Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
Doesn’t Google look at the relationship between your links and their content, as well as content (tags, image names, keywords, etc.) on your site?
Google has incorporated “guilty by association” regarding search results in the past.
I’m not sure what exactly they did with blboys but I hope they start doing it to all the piracy sites as well… oh wait… Google = Youtube = oh forget it, we’re screwed
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
I think your explenation or guess: “guilty by association” is the most likly cause to Blboys being banned. Google must have judged them to be CP because of the sites the link to. That does really show how important it is to be careful with where and to what you link.
I would really like to know the exact reason why they where banned, does anyone actually know?
[quote=Squirt;13675]Doesn’t Google look at the relationship between your links and their content, as well as content (tags, image names, keywords, etc.) on your site?
Google has incorporated “guilty by association” regarding search results in the past.
I’m not sure what exactly they did with blboys but I hope they start doing it to all the piracy sites as well… oh wait… Google = Youtube = oh forget it, we’re screwed[/quote]
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
[QUOTE=gaydemon;13695]I think your explenation or guess: “guilty by association” is the most likly cause to Blboys being banned. Google must have judged them to be CP because of the sites the link to. That does really show how important it is to be careful with where and to what you link.
I would really like to know the exact reason why they where banned, does anyone actually know?[/QUOTE]
No, and I won’t talk with the owner anymore. Sorry. He used to change the link of submitted galleries with good thumbs (= high average = lots of clicks) with his own galleries. I called it cheating, he called it “something normal”.
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
[QUOTE=gaydemon;13695]I think your explenation or guess: “guilty by association” is the most likly cause to Blboys being banned. Google must have judged them to be CP because of the sites the link to. That does really show how important it is to be careful with where and to what you link.
I would really like to know the exact reason why they where banned, does anyone actually know?[/QUOTE]
That would be my guess. Google has banned most of the ************************************************************************ sites, and I don’t/won’t visit bl boys, but they probably link to them. This should be seen as a warning sign to those that promote them. IMO it was just a matter of time, if you link to a site that is banned in google, then I can see how they would start banning the sites linking to them.
I don’t know this for certain, but that would be my guess. It makes sense logically from google’s standpoint.
EDIT. I guess BKSFACTRY is banned as a term here.
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
I agree that it’s worrying that a law should depend on someone deciding whether a person looks under 18.
Bjorn I’ve decided you look under 18 in that photo!
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
[QUOTE=DirtyRatStudios;13774]I agree that it’s worrying that a law should depend on someone deciding whether a person looks under 18.
Bjorn I’ve decided you look under 18 in that photo![/QUOTE]
Your rat is naked. No 2257 compliant 666
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
WOW! What a traffic hit! That’s pretty much an SOL situation because I don’t believe google will ever let him back in. That’ gotta really hurt the bottom line!
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
What the hell is an ‘SOL’ situation?
Another one for the list of cryptic Terms and Acronyms that even webmasters who have been at it for a decade don’t understand. ;D
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
Have you seen the NBC “To Catch a Predator” show?
Talk dirty to an adult female undercover agent online that told you she is underage, show up at the door, get arrested and convicted for the intent.
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
[QUOTE=Squirt;13791]Have you seen the NBC “To Catch a Predator” show?
Talk dirty to an adult female undercover agent online that told you she is underage, show up at the door, get arrested and convicted for the intent.[/QUOTE]
No the only American shows that bad that I’ve seen here are ‘Cheaters’ and ‘When Pets Go Wild’ 
Anyway I think that’s slightly different. As that is an adult deliberately meeting a person he believes to be underage – which is unacceptable under any circumstances. The image thing is a webmaster publishing an image he knows to be of a person aged over 18 but who maybe looks younger and whether they do or not is open to interpretation.
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
[QUOTE=DirtyRatStudios;13786]What the hell is an ‘SOL’ situation?
Another one for the list of cryptic Terms and Acronyms that even webmasters who have been at it for a decade don’t understand. ;D[/QUOTE]
SOL= Shit Out of Luck
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
[QUOTE=DirtyRatStudios;13774]I agree that it’s worrying that a law should depend on someone deciding whether a person looks under 18.
Bjorn I’ve decided you look under 18 in that photo![/QUOTE]
If Google decides to ban a site, it’s not always a law that decides. They can ban any site for whatever reason they want. It is there property at the end of the day and they can pretty much decide who they list in their Search Engine.
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
It is slightly different. In one case you have an individual you know is of age, posing as underage to lure an individual interested in underage sex.
In the other case you have a model, who is of age, posing as underage, being promoted as “possibly underage” to people interested in underage porn.
buying and distributing CP is illegal, talking sex with underage and luring them online is illegal. In both cases it’s the intent, not the actual action, that gets you in trouble.
I think the double standard between “girls” in straight porn and “boys” in Gay porn is unfair. If we can’t use “boys” to describe hot, of age, young guys then the straight industry shouldn’t be able to use “girls”. seems fair
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
I’m with Walter on this. In fact, I’m almost to the point where I won’t click on a “twink” site unless the link is from a known source.
I totally get that some young guys look old and some old guys look young, but I’d just feel stupid if I got in trouble with the law because I clicked a link and ended up on an illegal site.
In fact, I think there might have been a thread about a news story on a guy who got in trouble with US Federal law because the feds were on a board that discussed child porn, they setup a link to trap people, this guy somehow got the link (can’t recall) and clicked on it not knowing what it was.
Even though there was no evidence that he had gone to any illegal sites, he was found guilty because he clicked the link. (I wish I could find that article!)
I don’t want my 15 minutes of fame to be on Cops. =)
Re: blboys.com banned from google.com
[QUOTE=DirtyRatStudios;13786]What the hell is an ‘SOL’ situation?
Another one for the list of cryptic Terms and Acronyms that even webmasters who have been at it for a decade don’t understand. ;D[/QUOTE]
It’s probalby an Americanism, doesn’t relate to webmastering. It means “shit outta luck”