| 12:00 pm on Aug 30, 2000 (gmt 0)|
>Anyone else had any experience with
Not quite the same but have had various www.domain.com/ & www.domain.com/index.htm listed at the same time. They seem to find them within a few weeks, delete one and bury the other for a few update cycles.
| 6:04 pm on Aug 30, 2000 (gmt 0)|
>>They seem to find them within a few weeks, delete one and bury the other for a few update cycles.
My experience as well, with a hyphenated and run-on version of the same domain name.
A week or so after AV found the domain I didn't submit, it was deleted and the listing for the originally submitted domain name got buried. Seven weeks later, it's climbing and starting to generate AV traffic again.
In this case, I'm pretty sure someone made a referal to the site in a forum, and Alta followed that link. So they picked up the alternate version of the name when they did that, and the troubles began.
I'm concerned that this cycle might repeat, but I feel the alternate domain still has too much value to nuke it.
| 4:56 am on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Wouldn't a robots.txt come in handy here?
| 5:31 pm on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
"Wouldn't a robots.txt come in handy here?"
This is definitely an option. But you would need to host the different domains on seperate hosting accounts. (I have a feeling pete has both domains pointed to the same IP)
| 6:53 pm on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I've been wondering about this, too. If the primary domain is "smithjones.com" but the client, quite correctly, wants to use "smith-jones.com", "smithandjones.com", "smithjonescorp.com", and other possible variations, perhaps the solution is two IPs. One would be used for the primary domain, and the other would be used for all the variations. The second one would include just a home page with a noindex tag. The page content could either be a redirect to the primary domain or a duplicate of the primary home page with all links pointing to the primary site. It seems like the SEs would be happy, plus any user-bookmarked pages would be on the primary site. Any flaws in this logic?
| 7:53 pm on Sep 1, 2000 (gmt 0)|
"Any flaws in this logic"
I hope not, because you just pretty much laid out my routine step by step. However I don't use redirection, I just points all links to the primary site.
| 7:13 am on Sep 4, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Seth, I am afraid you are on the ball. Unfortunately, both point to the same I.P which is not great.
RogerD, that seems like sound advice. Unfortunately, I should have followed it a bit earlier as now the damage is done and all I can do is wait.
Do all the spiders still honour the noindex tag?
Thanks for the input!
| 7:57 am on Sep 4, 2000 (gmt 0)|
All the important ones do Pete.
What I do in your situation is use absolute addresses to the main site on EVERYTHING from hrefs to images. Don't give the spider a chance to think there is something there that isn't. Even if the spider stumbles in the side door on a page on your secondary domain names, they should see all links pointing to the main domain. Most of the se's won't index the page unless it has atleast one internal link pointing at it.
| 11:10 pm on Sep 6, 2000 (gmt 0)|
In order for the spiders not to classify the pages as "mirrors", would it suffice to change just a few things around, such as the HTML title and meta description? How much should a site be changed? Somewhere I read that the sub-site should be 60% different from the main site...
Finally, does the HTML template have to be altered? Or can the HTML template be left unaltered so that primarily the HTML text would change?
Thanks for any info. on this!!!
| 11:28 pm on Sep 6, 2000 (gmt 0)|
The only "official" info I've seen on mirror classification is from google (thanks James). In that report it said that if 75% of the information is duplicate then they consider it a mirror, I said 60% in another thread just to stay on the safe side.
"HTML template have to be altered?"
In the google report they did mention using link structure to help classify mirrors, but I haven't seen any evidence of this in AV yet.