homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.161.112
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 ( [1] 2 > >     
Fighting my Google Twin
URL canonicalization problems in Google directory
nilloc




msg:198213
 7:10 am on Feb 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi,

I know some matters of URL canonicalizationt have been discussed before, but never about the effect this also creates in the Google directory.

All started when DMOZ listed my site www.widgetz.com as widgetz.com in their directory with the result that also the Google directory list my site as widgetz.com instead of www.widgetz.com.

Even adding a rewrite rule in htaccess to try and solve this problem is not helping.

When searching for "Widgetz topics" then "widgetz.com" shows up in the first positions BUT without a Freshtag since nearly 40-days and without the link to the Google Directory where "widgetz.com" is listed as widgetz.com.
(This page is twice-daily updated with current news about widgetz and has a PR of 5).

When searching for +"www.widgetz.com", only then do I find the "www.widgetz.com" index-page that has a freshtag on it and has a link to the Google Directory (but remember in the directory we are listed as widgetz.com and not www.widgetz.com)

Searching:
link:witgetz.com I get 75 backlinks
and searching:
link:witgetz.com I get 83 other backlinks

where in reality I should get 158 backlinks for the whole site as they are all different backlinks.

I have tried to repair the error at DMOZ in vain.
The category I am in does not have any editor any more and using their update function or sending them an email is not helping as I am not getting any answer.

I also reported on different occasions the problem to Google using the keyword urlcanonicalization.

So what should be the next step to take?

 

nilloc




msg:198214
 12:42 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi,
What I am really scared about, is that Google will think that this are 2 sites with duplicate content.
Or should I not worry?

quotations




msg:198215
 2:10 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

>I have tried to repair the error at DMOZ in vain.

I tried to get a similar error in dmoz fixed and instead of fixing it they removed the site and then they went and removed every other site they could find that they thought I might be involved with and any site I had ever edited.

Be careful what you ask for.

bignet




msg:198216
 2:16 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

would you consider using example.org instead of www.example.org?

or volunteer to edit that cat, and/or get more links
i think wm to blame not G. see similar dns issue [webmasterworld.com]

bignet




msg:198217
 2:20 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

What I am really scared about, is that Google will think that this are 2 sites with duplicate content.

Google is good at handling such issues created by webmasters

hutcheson




msg:198218
 3:12 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

I read your post several times. I think there are some typos that make it difficult to see the distinctions you're making.

My guess is that creating a 301-permanent-redirect from "widgetz.com" to "www.widgetz.com" would make all clear up -- eventually.

Stefan




msg:198219
 3:30 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google is good at handling such issues created by webmasters

No, they aren't.

My guess is that creating a 301-permanent-redirect from "widgetz.com" to "www.widgetz.com" would make all clear up -- eventually.

My guess too.

jranes




msg:198220
 4:42 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

I've been in the samee boat for almost a year. At least 10 pleas to dmoz, hope I don't get removed too.

hutcheson




msg:198221
 5:06 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

jranes, how long ago did you put in the 301-permanent-redirect?

Krapulator




msg:198222
 5:38 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

From my experience DMOZ will eventually update the listing to the address in the 301 header. For me it took about six months.

annej




msg:198223
 7:36 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have tried to repair the error at DMOZ in vain.
The category I am in does not have any editor any more and using their update function or sending them an email is not helping as I am not getting any answer.

I have been trying to get a description updated in DMOZ for about 2 years. Finally I applied to be the editor. I never got a reply.

I really wish Google would quit using DMOZ under the circumstances.

nilloc




msg:198224
 10:14 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi,

THANKS for all the answers.

