| 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.
| 11:06 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Once agai its not a 302 problem, the MAIN problem is that google creates sites out of 302 links, so it will be a dublicate, so 100% YES its a google problem and the problem got much worse after they added all those new so cald websites.
The solution is to wait for them to fix this, like yahoo did or make so noise as we are trying.
| 11:13 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|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. |
thank you sorry if i'm getting snippy about this the whole issue is just getting on my nerves, but i shouldn't be taking it out on people who are just trying to help.
| 11:23 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
We must continue with the pressure. This thread now looks gargantuan. I wonder if Claus can display the number of times this thread has been read.
I wonder if google knows about this thread and the threat that it poses.
This thread now is concrete evidence to google that we know the exact processes that create the conditions for a hijack.
I am creating a page that clearly as possible and in Joe Public language explains the process of the 302 and how a site is hijacked. Including a help process as to the limited things that can be done to rid the hijacking URL's
Where can I possibly load it for maximum exposure?
Any ideas please.
| 11:24 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"nce agai its not a 302 problem, the MAIN problem is that google creates sites out of 302 links, so it will be a dublicate, so 100% YES its a google problem and the problem got much worse after they added all those new so cald websites.
The solution is to wait for them to fix this, like yahoo did or make so noise as we are trying."
Have another! :)
Sure it's Google's problem ... Google's the search engine that allowed this [302 highjack] to happen - not Yahoo, MSN, Jeeves, etc...
[edited by: bobothecat at 11:27 pm (utc) on Mar. 12, 2005]
| 11:25 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just a silly thought, what if the only reference Google knows about your site is the 302 redirect?
You have the site remove the 302 redirect to your site and >POOF!< you disappear altogether.
Wow - 396 posts beating this dead horse, should've stopped this thread at 302 :)
| 11:35 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Where can I possibly load it for maximum exposure? |
I'd say put it here and make it clear that it is for republishing.
Together we'll spread it far and wide, various indy media avenues and other things could be used.
| 11:37 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Wow - 396 posts beating this dead horse, should've stopped this thread at 302 |
you sound like you're benefiting from some 302's, or at least haven't been affected yet.
would you like to test it? sticky me or japanese with your main sites URL and we'll send some bot traffic your way if you don't belive it.
| 11:40 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Clearly this is a problem that is unique to Google. MSN, Yahoo, Ask can easily associate my website with its own unique name. A Google ranking of 200+ and showing a "supplemental" page that is two clicks deep in the website should never happen.
| 11:42 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I already have 100s (if not over a thoudand) of 302 redirects to my site out of about 5,000+ IBLs.
Hasn't hurt yet.
But the sites I'll probably start swatting are those scraping chunks of my web pages, they are starting to annoy me.
| 11:44 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
so you belive this isn't a problem?
then go ahead, send us your URLS. if its not a problem you'll just be rewarded with some extra human and bot traffic.
| 11:47 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think this thread will stop at nothing, too many sites have gone down the swannie.
I am having difficulty putting it in Joe Publics language. Its too heavy a reading for anybody outside our circle to understand. But looks good enough to start pushing it and I will rectify things as I go along. I need a website to upload it. Perhaps a folder called "google-302-hijacking-website" in an existing site. So that we can work on it and promote it.
Bear in mind google will kill the site my information about hijacking is on.
| 11:51 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Many sites have been lucky and are not affected, but many are affected and in internet terms and figures that may be in the thousands, maybe higher.
A horrifying thought is that it is getting worse.
| 11:54 pm on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|then go ahead, send us your URLS. if its not a problem you'll just be rewarded with some extra human and bot traffic. |
The reason I'm not buying it 100% is most of the directories on the net large and small use 302s and directories don't dominate the listings. 302 may be related to the problem, but I don't think it's the whole cause.
| 12:06 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I need a website to upload it. |
why not just post it here, they won't "kill" this site.
| 12:13 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I need a website to upload it. Perhaps a folder called "google-302-hijacking-website" in an existing site. |
Why don't you register a domain with an appropriate name, activate it, upload to the index.htm, post the news in this thread of what's underway, and ask anyone who is interested to link to the new site, (info via sticky in respect to TOS). It might stay sandboxed in G, no matter how many inbound links, but it would show-up in MSN soon enough, and Y a little later. The whole setup would cost peanuts.
Once it's rocking we can all see if we can kill it, as an experiment.
<edit> typo </edit>
| 12:21 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Japanese - I will guarantee you get a lot of links, just keep the page clear, no ads, not so much fine english, because all this also effect webmasters/owners in other countries.
| 12:23 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If explanation is to complicated then explain it as ...
Lucy moving the football just before Charlie brown gets to it. And she keeps the ball which is your website.
| 12:23 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You are close to being correct but minus a very subtle point. We are not saying that the 302 status code is the problem.
It is googlebot/s and msnbot/s
These bots are caching other sites pages and penalizing the legitimate site. Hence the duplicate pages and penalties.
