Um, sorry, but this post made me curious, so I just tried it two seconds ago and found it to be patently false. A simple google search of the name of the application with the word 'download' or the word 'torrent' added took me directly to several active pages where the torrent was cheerfully advertised (and as a web programmer I know full well the difference between an artificial keyword-generated link and a real one) - including the site that many consider the central 'mother' site where all this stuff actually originates from.
I agree that it would be a good solution: Not found on Google, why bother? But that is clearly not the case at all.
I mean, unless we're assuming that searching for the words 'torrent' or 'download' are beyond the mental means of the population at large. Which might or might not be a realistic assumption to make.
***
(Edit -> As a tangential aside, Google has never, and it is very unlikely that it will ever, simply "stop linking to torrents". For as long as I've been in the web game I've always known Google as a company to be almost fanatically dedicated to completely neutral, algorithm-generated results. That type of specific censorship of a page for an external non-algorithmic reason is totally against its operating principles and I really doubt they would ever do it unless it was a matter of critical weight to their company - such as agreeing to censor its results to comply with the Chinese government's internet regulations: China's market weight is such that Google just couldn't go without its participation in that country.
But the case of one company asking for a single result to be altered? Or altering its results because they might be offensive or encourage potentially illegal activities? No. I can't even think of any examples where they have done anything like that, but I can think of one, the "George Bush Miserable Failure" exploit of a few years ago... where Google refused to make any manual changes, and the exploit remained until the inbound links to news pieces talking about the exploit eventually outnumbered the inbound links to the exploit itself.)
Last edited:
