stargeek
msg:748767 | 9:09 am on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Google never was broken. Had some technical difficulties and still has some.
|
|
To acurately debate this point we must define broken, one possible criteria is that it does not follow its own guidelines. Google has and does say that a website's ranking cannot be harmed by another site. This is simply not the case now and perhaps never was, if a toaster says you cannot be electrocuted by touching it and you clearly can be it is broken.
Google's mechanism is assigning content belonging to one url incorrectly to another url, functionally this is broken is it not?
If you have another definition of broken that does not include this situation I'd be interested to here it.
You don't like it, Go somewhere else. easy as is. |
|
Google has an almost complete monopoly on web searches, this means that at least morally and probably legally they have an obligation to at least follow through with what they say. While one unstatisfied webmaster may take his traffic elsewhere, the vast majority of users on the web are using a broken engine. Google uses its spin masters and the obviously tighly restricted spokesperson "GoogleGuy" to give the impresion that they care about users, webmasters or thier results, given thier very noticeable silence on this issue recently it is painfully obvious that this is simply untrue.
|
kwngian
msg:748768 | 9:17 am on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Perhaps it is also time to block those unknown, uncommon spiders that comes by your sites and grap those new pages that you have before googlebot or those from the main stream search engines.
|
Reid
msg:748769 | 9:33 am on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Google uses its spin masters and the obviously tighly restricted spokesperson "GoogleGuy" to give the impresion that they care about users, webmasters or thier results, given thier very noticeable silence on this issue recently it is painfully obvious that this is simply untrue. |
|
Cmon leave Googleguy alone. He tries to be helpful but Google does have strict policies about it's algythorim. Obviously theres a lot going on at the plex right now. Maybe they got teams of engineers working overtime on this very thing as we speak. The other thing I noticed is that instead of using snippets from my pages as usual they have switched to using my actual META descriptions. Never saw google do that before. Something is up at the plex. try searching Yahoo "google denies 302 redirect problem" #1 result - this thread.
|
activeco
msg:748770 | 10:04 am on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| Cmon leave Googleguy alone. He tries to be helpful but Google does have strict policies about it's algythorim. |
|
Peter is a good guy, no doubts about it.
However, being helpful is another story.
He is here not to help you, but to help Google in the first place. Whenever he jumps in, there is immediate shouting and bowing: "Thank you GoogleGuy, Thank You" and a guarantee of at least 10 new reply pages before the wave stops.
You have to understand that his interest here is to protect Google and possibly to get rid of most of the people here.
SEO in its current form is an enemy for Google, webmaster guidelines are only meant to make life easier for Google, not to you.
They rarely adapt to the web, the web adapts to them.
How many sites today use frames?
Since they acknowledged they (you) have trouble dealing with frames, such a wonderful feature belongs to endangerous species now. If he (they) want to give constructive help, they could at least confirm exactly how many times they follow 302 consecutive redirections.
It would not endanger their algo's in any way.
|
arras
msg:748771 | 11:17 am on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
"Google never was broken. Had some technical difficulties and still has some"
it seems to me that or is broken and out of control because of greediness the common illnes of the American industry (biger and biger....so lets have 8.000.000.000 pages in our index...but to do that we have to include any kind of cr%^&p is out there,that's why you find your pages under a crapy chinese cr$%^p) or they try to fix it,as i have sayed in many messages i follow the last 20 days all DC's and as many probably you have noticed results changing every hour,and is not a usual google dance with some ups and downs in SERPS like #3-#5 or #6-#4
we can see pre alegra and post alegra pages coming up and desapear every hour.Pages of PR 3 that have the PR5 from another page because if you click on the cached shot is another page ,i could give you examples of such pages but i can't because of the TOS .To me is somehow clear that they have problems and they try to fix them,after all they are not a bunch of idiots or a bunch of brains.
|
DaveAtIFG
msg:748772 | 12:00 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| A possible indication of a fix on some datacenters? |
|
deanril: I the same phenomenon on Liane's site a few weeks ago and posted about it at Danny's forum. I think it is part of a fix. Liane uses absolute addressing and a 301 from non-www to www. If memory serves, your site uses absolute addressing? It's strange that people would rather debate "Google is broke" than fix their sites, but there are many things I'll never understand.
|
arras
msg:748773 | 12:03 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
"It's strange that people would rather debate "Google is broke" than fix their sites, but there are many things I'll never understand"
how you can fix an 8000000000 cr&^%$p?
|
larryhatch
msg:748774 | 1:50 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
What on Earth is a "8000000000 cr&^%$p?"
Come to think of it, what is an "algythorim"? I can spell better than that half bombed. [burp!] -Larry
|
wiseapple
msg:748775 | 2:03 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Has anyone used the google automatice removal tool with the robots "no index" tag to remove offending sites? Just curious if this method works... Example:
- Locate offending URL.