1. Yes, their is a TYPO in my message, which should read like this:
#######
Searching:
link:www.witgetz.com I get 75 backlinks
and searching:
link:witgetz.com I get 83 other backlinks
#############

2. Creating a 301-permanent-redirect rom "widgetz.com" to "www.widgetz.com" (which I have done) does not

solve the problem that 83 very good backlinks, including DMOZ and the "Google Directory" will always be pointing to "witgetz.com" and are lost for the PR of "www.witgetz.com"

3. Their are many sites that use DMOZ to build their own directory. aslong as I can not update DMOZ then every month some new site will appear with a page linking to "witgetz.com"

4. Quote: "or volunteer to edit that category" - I have tried to volunteer at DMOZ, they simply do not answer the email.

5. I have read the threat that "widgetz.com" is not the same as "www.widgetz.com" but I have never found any site were they are not the same. This is not logic...they should to be the same

Krapulator




msg:198225
 11:27 am on Feb 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>Creating a 301-permanent-redirect rom "widgetz.com" to "www.widgetz.com" (which I have done) does not solve the problem that 83 very good backlinks, including DMOZ and the "Google Directory" will always be pointing to "witgetz.com" and are lost for the PR of "www.witgetz.com"

If you have a bit of patience it will eventually solve the problem.

bignet




msg:198226
 12:43 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

No, they aren't

Let's agree that these have been caused by users and that know-how-it-works webmasters can set up totally different content on example.org from www.example.org

GoogleGuy




msg:198227
 1:41 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

nilloc, I passed on your feedback. I think the next iteration of data should consider the two sites as one again.

nilloc




msg:198228
 2:59 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi,

Thanks GoogleGuy for the intervention. GREAT!

hutcheson




msg:198229
 3:17 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

>2. Creating a 301-permanent-redirect rom "widgetz.com" to "www.widgetz.com" (which I have done) does not solve the problem that 83 very good backlinks, including DMOZ and the "Google Directory" will always be pointing to "witgetz.com" and are lost for the PR of "www.witgetz.com"

Not immediately. But it DOES solve it. The ODP has its own spider (robozilla) that flags "permanent-redirect" listings. When these are flagged, editors check them.

Robozilla runs every 3 months or so. Many active editors treat its flags as very-high-priority quality-control issues: I'd expect something like this to be changed within 2-3 weeks after the next robozilla run.

After that, Google Directory updates ... eventually. Many of the smaller ODP listings are really ODP-site-sniffers rather than mirrors, so they will immediately update.

Stefan




msg:198230
 3:35 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Astounding, (well at least remarkable).

Nilloc, let's hope the resolution of your problem is the start of a new trend and we're about to see something more than, "well, they're different subdomains you know, and you're sh*t out of luck because of that bad incoming link... let's hope the redirect works".

Congratulations.

slade7




msg:198231
 3:53 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

One of mine had been that way forever, and I did this in .htaccess:

Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST}!^example\.com$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} example
RewriteRule ^(.*) [example.com...] [L,R=301]

Which I think redirects www.example.com to example.com (my host gave me this tidbit)-- which all my gazillion internal links point at anyway.

Anyway - I don't know if this is proper, but since doing it I went from #9 to #2 in G for my main KW - & my backlinks resolved.

nilloc




msg:198232
 4:16 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi,
Thanks all out there!

Just a little observation:
With all the members that are here on those forums, wouldn't it be better that Google starts to have it's own editors for the "Google-Directory" instead of depending on a copy of DMOZ.

I read so many times that very good sites can not be listed in DMOZ because the category has no editor!

Many sites that are still listed in DMOZ are no more online and many others are completely out of date.

I only take an example of "Daily breaking news from Widgetz country". DMOZ list sites of which the last update happened in the year 1999. As so these sites also appear in the "Google Directory".

I am sure that many forum-members from "webmaster world" would volunteer to take care of one or more categories of the "Google Directory".

ganrel12




msg:198233
 4:35 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

I had an old geocities site that i upgraded to a geocities pro site with my own domain-name. Some directories still mention the old geocities site.
I have suddenly lost rankings in google- my site is no longer even in top 50 - could it be that I am being penalized for apparent duplicate content ..

Stefan




msg:198234
 4:38 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'm onboard. I'll take speleology and it's associated categories. I'll also take marmalade, if there is such a cat, just because I love the stuff and I'm about to make some toast.

Google won't do it though, of course; they have enough on their plate as it is, what with IPO's and constant algo changes. Better that DMOZ gets revamped, (although I don't how that would happen). Anyway, pencil me in for marmalade.

nilloc




msg:198235
 6:09 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi,

Yes, Stefan, I know Google would never go for it!
But if you look at all the potential that is here at Webmaster World and that could be used to create a cleaner WWW......Maybe I am only dreaming Stefan.

