NB: I wrote this post back in December 2006, but have released it today as it showcases another area (besides PR penalisation) where Google is being hypocritical. i.e. The area of content.
Now, before I get to the meat of this post, I better be very careful not to tread on any toes. I must avoid a legal wrangle with Goliath as I do not have $2Billion in spare change to settle with a slap on the wrist (and I most certainly do not want to spend any time in a Federal pound me in the ass prison.
This all started late last year as I was making a cynical private remark to one of the more respected members of the Info Vilesilencer Forum regarding search engine terms. I decided to reveal the top 10 search terms for the last 7 days of December for Info Vilesilencer (IVS). When I got to #10 I was suprised to find the keyword little-melissa sitting there. When I checked I found that IVS wasn’t even in the top 100 for that keyword. Yes, you are thinking what I am thinking. Some sicko’s have far too much time on their hands for what’s in their hands.
To allay any fears that I might be hosting any “inappropriate material”, the keyword little-melissa is present in a harmless joke in the Humour & Jokes forum. Nothing sordid or untoward there, just an appropriate, and semi-censored, use of the f-word.
Ok, so what’s so interesting about this keyword? Well clearly sicko’s are searching on it (present company excluded), and on Page 6 of Google as I was browsing through the listings trying to find exactly what number I had been posted at to get so much interest I noticed this juicy Google tidbit:
In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.
You guessed it, Google had listed a site that contained Child Pornography (as the notice says) and the Internet Watch Foundation complained, Google was notified, and the listing was promptly removed. Clap, Clap! Does anyone else see a problem with this method of removing inappropriate content from the internet’s most used search engine?
A quick scan of “Other recent C&D’s” shows all 5 are Child Pornography, and all 5 relate to complaints made to Google. It’s been suggested in the past that the internet’s biggest directory, DMOZ, supports child pornography. I am not suggesting they do, however some very credible points are made in that thread, leading to the pertinent question - Why aren’t these giants of the internet stamping this inappropriate material out?
What I find unbelievably hypocritical about the whole thing is that people can have websites banned/penalised by Google for trivial SEO misdemeanours, whilst Google itself is hosting images that can only be described as absolutely pornographic. I’ve tried to join the dots on that, and it doesn’t meet up. Sorry, but wasting time banning someone that’s worked hard to try and get their site in some sort of position to be competitive, whilst others put up Child Pornography sites that dodge the radar is a misaligned focus methinks.
Back to the hypocrisy. Surely, by seeing that Google freely hosts pornographic images, people are encouraged to put up their own websites to make a buck from the countless searches they would get on that material? Why is there no age verification on standard adult material anyways?
p.s. On another datacenter, the jokes forum comes up on page 2 for the little-melissa keyword, that must be the listing that’s pulling all the interest (pardon the pun - heh!).








