homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.7.136
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

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 467 message thread spans 16 pages: < < 467 ( 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 > >     
Google's 302 Redirect Problem
ciml




msg:732619
 4:17 pm on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

(Continuing from Google's response to 302 Hijacking [webmasterworld.com] and 302 Redirects continues to be an issue [webmasterworld.com])

Sometimes, an HTTP status 302 redirect or an HTML META refresh causes Google to replace the redirect's destination URL with the redirect URL. The word "hijack" is commonly used to describe this problem, but redirects and refreshes are often implemented for click counting, and in some cases lead to a webmaster "hijacking" his or her own URLs.

Normally in these cases, a search for cache:[destination URL] in Google shows "This is G o o g l e's cache of [redirect URL]" and oftentimes site:[destination domain] lists the redirect URL as one of the pages in the domain.

Also link:[redirect URL] will show links to the destination URL, but this can happen for reasons other than "hijacking".

Searching Google for the destination URL will show the title and description from the destination URL, but the title will normally link to the redirect URL.

There has been much discussion on the topic, as can be seen from the links below.

How to Remove Hijacker Page Using Google Removal Tool [webmasterworld.com]
Google's response to 302 Hijacking [webmasterworld.com]
302 Redirects continues to be an issue [webmasterworld.com]
Hijackers & 302 Redirects [webmasterworld.com]
Solutions to 302 Hijacking [webmasterworld.com]
302 Redirects to/from Alexa? [webmasterworld.com]
The Redirect Problem - What Have You Tried? [webmasterworld.com]
I've been hijacked, what to do now? [webmasterworld.com]
The meta refresh bug and the URL removal tool [webmasterworld.com]
Dealing with hijacked sites [webmasterworld.com]
Are these two "bugs" related? [webmasterworld.com]
site:www.example.com Brings Up Other Domains [webmasterworld.com]
Incorrect URLs and Mirror URLs [webmasterworld.com]
302's - Page Jacking Revisited [webmasterworld.com]
Dupe content checker - 302's - Page Jacking - Meta Refreshes [webmasterworld.com]
Can site with a meta refresh hurt our ranking? [webmasterworld.com]
Google's response to: Redirected URL [webmasterworld.com]
Is there a new filter? [webmasterworld.com]
What about those redirects, copies and mirrors? [webmasterworld.com]
PR 7 - 0 and Address Nightmare [webmasterworld.com]
Meta Refresh leads to ... Replacement of the target URL! [webmasterworld.com]
302 redirects showing ultimate domain [webmasterworld.com]
Strange result in allinurl [webmasterworld.com]
Domain name mixup [webmasterworld.com]
Using redirects [webmasterworld.com]
redesigns, redirects, & google -- oh my [webmasterworld.com]
Not sure but I think it is Page Jacking [webmasterworld.com]
Duplicate content - a google bug? [webmasterworld.com]
How to nuke your opposition on Google? [webmasterworld.com] (January 2002 - when Google's treatment of redirects and META refreshes were worse than they are now)

Hijacked website [webmasterworld.com]
Serious help needed: Is there a rewrite solution to 302 hijackings? [webmasterworld.com]
How do you stop meta refresh hijackers? [webmasterworld.com]
Page hijacking: Beta can't handle simple redirects [webmasterworld.com] (MSN)

302 Hijacking solution [webmasterworld.com] (Supporters' Forum)
Location: versus hijacking [webmasterworld.com] (Supporters' Forum)
A way to end PageJacking? [webmasterworld.com] (Supporters' Forum)
Just got google-jacked [webmasterworld.com] (Supporters' Forum)
Our company Lisiting is being redirected [webmasterworld.com]

This thread is for further discussion of problems due to Google's 'canonicalisation' of URLs, when faced with HTTP redirects and HTML META refreshes. Note that each new idea for Google or webmasters to solve or help with this problem should be posted once to the Google 302 Redirect Ideas [webmasterworld.com] thread.