- Put robots "no index" tag into your page.
- Log into automatic url removal tool at Google.
- Input the offending url to be removed. Google should pick up the tag that such and such URL should not be indexed.
- Remove "no index" tag from your site. Anyone have thoughts if this theory holds true? If it does work, this would also be a hole in the system where I could remove anyones site that points to me with a 302. Thanks.
|
tallguy
msg:748776 | 2:25 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
It would be nice if some Google representative logs in here and shares some advice on how to tackle this hijacking problem & if they could give us some email address where to report offending sites.
This would help a lot.
|
japanese
msg:748777 | 2:27 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
wiseapple, Tried an even more intricate procedure by blocking the IP of the console’s robot, via .htaccess, php script to produce a 404 on the target index page, serverside and robots text etc. Only one got the desired result, the console’s robot IP. Request was accepted and later denied. Do not attempt the above, bear in mind you are tampering with the target page, your index page. Disaster awaits a single mistake. Your index page represents your entire URL. You could erase your site in google for 90 days.
|
jk3210
msg:748778 | 2:29 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Clicking on the "cache" from this search [google.com] would indicate that Google is handling (at least these) 302s correctly.
|
walkman
msg:748779 | 2:47 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
"Clicking on the "cache" from this search would indicate that Google is handling (at least these) 302s correctly." it just means that Google hasn't indexed them yet, that's all. It may just happen on the next update...
|
wayne
msg:748780 | 2:54 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
[googleguide.com...] File Format filetype:
Occurrences
in the title of the page -> allintitle:
in the text of the page -> allintext:
in the URL of the page -> allinurl:
in the links to the page -> allinanchor:
Domain -> site:
Similar -> related:
Links -> link: ***************** If I want to see how many pages of just my site are
indexed, I use a combination of:
allinurl:mysite.com site:mysite.com
|
jk3210
msg:748781 | 6:58 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
<<it just means that Google hasn't indexed them yet, that's all. It may just happen on the next update... >> Huh? The cache from those links you see is what Google found when it followed those links. Hijacking is indicated when content OTHER THAN that belonging to those links is found and cached. That's NOT what Google is doing in this case.
|
dawlish
msg:748782 | 6:58 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
I think we are all missing something here. There are literally thousands of websites, many of which have been around for years, legitimately using 302 redirects. Website directories and banner scripts often use 302 to track clicks for example and I think it must be 302 used in combination with something else which causes the problem, if there is one. My own site has links from directory sites using 302 redirects, some of the 302 links are from pages with higher PR than my own site, yet so far my site still remains in the index. I've also looked at a snapshot of other sites listed in one particular directory using 302 redirects, and can't find one that has been replaced. Whether or not Google has a problem with 302s, I'm not really in a position to comment, but if it does have a problem there does not appear to be a consistent pattern unless anyone else can suggest otherwise?
|
zeus
msg:748783 | 7:03 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Once again its not a 302 redirect problem its a Google problem, they just dont know how to spider/handle the redirects like other big search engines wisenut, Yahoo...
|
blend27
msg:748784 | 7:08 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Just came to my mind.
method---status/type/charset-----------------target GET------302 text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1--**://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk-... GET------302 text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1--**://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/adclick?sa=... GET------200 text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1--TARGET WEBSITE
How does this work then? edit:
This what happens when user clicks on Ads By Advertisers... [edited by: blend27 at 7:39 pm (utc) on Mar. 12, 2005]
|
kilonox
msg:748785 | 7:21 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
ok I'm caught up. So google did a tweak on some inbound 302 handling, great. What is *really* needed is a way to validate content that resides at your domain. Read like a md5 hash/key that can only be read from a server at your domain and that can have a type of variance system? i'm just fishing here... why? I can easily write a script to slurp up results on google, farm the urls, fetch their sites, rewrite the files and comapany names, and feed them into my own site with full valid urls in each page, masking their domain names. no meta refreshes or 301/302 redirects. have fun with that hijack. I now have a 10k+ page website full of valid content, rewritten images, styles and text, all built from nothing, but my competitors content.
|
Panic_Man
msg:748786 | 7:24 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
A decription of my website has appeared under my meta description in google, when a search is done for my main keyword, which I haven't included anywhere on the site! Does this mean my page has been hijacked or are google doing this? Any help appreciated.
