panic
msg:24488 | 7:27 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
| I just realized that since it's listing those URLs with the index content, Ink might be treating them as multiple copies of my index, which could have created a penalty for duplicate content. Does this sound possible? |
|
Sounds very possible. The purpose of the multiple content editorial action is to not only stop people from stealing content off of external sites, but to stop people from using the same content and optimizing it differently on multiple pages.
|
flobaby
msg:24489 | 7:40 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Thanks Panic. If this is true, then that might be the reason a lot of other people's pages are MIA. We could all be the victim of innocent redirects that Ink misinterprets as duplication. Wouldn't be a problem if Ink didn't keep old urls in their database indefinitely. Poop.
|
panic
msg:24490 | 7:45 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
| We could all be the victim of innocent redirects that Ink misinterprets as duplication. Wouldn't be a problem if Ink didn't keep old urls in their database indefinitely. |
|
Did you use 301 redirects?
|
flobaby
msg:24491 | 7:46 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Yep, I sure did.
|
panic
msg:24492 | 7:50 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Did you use a meta refresh, or robots.txt?
|
flobaby
msg:24493 | 7:51 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
robots.txt
And it validates correctly.
|
|
