search engines from indexing our content. This is all very curious.

Comments

Michael kors outlet online [Off topic:] Google says we no longer exist. | Uncommon DescentMichael kors outlet online_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

[...] September 20, 2006: Google says we no longer exist: [...]UD under cyber attack? That did probably happen back in 2006, so don’t discount it | Uncommon Descent_{December 28, 2013
December
12
Dec
28
28
2013
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

If my papers disappear from the side bar again (as apparently they have), I am sure it won't be the fault of Google. It will be a decision by Uncommon Descent. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

Gil Why can't Dawkins do the same? That is what counts. Brilliant ideologues like Dawkins have enormous influence. I am convinced that the problem is pride, one of the seven deadly sins. Before he ever wrote his first book Dawkins assumed that Darwinism could never formally be proved to be wrong and everything he wrote thereafter was based on that initial assumption. I believe that was a coldly calculated decision on his part and I am convinced that he knows it was dead wrong but pride prevents him from admitting it. What he forgot is that propositions don't have to be proved wrong. They have only to be proved right. All that Popperian nonsense about falsification is pure baloney and always was. All that matters is verification. That Darwinism has never and never will achieve. It is the biggest hoax in the history of science. "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true." Bertrand Russell "An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it." Boris Ephrussi It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT}

John, Your prescription about biological evolution may be correct, but your prescription about human agency and the inability to change one's lifelong commitments is wrong, at least in my case. I was once a (JD quote modified for my personal application):
...congenitally handicapped, Ã¢â‚¬Å“prescribed,Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“born that way,Ã¢â‚¬Â irreversible atheist who, unable to admit that I had dedicated my pathetic life to a phantom known far and wide as Darwinian evolution, continued, like a broken record, to keep right on reciting the silly catechism about mutation and natural selection...
Then something strange happened. After my first daughter was born, something began to speak to me, I started to look at the evidence, and I suddenly realized that everything I believed about everything that ultimately matters in life was wrong. The phantom was exposed, through reason, for the ghost that it always was. I underwent a saltational evolutionary transformation. How do you like them hot peppers soaked in Tabasco sauce?GilDodgen_{September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Oh but you are absolutely correct. Just like all my sources, I too do not exist. I am in great company and wouldn't have it any other way. I am happy to take full credit for it also. They are scared to death to recognize me because if they do they will have to recognize my sources, some of the best scientific minds of two centuries. I am not "milking" my PEH or my SMH either one. They are two sides of the same coin. Quite the contrary, I am challenging anyone, anywhere, in either the published journal literature or in the ephemeral world of cyberspace, to destroy either of my hypotheses, so far with no success whatsoever. I'm pleased as punch. We many published critics of the Darwinian hoax must not be allowed to exist by an establishment composed largely of muddle-headed (a synonym for liberal relativist), congenitally handicapped, "prescribed," "born that way," irreversible atheists who, unable to admit that they have dedicated their pathetic lives to a phantom known far and wide as Darwinian evolution, continue, like a broken record, to keep right on reciting their silly catechism about mutation and natural selection, neither of which ever had anything to do with anything except the generation of varieties, none of which are incipient species anyway. How is that for a long sentence? Is it any wonder I sign off first with - It is hard to believe isn't it? followed by - I love it so! followed by - "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. Davison and just for good measure - I love it so once more!John A. Davison_{September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

John Guess what. Your papers on the sidebar have also been removed from Google. Anyone doing a google search for your name, peh, or any other relevant keywords would have gotten a link to your paper here in the search results. Not anymore. So you've now been rendered invisible by the largest search engine on the interent which I understand gets about 90% of all searches that people do. I'm sure this comes as no surprise to you under the theory that homozygous chance worshippers, some of whom are undoubtedly employed by google, have conspired against you yet again. IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT that our whole website no longer exists. Darn you John Davison! :razz: Just kidding about it being your fault. But I do encourage you to milk the idea for all it's worth.DaveScot_{September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Speaking for myself, I wish my comments could be duplicated wherever possible. My name is still not to be mentioned at "Panda's Dislocated Pollex," "ARN," "Pharyngula" or "EvC" and I am very disappointed, even hostile about that lack of attention. They are all nothing but a bunch of gutless, spineless, brainless cowards if you ask me. In the words of Harry Truman, they are all "living miracles with neither brains nor guts." There is no such thing as bad publicity when you are convinced both that you are right and that your adversaries are in it up to their nostrils. Sockittome - please. It is lonely in no-mans-land. Nevertheless, as you may have gathered - I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

I can't believe that Google would be so stupid as to have a biopolitical bias. I bet this has a perfectly innocuous explanation. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Speaking as a non-tech user, I would say that there does seem to be a problem: I tried the following string: Uncommon Descent + Darwhiners, and came up with several sites referring to Bill Dembski's post that used that term (including my own Post-Darwinist), but NOT Uncommon Descent. So time period seems not to be an issue.O'Leary_{September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Reviewing the webmaster guidelines the only possibility I can think of is: Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content. We haven't done that but a number of mirror sites like Wesley Elsberry's BUUD have sprung up that automatically copy our content. I've definitely considered using an IP block on these mirrors but in Wesley's case the IP block would include Panda's Thumb and I'd be unable to trackback to it. In other cases I've determined that the IP addresses the mirror sites are using are not fixed and I'd have to block subdomains which could block innocents. For the nonce I'll try explaining to google that it isn't us who are duplicating our content in other domains.DaveScot_{September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