|
blend27
msg:748787 | 7:52 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
kilonox -- try copyscape dot com
|
theBear
msg:748788 | 7:58 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
dawlish, One problem that may be taking place is the result of "duplicate content" filter taking hold. Google has classified these pages as being part of your site. As I said earlier, Google has all of the required information to handle this properly. Are the users of 302 intentionally causing the problem no (not 99.99% of them) as you noted thousands (I dare say millions) of sites are using 302s. I think that over time all of the SEs have had a problem with redirects. Now having said that I'd also like to remind the posters to this thread that 301 and 302s are: 1: Not the only redirect indicating status codes. 2: Only server status codes and like all server status codes of the refering server your server doesn't have access to them. 3: The only 302 redirect that you might possibly want to block is the one that the SE bot is following. This places you in the same postion as 2 above. Why, because a client following the redirect is a qualified visitor and could be converted. Now on to other bits of information: There is nothing at all that requires a script to be used to carry out the same ends. The same thing can be done using html. I leave that as an exercise for the reader. There are far more insidious means of hijacking pages ones that allow the hijackers to take your high serp pages. These result in Google displaying your information in its snippets but when the site is clicked on you are refreshed to the hijackers site.
|
stargeek
msg:748789 | 8:01 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| It would be nice if some Google representative logs in here and shares some advice on how to tackle this hijacking problem & if they could give us some email address where to report offending sites. |
|
every time a webmaster looses free traffic he will probably end up buying that traffic from google.
they have soo many phd's and they've known about this issue soo long there's no way they couldn't have fixed it by now. Google is still trying to look like the good guy and not come right out and say it, thats why GG won't be commenting on this. Of course i'd love to be wrong.
|
jk3210
msg:748790 | 8:04 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
dawlish- <<I think we are all missing something here. There are literally thousands of websites, many of which have been around for years, legitimately using 302 redirects.>> Correct. But, no one seems to want to hear it, though. I believe the problem is either caused by a few specialized scripts whose purpose is to "provide clean [redirected] urls," or as Japanese states, a combination of script/cloaking voodoo.
|
stargeek
msg:748791 | 8:06 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
as far as capitalizing on this problem, now webmasterworld is offering a hint of a fix in thier subscribers forum for this issue on the front page.
I guess we now know who's in it for what.
|
stargeek
msg:748792 | 8:12 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| It's strange that people would rather debate "Google is broke" than fix their sites, but there are many things I'll never understand |
|
there is no way to fix our sites, we must bring make this impossible for google to ignore, by any means nessecary.
|
kilonox
msg:748793 | 8:49 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
blend27 - I'm not sure how large their database is (copyscape), or if it is even unique, but they would be hard pressed to be able to search 8+ billion pages for stuff that wasnt exactly like your page. Although Its a good idea, I doubt copyscape can really find smart plagerizers(sp). It looks like they are comparing keyword saturations and other such things. Dont miss my point, google should change they way they are handling 302s links. there are more than one "hows" for them to accomplish that. Does it put a stop to smart hijackers on the net? hardly.
|
diddlydazz
msg:748794 | 9:35 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
I believe the problem is either caused by a few specialized scripts whose purpose is to "provide clean [redirected] urls," or as Japanese states, a combination of script/cloaking voodoo.
|
|
IMO - Definately a mixture of the two affecting us seems to be only certain scripts, there has been a serious boom in PHP build a directory in seconds scripts just lately along with others, couple that with G adding (according to them) millions of pages into their main index and it could explain the obvious problems. some of our scripts (CGI) return a 302 and they haven't touched other sites, IMHO there are too many exceptions for it to be just plain 302. the internet is full of 302s, if they alone were the problem it would be a mess ;o) All supposition obviously, whatever the cause I just hope it gets sorted one way or another. good luck to all Dazz
|
zeus
msg:748795 | 10:22 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Stargeek - If we had a solution in WebmasterWorld Supporters Forum to this or knew anything from google if they are fixing the problem, we would tell you in a min., this forum is no capital forum, here we share.
|
blend27
msg:748796 | 10:27 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
kilonox - I used their services a couple of times and found a few sites that use my content, we have a custom written descriptions for our products written by a lady that wrote a book that is published on the Oprah Site - so I would doubt that she would copy thouse. here ia a papasite windowposition dot net - I've downloaded this plugin fo IE called IEWatch, it lets you watch the status codes while specific URL Loads. this URL is a refferer in my logs on many ocasions "***p://hitstats dot net / stats /?VFJDSz0xMjcw". whent to that URL page refreshes many frames. so I turned the toolbar plug in "IEWatch". and here we go., framed 302s like crazy or proxy redirects. I remember being contacted by a company that offered us to be above google. same thing as "seachclumbers". I dont know if I am right 100% on it, but to me looks bad.
|
Jane_Doe
msg:748797 | 11:02 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| the internet is full of 302s, if they alone were the problem it would be a mess |
|
I think so, too. I suspect that at least some of the issues in this thread that people are blaming on 302s and scraper sites are probably more likely due to recent algo changes.
|
|
