googleblog.blogspot.com — Protecting content owners’ rights, respecting their wishes, helping to reward them for their creative endeavors – these are the primary principles that guide Google’s approach. We believe it’s the best way to make the world’s information universally accessible and useful.
Sep 27, 2006 View in Crawl 4
sewesoSep 27, 2006
this article is not about privacy
grimdotdotdotSep 27, 2006
RedBike: I'm not bothered if my visitors cache the site, as they don't make it availible to other people when they do.It's not the caching that bothers me, it's the fact that if I change something on my site, the Google cache happily displays innacurate and out of date information for everyone to see.And trying to get *your own site* removed from Google's cahce is next to impossible.
irregardlessSep 27, 2006
@spyrochaetei wouldn't have that much faith in google's adherence to optional directives. my del.icio.us page has noarchive and noindex meta tags, yet it comes up in a google search and is cached as recently as last wednesday.
chriskzooSep 27, 2006
Call me crazy, but shouldn't site owners, by default, have the option to allow thier sites to be indexed, rather than having to create files on the site telling bots to NOT index them? This is akin to somebody going through a neighborhood mapping out everybody's house right down to what is on the dresser and then saying "Oh, if you don't want me to come in, lock the door, otherwise I assume you want me to do it."
mooreSep 27, 2006
Exactly. Google's current policy is to violate the law as much as possible, but give content owners a seperate opt-out mechanism for every different product they have that does this."Oh, you DIDN'T want us to duplicate all the copyrighted information on your site, save it all to our servers, provide it free to the public directly from Google, all in an easily searchable database without your permission? Okay, just go do X Y and Z, then call us back, and we'll take a look at it in 3-5 working days."Real moral high ground there, guys.
dewfishSep 27, 2006
Four Score and Seven years ago.......
topher06Sep 27, 2006
Ha ha ha, that is absolutely hilarious."Protecting content owners ? rights, respecting their wishes, helping to reward them for their creative endeavors"That certainly didn't apply when Google started scanning in printed works without permission from authors or publishing companies when they implemented a printed work search engine. Then when they complained to Google, Google kept on going saying it was for their own good and benefit.The only people that believe in Google's mission statements are Google. I honestly don't believe they are a company that is doing no evil. When you have so much influence and control over a market, its hard not to start to impose your own way rather then respecting others, especially when you start to imply that your only doing it for THEIR OWN GOOD. I mean, history is ripe with dictators (ahem, I mean leaders) that have made this statement before and we all know what happens to them.Besides, tell me a company making billions and billions of dollars in advertising is doing it for the benefit of mankind, Bullsh*t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cr8dle2graveSep 27, 2006
It's called fair use. Publisher's don't now nor have they ever had the right to exclude their published content from being indexed. Contrary to the fantasies of publishing houses, the RIAA , and the MPAA, once you publish something you lose some degree of control over your content. If you don't like the balance struck by copyright law, then don't publish your content.