WebPosition = Google Block

[J-Spider]

Hi,

We've been using webposition for a couple years now with no problems. But as of yesterday, I was doing the search through my browser while simultaneously running WebPosition and I got the following message:

"We're sorry...

... but your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application. To protect our users, we can't process your request right now.

We'll restore your access as quickly as possible, so try again soon. In the meantime, if you suspect that your computer or network has been infected, you might want to run a virus checker or spyware remover to make sure that your systems are free of viruses and other spurious software.

We apologize for the inconvenience, and hope we'll see you again on Google."

... Now I know we are not "infected". We are up to date on all virus definitions and with all firewalls and have a very secure network. That's definitely not the issue. But I did do a search and found Google saying this about WebPosition:

"Don't use unauthorized computer programs to submit pages, check rankings, etc. Such programs consume computing resources and violate our Terms of Service. Google does not recommend the use of products such as WebPosition Gold™ that send automatic or programmatic queries to Google."

So here's my question: What are other people using to track and report on client rankings? Any good recommendations? And is anyone else experiencing this problem?

[sitecreations]

I've heard of this before. What you need to make sure of with WebPosition, a tool that is rapidly becoming obsoleted by personlized search IMO, is to decide if you REALLY need to run ALL of the searches you have queued.

Most of the time people using WPG have about 20 times more queries running than they need to for good SEO. Lots of folks will take something like Keyword Elite and generate 100s of keywords, feed those into WPG, and let it run all night. Google no likie.

Also.. make sure you have plenty of space between your queries "courtesy waits"... perhaps as long as 10-15 seconds. Yeah, your reports will take a while, but again, you may be running far too many terms.

[J-Spider]

@ sitecreations: I hear ya. I don't think we are using unnecessary keywords but we may be sending too many queries regardless.

FYI, over at WebMasterWorld GoogleGuy actually replies to someone else experiencing this same problem,

"That page originally started because when someone has a virus or a trojaned machine, they often don't realize that their machine may be sending queries to Google without them asking. :)

Recently, we've started to improve the software, and it can also detect lots of things like rank checking and other automatic queries to Google. Of course, we don't show the message to everybody that comes onto our radar, but our new software looks pretty good at detecting programmatic queries. If you're using WebPosition or other software that sends queries to Google from a program, I'm not surprised if you're going over a threshold where your queries are on the radar.

If you do see this message, I would recommend not sending so many queries to Google--the volume or type of queries are unusual enough that it's attracting greater scrutiny from us. If you avoid sending queries to Google from a program, you'll be as right as rain."
- http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/28417.htm

[incrediblehelp]

Clear your cookies and temp internet files and try running again. I would never run WP on a work station I was using. Rather get a slave/dummy machine up and running it in case the IP does get blocked for some odd reason.

More here:

Google Search: "your query looks similar to automated requests"

[timmathews.com]

I ran across this same problem a couple years ago.
With a google api, I was able to do reporting for one or two websites a day.
I ended up subscribing to 5 ips and had 4 other boxes running reports every day. All from different ips.
This is a pain, but it was well worth it.

[pdstein]

It's been a while since I used Web Position, but if my memory is corect it recommends you use the Google API to check Google results but gives you the option not to. I would suggest you check your settings and if you're not using the Google API change your configuration.

[timmathews.com]

The drawback with that is Google do not give you API keys anymore, as they are promoting ajax.
I have not seen any submitters or reporting suites that support ajax yer.

[pdstein]

Originally Posted by timmathews.com

The drawback with that is Google do not give you API keys anymore, as they are promoting ajax.
I have not seen any submitters or reporting suites that support ajax yer.

Wow, that sucks. I'm curious as to what WebPosition's response to that is (though not curious enough to actually look for it myself).

[timmathews.com]

I fully agree. Even WebCEO, that WPW fully support, ask for a google api. I tried using the ajax api, but no go. I do not know if the sw developers will "re-invent" the wheel and rewrite thier sw to accomodate ajax, but I am sure when they do incorporate it, something else will be the norm.

The really sad part is I actually have google api's, but Google will not let me in to get the key. That is what turned me away. I can understand not supporting the sw, but heck, give me a chance to get at it again.

[cvos]

use the digitalpoint version instead - it provides great position checking with no possibility for penalties.

http://www.digitalpoint.com/tools/ke.../?action=login

[Clint1]

This happens to members all the time over the G forums. Even more since they've screwed things up with a layout and format change. You can't even refresh pages or have several forum pages opened at once posting on each, without getting the block. It's IP based, so clearing any temp net files items won't help.

[amabaie]

a tool that is rapidly becoming obsoleted by personlized search IMO

I use WP *sparingly* to keep track of numerous sites. But I agree that this is really an issue that will die a quiet death as personalized search results make the base results much less relevant.