How a third party can remove your pages and site from Google’s Index?

Be aware of all .info sites.

With the introduction of “Big Daddy,” Google crawls from many different data centers; they also changed the algorithm substantially at the same time. According to Dan “It appears that the changes include moving some of the duplicate content detection down to the crawlers. [This is problematic. In short:]

1. The original page exists in at least some of the data centers.
2. A copy (proxy) gets indexed in one data center, and that gets sync’d across to the others.
3. A spider visits the original, checks to see if the content is duplicate, and erroneously decides that it is.
4. The original is dropped or penalized.
”
So … the problem is that if you flood Google with massive amounts of duplicate content, it exposes a vulnerability. Eventually the algorithm makes a mistake, and your content is no longer authoritative.

I know that you had a great site with English content and you were ranking Top 10 in Google.de .se .fr .ca .dk .be(local) for a specific term. But now you have added some new languages such as Japanese, French, German Swedish, Danish, Arabic, Russian.

What would you think should happen for your Google positioning?
Will you keep the same Google ranking or would you lose it?

Actually Google had a LocalScore Patent since 2001 named Ranking search results by reranking the results based on local inter-connectivity by Krishna Bharat

Rethink your Search Engine Optimization strategy when initiated to add new languages for your site.

A search engine for searching a corpus improves the relevancy of the results by refining a standard relevancy score based on the interconnectivity of the initially returned set of documents. The search engine obtains an initial set of relevant documents by matching a user’s search terms to an index of a corpus. A re-ranking component in the search engine then refines the initially returned document rankings so that documents that are frequently cited in the initial set of relevant documents are preferred over documents that are less frequently cited within the initial set.