<Extra links added from the excellent post by Claus [webmasterworld.com]. Extra link added thanks to crobb305.>

[edited by: ciml at 11:45 am (utc) on Mar. 28, 2005]

 

dogboy




msg:732979
 9:57 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

glad to know Google is all over this problem. Here is the email they just sent me 10 mins ago:

< email quote explaining that there's almost nothing someone can do to harm a site, that dogboy could contact the other webmaster, that pages and rankings change often and that they don't guarantee listings >

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That was a response to my 1000 character email pointing out that when they search for MY url, the result is a site which has my title and description on someone elses URL and when you click on that URL you go to my site..... which, by the way is no longer in the index.

How could anyone respond to a letter like that with "Please note that there
is almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your
site removed from our index."

ahhhhhhhhh sorry Google, the emporer has no clothes. I wish I was a lawyer so I could just sue them for fun of it. Obviously THAT site isn't associating MY content with THEIR site.... so it must be GOOGLE associating MY content with ANOTHER author. And I've already asked them once in a DMCA not to to do that.... yet they seem to insist that they are within in their right to publish my information and give credit to some other company.

[edited by: ciml at 9:45 am (utc) on April 27, 2005]
[edit reason] Email quote summarised. [/edit]

zeus




msg:732980
 10:32 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

dogboy - the site has the right to link to you, because I bet it is a 302 link to you that couses this problem, it is a googlebug nothing els, because they take the link as a unique site, not a normal link, thats also why you see all kind of stuff in the index like your%20keyword%domain%20.com, files, maps and even some that have a meta tag that say dont inlcude this site, I got hijacked by a site that had a meta noindex in it.

Im not sure why it is so important for google to show they got "8mill" sites indexed, personaly I dont care I just want to find my stuff and with that I had no problem before they added all this crap files/sites, the hijacker and 302 realy took of when they added all those new "sites"

Vec_One




msg:732981
 11:08 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Claus, thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, I have a Windows 2000 server. Any wonderful words of wisdom for a woeful Windows wascal?

Stefan




msg:732982
 11:12 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Im not sure why it is so important for google to show they got "8mill" sites indexed, personaly I dont care I just want to find my stuff and with that I had no problem before they added all this crap files/sites, the hijacker and 302 realy took of when they added all those new "sites"

For the sake of the shareholders, apparently, Zeus. It would be interesting to find out how many of those 8 quadrillion pages are unique, and how many exist only in the mind of G.

Courage, Dogboy. Astounding that they still maintain the "almost nothing a competitor can do to your site" nonsense.

Panacea




msg:732983
 1:40 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

dogboy,

What were you expecting?

Your automated response for Google is exactly the same email most of us got 4 months ago when GoogleGuy last told us to report canonical/302 Redirects/Hijacking issues.

g1smd




msg:732984
 1:42 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

varbano: Your code in post #347 still leaves a duplicate content issue with new-example.com and www.new-example.com unresolved.

rjwmotor {post #357}: Get the site-wide non-www to www 301 redirect in right away, if not sooner.

nickied: {post #360}: After just 10 days all the www pages had gained a title and description, and the number of non-www was falling rapidly. A week later the latter increased massively, and has taken another month to fall back down close to zero again.

The only pages with titles and descriptions are www pages. All the www pages have titles and descriptions. None of the non-www pages have titles and descriptions.

dogboy {post #361}: I am not sure what is going on with Google responses, but their quality is very low, and the answer usually has nothing to do with the question that was asked.

I have several friends who all had one particular problem with their sites. They all had the same problem (to do with supplemental results, actually). All four of them sent in the same question, with the exact same wording (except for the URL), and all sent in on the same day. The responses received were "definately yes", "yes", "no" and "definately no". Two of those replies were definately wrong: and could be proved to be with reference to the SERPs after the other two sites had their listing adjusted by someone at Google (the other two replies said that they never do this).

Jane_Doe




msg:732985
 3:30 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Have you guys considered the possibility that your sites have penalties as Googleguy mentioned in an earlier post? With my sites the only ones that were/are outranked by scrapers and redirect sites for their unique names and titles are ones I'm pretty sure had/have penalties.

All of the sites I've cleaned up have come back to their old rankings even though the scrapers and redirects are still there. The scrapers and redirects ranking higher were a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The cause was that some of my sites had attributes that caused the sites to lose page rank. (The real page rank - not the one they show on the toolbar).

Stefan




msg:732986
 3:39 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

With all due respect, Jane, penalty or no penalty, putting a hijacking site in the serp's is still bogus.

