URL changes, for example if a programmer changes the way only a few characters are encoded. Indeed, it seems that Ripoff Report was optimized for mobile not long ago, and that effort has also spawned a lot of duplicates of existing pages, each with a mobile version URL. (Example: "http://m.ripoffreport.com/reports/...") Mobile optimization produced a source of duplicate pages that got re-indexed, but it didn't. Intentional subversion? Let's face it - I believe Ripoff Report intentionally altered the page URLs to evade Google's page removal processes. When the URLs of the deindexed pages began to move to
new locations, Ripoff Report also began publishing a paragraph at the beginning of the deindexed articles stating that there had been legal action and a court order had been issued. obtained. But he also questioned the legitimacy of court orders. By itself, this statement wouldn't necessarily be a big deal, except that it happens in the context of page URL jewelry retouching service changes. Here is an example of what Ripoff Report now publishes at the start of deindexed articles: Editor's comment: Ripoff Report believes in transparency and the more information the better. In this case, there has been a legal action concerning this report in
question. We think it is important to note that not all court orders are created equal. Many court orders are absolutely legitimate. However, sometimes the courts enter orders based on default, which usually means the defendant did not show up. Sometimes a defendant doesn't show up because they weren't even briefed on the procedure of the case in the first place and other times defendants may not show up because they haven't necessarily the knowledge and/or the financial resources to fight. However, in other cases, a defendant may simply appear to stipulate (settle) the case by agreeing to stipulate to a court