The same goes for "Spam on the Internet".
I have a little search engine specialized in Widgetz. In this little niche topic of mine, I can smell spam from a mile far .... And I mean SPAM, not a SEO that tries to gain a better position, but is honnest and stays on topic.

I mean dirty spam like using hidden text, links and keyphrases related to children and religion to gain top positions in the 3-letter S-word.

Take 100-members from this board, have their findings triple-checked by 3-other members, then report the SPAM and you would have the best team of cleaners in the world.

nanocet




msg:198236
 6:22 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

<<<I am sure that many forum-members from "webmaster world" would volunteer to take care of one or more categories of the "Google Directory". >>>

Google isn't going to break away from using the ODP anytime soon. As far as taking care of categories:
a fair number of members here are ODP editors also.
For example, read above where you were told about the ODP spider that checks for things such as redirects and flags them.

nilloc




msg:198237
 7:30 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi Nanocet,

Thats all fine for categories that have editors that after the robot crawled and flagged the site cause of a 301, that the editor has a look and OK's the redirect or not.

Whay happens with site's like mine.... now we have a redirect from widgetz.com to www.widgetz.com, I get flagged by the robot for redirecting but NO editor available to check it out....Do I simply stay flagged or to I get eliminated?

Volunteer to be an editor...Did it a couple of times over the last 2-years...never an answer, even with mailing to the editor above the category and the editor above him. Same goes for Ediding a site, also never an answer.

victor




msg:198238
 9:48 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

I read so many times that very good sites can not be listed in DMOZ because the category has no editor!

You may read it a million times. You may even write it yourself. Doesn't make it true.

You've probably read almost as many times that every category has an editor. Most have more than one. Everyone up the tree from a category can edit it, as can the couple of hundred editors who can edit anywhere they like.

If you've never even had an automated response logging the receipt of you application to be an editor, then check your spam filters.

If you've had that, but no further reply, again check your spam filters, and then ask over at the place we are not allowed to mention here.

Hissingsid




msg:198239
 11:01 am on Feb 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

You've probably read almost as many times that every category has an editor. Most have more than one. Everyone up the tree from a category can edit it, as can the couple of hundred editors who can edit anywhere they like.

If that is the case then they might as well not be editors. One category that I'm listed in has not been updated for over 18 months, another has an editor listed who resigned over a year ago. I emailed him and he says that he has asked every month for twelve months to have his details as editor removed.

I've volunteered twice now to edit catagories that I know something about and on both occasions have been turned down even though they do not have an active editor.

Based on my very bad evperiences (like trying to get a redirecting page removed for over 18 months) I honestly think that someone needs to get a grip of the ODP editor situation and give it a right good shake up.

Best wishes

Sid

nilloc




msg:198240
 2:36 pm on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thanks a lot VICTOR!

Your tip om "You know what I now also know" solved my problem in less than 4-hours.
Changes will be seen on the DMOZ live server within the next 2-days from non-www to www.
Then hoping that Google will very fast do a new data-dump from DMOZ so that the changes in the "Google Directory"

Thanks for the tip, Victor

SyntheticUpper




msg:198241
 2:56 pm on Feb 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Do GoogleGuy's encouraging comments apply across the board - or only to Nilloc's case? - I wasn't clear on this.

p.s Stefan;

let's hope the resolution of your problem is the start of a new trend and we're about to see something more than, "well, they're different subdomains you know, and you're sh*t out of luck because of that bad incoming link... let's hope the redirect works".

I couldn't agree more; pure commonsense - and perhaps the end of x 1000 page threads about doing brain-surgery with a spoon (sorry, setting up htaccess on a shared server).

SyntheticUpper




msg:198242
 9:00 pm on Feb 29, 2004 (gmt 0)

GG wrote

nilloc, I passed on your feedback. I think the next iteration of data should consider the two sites as one again.

Apologies for seeming to top-post, but GG's statement appears to have been overlooked. Was he referring to a change in the way not-www and www are treated in general in the Google directory?

This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved