homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.57.4
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 277 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 277 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 > >     
How to Remove Hijacker Page Using Google Removal Tool
8,058,044,651 page indexed (now minus 1)
Idaho




msg:756514
 6:19 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Continued from: [webmasterworld.com...]


With the help of posts from crobb305 and others, I was able to remove a hijacker's page from the Google index.

My site was doing very well in the SERPs. For over 2 years it had been on the first page for a competitive term (1.2 million listings). Then during the first week in January my site disappeared and traffic tanked for no obvious reason.

When searching for "site:www.mydomain.com" I noticed that my index page often wasn't listed or it appeared on about page 3 or 4 of the results after all my supplimental pages.

A search for "allinurl:mysite.com" often didn't show my index page at all but instead showed somebody else's domain (located in Turkey). When I clicked on this link, my site came up. When I clicked on the cached version of the site, it showed a very old cache of the page. This same site also showed up after all my results when doing a "site:www.mydomain.com"

Using a header checker tool on the site's URL I was able to see it was using a 302 link to my site.

Last night after reading some posts by crobb305 and others I went to Google.com and clicked on "About Google." Then I clicked on "Webmaster Info." Then I clicked on "I need my site information removed." Then I clicked on "remove individual pages." Where I found instructions on how to remove the page.

(Here's the exact page where I ended up. If mod needs to remove then snip away:) [google.com...]

I then clicked on the "urgent" link.

Then:
1. I signed up for an account with Google and replied back to them from an email they sent me;
2. I added the "noindex" meta tag according to their instructions and uploaded it to my site;
3. Using the instructions to remove a single page from the Google index, I added the hijacker's URL that was pointing to my site. (copy and paste from the result found on "allinurl" search)

This didn't work the first time because I had to remove a space from the url to get it to work.

4. I got a message back saying that the request would be taken care of within 24 hours. The URL that I entered showed on the uppper right hand part of the screen saying "removal of (hijacker's url)pending."
5. I then removed the "noindex" meta tag from my page and re-uploaded it to my site.

This morning the google account still shows the url removal as "pending" but when I do "site:" and "allinurl" searches the offending URL is gone and my index URL is back.

Conclusions and Speculations:
At some point last September, Google cached the hijack page's url pointing to my site. In January, Google penalized my site for duplicate content because it found both URL's and compared them. Mine got penalized because it was the only page that really existed. The hijacker's page didn't get penalized because it only existed as a re-direct to my site.

Because my index page was now penalized, it dropped almost completely from the SERPs. (Some of my suppliement pages showed up for obscure searches) but none of my money terms.

Because I haven't been able to get a response from the hijacker's webmaster, the 302 is still in place but it is buried deep in his site and the last Google cache of the page was sometime in September. Therefore with some luck Google won't re-index it any time soon.

Will my site return to the SERPs? I don't know. Any thoughts?

 

crobb305




msg:756664
 2:32 am on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

So it is even more infuriating when you follow their protocol and the net result is that they advise you to email the hijackers and ask them to remove your link.

Keep in mind that emails are read/answered by assistants. They have the option of sending you a form reply with edits, or escalating to engineers. I would be willing to bet that most of our concerns go unread by powers-that-be or engineers; most of our emails are likely deleted. A reply such as this seems to have originated from an uninformed email reader.

I do trust that Googleguy's request for examples and information from us was sincere. And, I trust that our emails that he received were delivered to engineers as he said they would be. But, I do not trust the generic email readers who can make their job as easy as possible---they can simply hit the delete button.

Very frustrating.

Panacea




msg:756665
 5:05 am on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

crobb305

I followed GoogleGuys instructions to the letter. He said to put ‘canonicalpage’ in the subject field of the email. He said give detailed and specific information of the hijacking sites. He said to send it to webmaster@google.com. The reply came back from help@google.com.

The last time GoogleGuy posted in these forums was when he doing his spin doctor routine in the thread called: Google Cloaking and Keyword Loading On Pages. This was Mar 9. In this thread he was asked about hijacking.

His response was: msg #:58 "walkman, I'm happy to walk around and ask people about this [hijacking] more. Have you sent an email to webmaster at google.com with the keyword "canonicalpage"? That will help make sure that any reports about canonicalization (including redirects) get to the right engineers." [webmasterworld.com...]

GoogleGuy is the official voice of Google as far as this forum is concerned. He has not posted here since Mar 9 and made no further comments on hijacking.

crobb305




msg:756666
 5:36 am on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

His response was: msg #:58 "walkman, I'm happy to walk around and ask people about this [hijacking] more. Have you sent an email to webmaster at google.com with the keyword "canonicalpage"? That will help make sure that any reports about canonicalization (including redirects) get to the right engineers." [webmasterworld.com...]

Yes, he asked for the subject line "canonicalpage". But, I imagine those emails are still going to email readers. They have probably been asked to sort them accordingly, but I doubt they do. In no way did I imply that our concerns have been heard, nor did I suggest that Google really cares. I simply said that emails to Google are most likely deleted by email readers. I still contend that anything Googleguy has received personally has been sent on to the appropriate engineers. Again, I said "personally" received...not processed (and most likely deleted) by an email reader who could care less about the quality of the Google serps.

Incidentally, I have also sent several emails with subj="canonicalpage". My first email went out in December, and several more in January. My site is still MIA because of the hijacking problems that started for me last May.

Chris

Panacea




msg:756667
 7:34 am on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks crobb305 & walkman

Crobb305, I understand your point. Buy surly Google must have received several hundred or more emails pertaining to hijacking form members here at webmaster world. If all these email used “subj="canonicalpage" some must have got through to the right channels.

So besides me and cornwall, who were told by Google to contact the webmasters hijacking our sites and ask them to remove the links, has anyone here actually received an intelligent response on this issue?

reseller




msg:756668
 7:47 am on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi All

Its very clear by now, from this lengthy thread, that webmasters and Google are facing a huge problem which should be resolved soon for the benefit of both parties.

In fact this problem is more or less a MORAL issue. Should Google just sit back and watch and accept hijackers enjoy the benefits of stolen properties? Is it acceptable for Google that unscrupulous webmasters hijack contents and traffic on the private property and territory of Google? Stealing is stealing and the owners of Google ground should do their best to prevent that.

However, I see the relation between white hat webmasters and Google as partnership which should be a win-win one and not a lose-lose type. To achieve that its time to come up with constructive suggestions of how Google solve this problem. And hopefully GoogleGuy would be kind to conduct webmasters suggestions and thoughts to the folks at Google.

Several of the contributors to this thread sound very proffessional and might come up with such suggestions.

Let those constructive thoughts coming.

God bless you all.

Panacea




msg:756669
 8:32 am on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Reseller

I agree with you that it is a partnership. You supply Google with content rich information that increases the value of their search results, and you get rewarded with traffic.

However Google continues to stick with the official line that there is almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from the index.

Because they are a public company, Google can not indicate in any way that their search results can be manipulated by unscrupulous webmasters.

I am angered by the intellectual dishonesty of reporting redirecting issues and receiving an oxymoron response.

zeus




msg:756670
 11:52 am on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Since Google can not fix there redirecting problem and that way let a BIG opening for spammers - why dont they atleast sent googlebot to those sites that have been able them self to clean the google serps up a little.

I mean many have been able to remove a few googlejacker sites, but now some of them redirecting to them self and they still have the old cache with a copy of your site + many has maybe 5-10% left of there site pages indexed in google, why dont googlebot respider the missing pages, they do pick up some new pages, but all the old pages are still gone.

snoremaster




msg:756671
 2:35 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can anyone find fault with this:

If a site affected by redirects adds the BASE HREF html statement to their pages, google could then use that base href to verify what site the content belongs to.

They could then continue to host the cached versions of redirects but ignore any pagerank effect.

Blaming google for all this isn't very helpful, we just need a decent solution we and google can implement.

DamonHD




msg:756672
 4:35 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi,

Baseref is a little troublesome if your HTML or fragments of it (such as a template) must appear in several different places. I dislike as a point of principle/portability making absolute link references when I need not, and using baseref has that effect IMHO.

Anyway, horses for courses...

Rgds

Damon

bcolflesh




msg:756673
 5:07 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy has a big 302 explanation post on \. today:

[slashdot.org...]

Lorel




msg:756674
 5:15 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)


So besides me and cornwall, who were told by Google to contact the webmasters hijacking our sites and ask them to remove the links, has anyone here actually received an intelligent response on this issue?

The problem with google telling us to contact the webmasters first--they neglected to tell us to remove it from the G. Index first. So those that followed Google's instructions now have to ask the hijackers to reinstate the redirect, or 404 it, so we can remove it from Google.

Looks like a cat chasing it's tail to me.

Nosmada




msg:756675
 5:28 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

removal says complete on many of my submissions but when I do the inurl:mysite.com it shows that all the 302 hijackers are still there?

I have read this entire thread and so far to my knowledge nobody has reported this? Why would the hijackers be in the index when the removal tools says that the removal is complete?

Lorel




msg:756676
 5:35 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have some of my clients who had shared IP addresses who had redirects show up in the allinurl search from another site (because of a google bug) that applys their redirect to my clients also when on the same IP address (I'm having all my clients upgrade to a dedicated IP now).

Once the client has upgraded to a different IP should I do anything about that link still appearing in the allinurl search or will it dissappear in the next update?

zeus




msg:756677
 5:40 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

bcolflesh - Good to hear from Googleguy, but I realy dont see any logic to hes reply.

This is a HUGE problem and they know that and it has nothing to do with spam sites, they just have to fix this 302 bug and thats it, because it is a problem.

Now we KNOW they are not doing anything to fix this problem, well Happy New Year.

walkman




msg:756678
 5:46 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy,
if you reading this: there's an easy way to end these rumors, if that's what they are.

will an identical page ("hijacker") hurt another one ("innocent page"), when the "hijacker" is a supplemental page and the innocent page is not?

diddlydazz




msg:756679
 5:52 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)


Good to hear from Googleguy

i would have preferred no news compared to what googleguy has posted.

Until now I presumed that G was working on it in the background (hence the silence)

but after those comments it looks like the 302 issue isn't their priority to say the least!

very dissapointing

Yahoo! can sort it, why can't G?

snoremaster




msg:756680
 5:57 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Lets try to be constructive. If I were a google rep I wouldn't read forums such as these because of the ongoing negativity and unfounded accusations that are flung at the company. If stuff like that were said about you or your site you'd be peeved.

Still it's important that google is impressed with the seriousness of the situation but its not just a google bug; one of my sites has never been seriously entered into the msn search index because it apparently indexed hijacker pages first.

What we need is a solution. Something you can put in the HEAD field of your html. Something like meta name=site value='mysite.com' so that google can track what site the content is from.... So please try to help find a solution instead.

Atticus




msg:756681
 6:06 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

According to that message from GoogleGuy, the old chestnut that "Another site can't hurt yours," has been blown away.

He comes right out and says that in matters of determining the true owner of the page, PR trumps everything else. If the hijacker has a higher PR, game over -- you are toast.

GG then adds insult to injury by saying that if this happens to you, it's your fault because your reputation is dropping!

If Google wasn't including my domain name in it's snippet for porn sites, do you think my reputation would be a little better?

Maddening!

diddlydazz




msg:756682
 6:08 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)


What we need is a solution. Something you can put in the HEAD field of your html. Something like meta name=site value='mysite.com' so that google can track what site the content is from.... So please try to help find a solution instead.

hi snoremaster

I presume you know about base href?

i have spent hours removing dodgy 302 redirects, and will probably spend hours more (as it doesnt look like it is going away).

The members here have also spent hours trying to help find a solution, if nobody had bothered to address this then some of our sites would still be in the abyss.

This is a google problem AFAIAC plain and simple.

Maybe they should just ask Yahoo! how to do it :o)

Dazz

Nosmada




msg:756683
 6:13 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Please help,

I used the removal tool. The tool shows that the hijacker has been successfully removed but inurl:mysite.com reveals they are still in the index? Please help. The tool is supposed to do what it says right?

Atticus




msg:756684
 6:15 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Nosmada,

It takes about 24 hours for the URL to exit the index.

Nosmada




msg:756685
 6:19 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks Atticus....phew. Now will this do any good. Hope it helps us all. Seems like I get a few good months or weeks out of a site and then it becomes a sleeper forever after being hit by a 302 hijacker.

Nosmada




msg:756686
 6:24 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Should we use the noarchive tag?

idoc




msg:756687
 6:29 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

IMHO, it sounds kinda like some form of a page-rank based caste system to me. I hope it's a fake post.

[edited by: idoc at 6:41 pm (utc) on Mar. 23, 2005]

Nosmada




msg:756688
 6:31 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

If we constantly have fresh content on our pages then the nocache tag makes sense doesn't it?

Nosmada




msg:756689
 6:34 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

nocache or noarchive? Does it make sense when you have fresh content all the time?

Safaridude




msg:756690
 6:43 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Nosmada may be on to something there. If we put up a noarchive the 302 can't hijack your cache because good ole Google doesn't store it anymore. Unless they do it before the tag goes up.

Brett_Tabke




msg:756691
 7:35 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

note: lets leave the off topic soap opera stuff at the door and stick to the thread topic please.

>no archive - no cache

I can't conceive of a page you would ever want someone else to show with their name at top of it, and in the url. I always use no archive.

Nosmada




msg:756692
 7:59 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks for your help!

So this will be the advisable tag then?

<meta name=robots content="index,follow,noarchive">

?

zeus




msg:756693
 8:14 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I noticed today that when I type my url in google.com, the link points to [google.com...]

when I does this on 216.239.39.104 it points to my URL

Hmm I dont think I have seen that before, could it be a kind of google redirecting and maybe thats why they cant fix this issue, because they use it them self sometimes. (just thinking load here)

Lorel




msg:756694
 8:39 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)


If we put up a noarchive the 302 can't hijack your cache because good ole Google doesn't store it anymore. Unless they do it before the tag goes up.

I had noarchive on all my pages and that didn't stop a multitude of redirects and stolen content. I took it back off so I can make a COPY of Google's cache so I have a 3rd party witness when I find stolen content.

This 277 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 277 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved