Article page-specific keywords were introduced (“company-name”…) while some less valuable characters were removed (“.htm”), and topic categorization keywords were also added ("/furniture-furniture"). I expect that the changes shown in their past examples may have been normal, predictable changes in the evolution of the site to perform more effectively in search. I think the changes shown in their past examples may well have been normal. But some of the current changes don't suggest such a trivial explanation. For example, here's a URL formatted exactly like the one involving my revenge porn client that Google removed a few years ago: =
columbus-ohio-43004/jane-doe-jane-janey-doe-gold-digger-false-accuser-habitual-perjurer-liar-sl-1000000 And here's the most recent URL his lawyer asked Google to take down again: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/jane-doe/columbus-ohio-43004/jane-doe-jane-janey-doe-gold-digger-false-accuser-habitual-perjurer-liar-s-1000000 If you jewelry retouching service look closely, you'll see that the most recent URL only differs by one character - it's a shorter "l". I've worked in IT for over 20 years, and I'd be very hard pressed to find a reasonable explanation for this URL change other than an effort to avoid de-indexing. The URLs appear to include article titles as part of the
keyword sequence, along with a numeric page ID number at the end. Beebe's additional comments seem to implicitly acknowledge the motivation I attribute to this: the recent URL changes were likely made in order to evade Google's content removal actions. Read on to see what I mean. When asked about this, Ms Beebe responded by explaining how fraudulently obtained court orders are a big deal: "Secondly, in terms of our reasons for updating URLs, there are many, but I'll just address the one that interests you the most based on your questions - the idea that ROR is somehow trying to evade the legal system by modifying