A partial solution has emerged. I logged in to google webmaster tools to see if the empty robots.txt file had been traversed. It was and it made no difference. What DID change was this in the summary report:
No pages from your site are currently included in Google's index due to violations of the webmaster guidelines. Please review our webmaster guidelines and modify your site so that it meets those guidelines. Once your site meets our guidelines, you can request reinclusion and we'll evaluate your site. [?]
Just effing lovely. Now I have to figure out what the hell changed that violates policy now that didn't violate it for the past 18 months. Uncommondescent is no different. Something external to it changed.DaveScot_{September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Jadster Masterful. [enthusiastic applause]DaveScot_{September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

I note that Google's motto "Do no evil" is an anagram of "Love no ID". Coincidence? I think not.Jadster_{September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Seems like Google is turning way to the Religious Left, starting by knocking down sites that attack the church of liberalism right in its core (evolution and homosexual "rights").Mats_{September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

Doubting The robots.txt file was working fine until 4 days ago. I'm willing to bet that me deleting everything in it won't make a bit of difference in this problem. Care to bet?DaveScot_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Is it an accident or google censoring? Google bans Christian ad Anti-homosexual remarks considered 'hate' content http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39992Robo_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Come to think of it, since random mutations, acting as random genetic searches, had the ability to come up with all of the life we observe, who needs those designed search engines after all? Shouldn't PT and the other Darwinian sites prove their methodology by allowing users to only discover their sites through random searches? After all, it has been proven successful in the past! What better way to silence the ID crowd? Darwinian Evolutionists, how about giving it a try? Think of how all your skeptics will be humiliated. Oh, this should be loads of laughs!!Ekstasis_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

You guys might also want to learn about the Google dance. There is a website dedicated to just that. And your robot.txt files is best left to professionals, you guys are clearly blocking very important spiders (assuming you want to show up in search engien results).Doubting_Thomas_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Google is still cacheing this site, search cache:https://uncommondescent.com/mentok_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Whoops, my mistake. that search first result is http://www.uncommondescent.org/ not .com which is a dead url.mentok_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

For example if you search uncommondescent then the first result is this site: http://www.google.com/search?hs=NTo&hl=en&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&q=uncommondescent&btnG=Search but if you search the full url then nada.mentok_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

It's not just this site. A few weeks ago google stopped searching a lot of urls. For some sites you can leave off http://wwww and it will then work, but on other sites it won't work, and on many other sites there is no problem. At an internet discussion site we were talking about this a few weeks ago and someone mentioned that google had been discussing ways of limiting urls in searches because of hacking issues.mentok_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Did you domain name recently expire, and perhaps you renewed it a little late? If so, this is one of the perhapshundreds of relevence factors google may use that isn't content related. Since you guys claim to not have done anything to try to optimizee your position. Mischeif is a definate posibility that can't be ruled out - As there are plenty of people that would like to see this blog supressed. There are certain triggers that can cause google to think you are trying to artificially inflate your relevence in their web results. If their criteria get triggered, then they will drop you as any site that tries to spam them. Possible examples - If an opponent of ID made a link farm and somehow linked you in, that might cause google to drop you - ie thinking you were tryin gto artificailly boost your relevenece. But I don't know if link farms would require you to link to the other sites in the link farm to be counted as a participant. Not sure. Or the other could create a bunch of websites and link to UD while using keywords to link to you that are not ID related.. irrelevent. Some tools to help you figure it out might be available here: http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2156041 Make sure you are still (if ever) listed in http://www.dmoz.com/ That is the open source directory that google uses to seed into their system domains to rank - if I am not mistaken.JGuy_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

BC Mibad. Google WILL trash the entire index. It's possible they recently put a size restriction on robots.txt and default to "we aren't welcome" if the file is found and it's too big. That would explain lots of other sites falling off the map recently especially since our robots.txt file was evidently copied from a common source - webmasterworld.com - under a gnu license.DaveScot_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

johnnyb I created a webmaster account about an hour ago and checked things out. The robots.txt analysis said the robots.txt file was too big (>5k). I don't think anyone has changed robots.txt in a coon's age. So I created a blank robots.txt and I'll have to wait for it to be hit tomorrow. Still, in all the other diagnostics google webmaster offers it says our site is indexed without a problem. It also says the last crawl was 9/16 but our logs shows hits from googlebot today.DaveScot_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

You also might try Google Webmaster Tools: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35241&topic=8465johnnyb_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

There is a possibility of a bug at Google. You are denying Google's "image bot" but not their main bot. It's possible that Google accidentally used the wrong UserAgent. And yes, if you set it to disallow Google's bots, it _would_ remove everything that was already indexed.johnnyb_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

We were indexed on google until very recently. Blocking google spiders now shouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t erase things already indexed.
Do you know if that's how google's spiders work? It seems like it would've been a reasonable design decision on googles part to erase cache for all the websites that are marked 'non-searchable'. Also, doesn't google's cache only last for a limited amount of time? If the cache expired, and the site was marked as 'non-searchable', then maybe it dropped the cached pages and didn't refresh them with anything new because of the 'non-searchable' directive.BC_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

You're still showing up on blogsearch.google.com, though not on www.google.com.Stranger and stranger.TomG_{September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply