A post on Sunday, October 25th at Green Party Watch sought answers about problems with “gp.org” (the national Green Party of the United States web-site) disappearing on Google-searches.
Today, GPW reports that the problem has been identified, and Google is helping to fix the situation.
(from) Green Party Watch
Green Party Website Hacked (Google Innocent)
October 26th, 2009
In a follow up to the mystery of the missing Green Party website on Google searches, an email to Green Party Watch from Google states that the Green Party (US) website gp.org had been removed from the Google index because it had been hacked. Hundreds of hidden links to websites selling prescription drugs [were ]buried on the gp.org website. Google’s standard practice is to remove compromised websites from its search index.
In the mean time, the webmaster for gp.org has been informed of this, and Google has already taken steps of restoring it in the index in anticipation of the website being cleaned up.
Background. A comment from the gp.org webmaster posted in the comments at GPW:
David Doonan // Oct 26, 2009 at 8:42 am
The text below has been faxed to Google + posted in their help forums … will let you know how they respond
Last month I tested out the demo Google Site Search for a client. It worked great, returning results from static, ssi and dynamic pages. After getting permission to integrate into their site, yesterday I tested it out again in anticipation in adding it. Much to my surprise, this time the search returned zero results, even when searching for words found on the top of the home page.
I then ran a normal Google search on my client’s name and they did not come up in the found results. A search for their domain name, gp.org, fails to return any results pointing to their site.
My client’s site (gp.org) has been online at least since 2000. The total number of hits for the site yesterday was 110574, so Google’s inability to find the site has nothing to do with lack of traffic.
Any ideas on what’s going on? Considering that the normal Yahoo search as well as the integrated yahoo site search are both working indicates that the problem resides on google’s servers.
13 responses so far ↓
1 Brittney Spears // Oct 26, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Green Party shocks two larger parties!
Green Party’s Pat LaMarche has great column..
Greens can disagree…comes as shock to two larger Parties.
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/121909.html
2 Third Party Revolution // Oct 26, 2009 at 7:19 pm
You mean that the Greens can disagree on issues that are not in the platform?
3 Michael Cavlan // Oct 27, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Who is Brittney Spears? Is this someone from the rouge Green Party (Independent Greens of VA) trying to stir things up just a wee bit? perhaps that is why these folks do not have the integrity to use their own names. Just names like Petra Kelly and Brittney Spears. That has been their M.O.
For the record, I was booted off of the GP Delegates list serve for responding to then Delegate LaMarche and one of her mean spirited, vindictive screeds by saying “Delegate LaMarche, coming from you, that is rich.”
Seriously. Actually, it was the excuse that was used to ban me. Most of the other dissenters had already been purged.
So obviously I found this article to be amusing.
Hope I am not coming off as a troll.
Blame Brittney
LOL
4 Deran // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Actually, it would be a great thing if the national GP did just disappear. Leave an opening for something more effective and useful.
5 Michael Cavlan // Oct 27, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Deran
Being worked on, as we speak.
I think that the National GP should remain though.
That way they can no longer get in the way of moving forward.
Seriously.
Long live the National Green Party. May it’s inaction and obscurity continue to keep those people out of our hair.
//:-D>———-
6 Mike Indiana // Oct 27, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Michael Cavlan,
In your comments it seems to me that you hold the Independent Greens of VA in low reguards a veiw shared by many including myself. That is why I was suprised when I looked at the Minnesota Open Progressive website and noticed that in a post “THE REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN!” the party states that it has been talking to the Independent Green Party with the purpose of coordinating a national movement. While I know ‘talking’ covers abroud spectrum and you are but a part (be it a leader) of a larger entity so your views may differ from the parties occasionally, I was wondering if you could elaborate on these communications?
Also what is your personal view and opinion of the Independent Greens of VA?
And since Indy Greens are part of the national Independence Party does this meen that the Minnesota Open Progressives are reaching out to them as well? Would an alliance with that organization be out of the question?
thanks in advance for your time reguarding my questions. My inquisitive mind just wants to know more.
7 Michael Cavlan // Oct 27, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Mike in Indiana
I know. I caught that myself. I have been trying to contact our web person and have that corrected.
He is a former Minnesota Independence Party person had been contacting them. We found out later that the VA Indy Greens are, to be polite, well a little off.
We REALLY need to have that rectified PDQ.
As for our communications with other state parties, well it is in the early stages. So far we have agreed to keep each state with it’s own identity. We are working on regional conferences right now.
The REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN comes from the inspiration of Jessie Ventura’s book, DONT START THE REVOLUTION WITHOUT ME.
Our party Chair, Pam Ellison was one of the chief advisors for Governor Ventura.
It is my own personal opinion that the VA Indy Greens are wack jobs.
We are willing to talk to any and all who are serious about building an alternative to the two party system. Our perspective is progressive, while those looking past the left wing/ right wing paradigm are welcome. We stand for Single payer-End the Wars-Clean Elections.
We are also currently in constant communications with some of those former Nader Greens. The ones who as Audrey from VA and Greg Gerritt and others called “destructo-greens.”
Newsflash-We ain’t greens no more.
We are willing to talk to any and all who are SERIOUS in building an alternative to the pro-war, corporate corrupted two party system..
Onwards, upwards, organize.
Hope that helped
8 Don Lake, late at night // Oct 28, 2009 at 12:08 am
Michael Cavlan // Oct 27, 2009 at 3:47 pm
” We found out later that the VA Indy Greens are, to be polite, well a little off.
As for our communications with other state parties, well it is in the early stages.
It is my own personal opinion that the VA Indy Greens are wack jobs.”
Came to the same conclusion months ago ……
9 Michael Cavlan // Oct 29, 2009 at 12:30 am
Don
Quite frankly, anyone with the sense that God granted to turnips have come to the conclusion as well.
10 Dennis // Oct 30, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Nominating Cynthia McKinney did infinitely more damage to the party than any hacker could ever dream of.
The Green Party died in 2004, when they nominated Cobb. Then reduced itself to a laughing-stock by nominating McKinney.
I disaffiliated myself shortly after that.
11 Michael Cavlan // Oct 31, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Dennis
Oh for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.
Although I disagree about Cynthia McKinney.
She could have been a spectacular presidential candidate.
Except that her campaign was used simply as a way to attack Ralph Nader, stop him from getting the GP endorsement.
After that happened, the National GP effectively abandoned her campaign. In fact those of us who wanted to build an actual campaign were effectively kicked off of her campaign.
Sad and horrifyingly true. Based on personal experience.
12 Ross Levin // Oct 31, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Michael, what’s your parties plan for not falling into the same traps that the GP has supposedly fallen into – ego trips, censorship, infighting, an ineffective national party, etc.?
13 DENNIS // Nov 1, 2009 at 4:58 pm
He wasn’t even going to seek the Green endorsement; but I agree with you that McKinney was used to block Nader.
Leave a Comment