_mvuc

I keep checking every so often, but searching for "this phrase" or +absolute +requirement is still broken. Even "Verbatim", isn't. If they can't even get simple search right, who would trust them with anything more?

FWIW, I just submitted a removal request via GWT for a page on my own site, and the request was accepted without complaint and is pending. Maybe Google turned the tool back on already.

I tried a request for a page on my wife's site, via the prescribed URL mangling, and it was silently ignored.

re: Google's capacity to change things, that's exactly what I thought should trigger more skepticism: Not only has no one repeated the experiment -- no one ever can. Now it's history, and that can get murky.

But thank you for the link -- another voice is good evidence in my book.

I'll admit that the quotes around "screenshots" exposed a bias (though I privately considered "honest mistake" a real contender), so I'll take my lumps.

But I stand by my main point: I don't see any REASON to BELIEVE.* The only thing separating malice, incompetence and good work here are the unknown motives of some guy with an internet connection -- possibly an NYU student of Panos Ipeirotis, if you caught that story. I think it was fair to ask why people felt so confident with their "OMG! Google is incompetent!" posts, so quickly. I guess I picked the wrong grandparent.

* You've kindly provided a corroborating source, so "good work" is looking more likely.

Also, what is the link you supplied supposed to show? To me, it's like someone who, hearing the accuracy of Genesis' creation story challenged due to lack of supporting evidence, replies, "Yes, but Exodus says the same thing." It's the same source making the same claim, with no corroboration.

You imagine that someone would have pointed out an honest mistake, but that could take time. Is absence of an immediate counter-demonstration proof (or even evidence) of truth? I don't think it works that way. See Fleischmann–Pons.

Was it the "I'm not saying it's fake" part that made it seem to you that I seem to be accusing him of faking?

My point is that the evidence is wholly insufficient. It was the first post on a new blog (i.e. no reputation), no way to reproduce the reported issue, no reports of it having been reproduced by anyone else, no acknowledgment from Google (ok, maybe it's a little early for that), etc. I mean, from a journalistic, much less scientific, standpoint, it's pretty poor.

How can I provide evidence of a negative? Would you please provide evidence disproving my assertion that flying saucers visited my house last night? And motive? Wasn't that covered earlier by the word "linkbait"?

Maybe my calibration is way off today, but I'm surprised by the level of credulity I've been seeing. My original post (which I deleted and then reposted, sorry about that) got downvoted to subzero with no explanation. I agree with other posters that bugs happen, but I would have thought that such a major claim against a generally competent player like Google would require at least one independent verification.

I'll be curious to see if Google mentions this. Otherwise, we'll really never know. Well, you may, but I guess I'm a little more skeptical.

How does the article deliver? I don't see, in the comments on his blog or here, any evidence that this has been independently reproduced. He's got a description, and some "screenshots" and, oh, Google seems to already have fixed it. How... convenient?

I'm not saying it's fake, but I don't see any reason to believe it. Am I missing something?

They just told me in an email, and I just canceled my subscription.

I didn't appreciate the way they did it: No explanation of why the increase is necessary, plus idiocy like: "Your price for getting both of these plans will be $15.98 a month ($7.99 + $7.99)." No package discount, and no consideration for having been a loyal customer for six years straight. No, just a form letter and a 60% price hike.

Their post-cancelation survey offered no way to indicate this change as the reason (and no free-form entry). Didn't they anticipate this? Maybe they don't want to know.

This makes me sad. I love Netflix. I'm not saying it's not worth $16/month, and I may even join again someday. But I hope a few million customers slap their corporate hand.

The EFF diffs some, e.g. http://www.tosback.org/diff.php?vid=1736. That one actually suggests an improvement: You have to strain your eyes to find the difference. In other pairs, the differences stand out better.