So the problem is google's reticent reaction. They should say something about this matter. Better still, they should fix it.
Their only hope is to find a way that their bots follow a definative code to understand an existing site must not be cached twice.
Google has the resources to find a solution, hey, I would be happy to leave this alone if only I knew they were working on it.
| 12:24 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
thats a gread idea about the new domain name, we should start it.
| 12:24 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
as a follow up to my above post, i'll even register the domain and host it
I just registered an appropriate domain name.
| 12:31 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Japanese - I will guarantee you get a lot of links, just keep the page clear, no ads |
Yeah, man. Make it sole purpose, no ads, just a few links out to DMOZ or something so it isn't a bot dead-end. I'll give you a decent link and I'm sure a lot of the others here would too. Do a bit of simple SEO on it, text heavy, maybe a few pages... who knows, maybe we'll even get it into G? If so, we try to disappear it using suspect 302 methods.
|I just registered an appropriate domain name. |
Was typing when you posted that. Good stuff. Let me know the URL when things are set to go and I'll donate a solid link.
[edited by: Stefan at 12:37 am (utc) on Mar. 13, 2005]
| 12:34 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I need a folder in an existing URL over 2 years old to upload the hijacking proceess writeup.
Any volunteer much appreciated.
I will upload it and amend it a few times to be as easy to understand as possible.
I refuse to put adsense in it or any affiliate links.
I may also use the folder for potentially unethical and destructive methods of linking via a go-php or CGI redirector to cause the unpredictable status code conditions and multiple choice 300 301 302 303 redirects.
| 12:40 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
sticky mail me
| 12:46 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I like this from adsense [webmasterworld.com...] - finaly we are getting near our problem, they are talking about scraper sites and the most scraper site are also them whos the hijacker/redirecter, so maybe someone should email the writer our tread here as a follow up.
| 12:51 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Japanese, you might be asking for a bit much to have someone allow a 2+ year old site to be destroyed.
|I may also use the folder for potentially unethical and destructive methods of linking via a go-php or CGI redirector to cause the unpredictable status code conditions and multiple choice 300 301 302 303 redirects. |
Why not set up a second domain that will be for 302 hijacking purposes? That is, one site will serve as the target, that we all link to, and a second site, that the more brave and/or foolish of us link to, will be used for the hijack. The hijacking site is going to have to be strong enough to pull it off, so it will need inbounds.
(Mods: I will totally understand if this post gets edited out of the thread. It's the scientist in me... I want to see experimental proof.)
| 1:19 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If you're looking for layman's terms, here was a simple description I used to explain the 302 problem to a friend:
There are several redirect types 2 of them are "301 - Permantly Moved" and "302 - Page Temporarily Moved". Now someone puts up some links to your site using a PHP redirect script to track clicks. It looks something like this: redirectsite.com/go.php?1056, that link sends a 302 (Temp) redirect to yoursite.com. Google says "Oh, yoursite.com really belongs to redirectsite.com so I'm going to give redirectsite.com all the PageRank from yoursite.com". redirectsite.com now gets your search ranking and google removes your site from the rankings for having "duplicate content" of your own site.
Now I'm not 100% sure that it gives away your site's pagerank but it surely seems like it, it definitley assigns a duplicate content penalty on the home page. In my case filter=0 brings up my home page on the old search terms while the sub pages only come up with a quoted search on unique text.
The evidence pointing to lost PR in my case is that the DMOZ listing shows a PR1 now where it used to be a PR3. Not a lot I know but it used to get some traffic.
| 1:20 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, you maybe right.
Our member is putting up a hurriedly typed process of hijacking as we speak. Keep an eye on this thread.
We must help people understand the process. Action is now a requisite. All talk and no action will not get results.
Google must fix this problem... Period
They did not, so now we put up the method for everybody to benefit if they want to. It is not illegal to do 302 redirects.
We will describe how to do it efficiently as possible with the maximum effect.
| 1:25 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
We will see a glimps of its construction in a few minutes. Keep your eyes peeled.
We will be working on its construction and terminology until it looks as good as we can get it to be.
The process is axactly as how I described on the main thread of this thread with slight amendments and more details so that Joe Public understands it.
| 1:36 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think I just found another variation "linked" to my site. I was searching for some unique text from my pages and ran across a link on google for a site selling [popular auction site] items. The cache showed a link to one of my pages along with description scraped from my site. The actual page itself when clicked shows the ads but NO links.
To top it off the "link" in the cached version was in the format: http ://www. [sitename] .com/dynamic-frameset.html?http ://www. [mysite] .com/[mypage].html
I wonder if they're trying to do something similar to the php 302 to my page with a frame.
If nothing else it looks like they're cloaking googlebot.
| 2:13 am on Mar 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
When this new site vanishes will it be via sandbox. the 302 bug. or just google doing evil?
How will you know which is the answer?
I'm waiting with baited breath...