What does Google use?
By the way, as I await a response from Google (which I probably won't get)... if anyone's interested in the specs of the systems that Google uses to make false accusations against blog authors, here's what our log turns up. We got just one hit, going straight to the archive, and then it took them a day to craft their form letter to me:
VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referring Link: No referring link
Host Name: 216-239-45-4.google.com
IP Address: 216.239.45.4
Country: United States
Region: California
City: Mountain View
ISP: Google Inc
Returning Visits: 0
Visit Length: 0 seconds
VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS
Browser: Firefox 1.5.0
Operating System: Windows XP
Resolution: 1600x1200
Javascript: Enabled
Navigation Path
6th June 2006 08:38:54 PM ralarson.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_ralarson_archive.html
No referring link
Oddly, it seems there was a Google image search that brought up the same archive page the day before, by someone in Anchorage. We have no way of knowing what their search string was, but what they got (and clicked on, to end up at Ruth's blog) was this photo:
Are these two hits to the same page related? Who knows -- but it sure is odd that anybody cares about an archive page from nearly a year ago... and that it's the only page that Google looked at before sending me a note that something (which they can't yet describe) doesn't comply with their Terms of Service?
VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referring Link: No referring link
Host Name: 216-239-45-4.google.com
IP Address: 216.239.45.4
Country: United States
Region: California
City: Mountain View
ISP: Google Inc
Returning Visits: 0
Visit Length: 0 seconds
VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS
Browser: Firefox 1.5.0
Operating System: Windows XP
Resolution: 1600x1200
Javascript: Enabled
Navigation Path
6th June 2006 08:38:54 PM ralarson.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_ralarson_archive.html
No referring link
Oddly, it seems there was a Google image search that brought up the same archive page the day before, by someone in Anchorage. We have no way of knowing what their search string was, but what they got (and clicked on, to end up at Ruth's blog) was this photo:
Are these two hits to the same page related? Who knows -- but it sure is odd that anybody cares about an archive page from nearly a year ago... and that it's the only page that Google looked at before sending me a note that something (which they can't yet describe) doesn't comply with their Terms of Service?
Comments