I'm one of those who hasn't had any problems with the 302 stuff, but I can sure sympathize with those who have.

vincentg




msg:732987
 4:31 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Jane

That's pretty much what my stance is.
I still do not believe there is a 302 problem.

I have seen nothing that has shown me one exists.
I do know google has made a change in January.
That change has effected my site and I am betting most of those who are beating this 302 drum are really being hit by that change.

I think if there was ant truth to this claim of a 302 problem it would be news in the major websites already.

I think it would be written up by Danny and would be on this website [searchenginewatch.com...]

But it's not there - nothing on a problem of 302.

That tells me they don't see this as being real.
I have an open mind but have yet to see this in circles where the pros are.
I have also not heard the google guy said there was a 302 problem.

I think this board has caused more harm than good.
Those that follow wind up following it to the total death of their website.

Those that promote the 302 rumor should think about what they are doing for you have pushed this and have mislead many with faulty information.

With no real knowledge of how Google works you come up with a fictional scenario and claim its true.

A true Pro works with facts and does not act on rumor or possibilities.

Vin

Reid




msg:732988
 4:51 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Vincentg wrote:
I don't recommend the use of the remove url tool.
It's too risky and not worth it.

Also as Google Guy said it was not designed for this purpose.

I think if you suspect a 302 problem it's best to follow the correct path and email google.

The use of the removal tool is indeed risky - but only if you make a mistake.
I think they should have an opt-out page, where they show you what you are about to do and then require your confirmation. Instead they just tell you what you've already done. You could alter it though, all you have to do is remove the disallow (that you didn't want to happen) from your robots.txt file before it gets 'approved' and you could prevent any unwanted results from happening.
Googleguy wasn't talking about 302's when he said 'the removal tool was not designed for this purpose'. That's not what happened at all, the removal tool works ,as long as you use it properly. It was not designed for this, but it works if done properly.

added to that is the fact that i wasn't talking about removing a 302 URL in the first place, I was talking about recovering a site that was removed by using the tool improperly.

Nosmada




msg:732989
 4:52 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Just becuase it hasn't happened to you and some aren't talking about it doesn't refute the thousands of cause and effect situations that I and others have observed. Over and over again the hijacking occurs and you drop immediately. I hope for your sake it doesn't happen to you.

Nosmada




msg:732990
 4:54 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

My last post was to vincentg.

vincentg




msg:732991
 5:09 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thousands?

What are you an SEO?
How is it you have seen thousands?

Show me one!
I asked this once before and not one came forward.

Vin

Nosmada




msg:732992
 5:31 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Why do you think this thread is so long? There are hundreds of webmasters around the world comlaining that this has happened to many of their sites. It most likely adds up to thousands. Then of course there are those webmasters who have had this happen and don't have the knowledge of it or have the knowledge and have not participated in this forum. I would not dismiss the large number of observations that have been reported in this and other forums just becuase it hasn't happened to you yet. As for showing you we do not put our web sites in this forum. This is for us to share our thoughts and info without fear of getting harm done to our sites by potentially unscrupulous people.

jd01




msg:732993
 5:35 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I guess they just included this in the amatuer section at SE watch on accident:

Google Tackles the 302 Redirect Issue at Search Engine Roundtable highlights comments from GoogleGuy in this WebmasterWorld thread that Google is making changes to help ease concerns that by using redirection, others might hijack your listings in Google. Page Hijack: The 302 Exploit, Redirects and Google from Claus Schmidt provides excellent background on the issue, and does some revisiting in this Threadwatch post: Google's 302 problem solved? Also see Google's Redirect Hijacking Problem Gets Slashdotted and Redirection Problems With Google, Yahoo for more background and links.

Edited: Removed link, try using G...

Maybe nobody is coming forward, because if Google is changing things to account for it (GG post in this thread) and you can't figure out it is real, there is no real point in trying to explain further.

Justin

Jane_Doe




msg:732994
 5:45 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I hope for your sake it doesn't happen to you.

But it has happened to me on several sites. The ones I've cleaned up have all come back just fine, even though the redirects and scrapers are still there.

I suspect many people here are mistaking association for cause and effect. Just because redirect sites appear above your sites in the serps for your unique site name or title does not mean the redirects are the cause of your problem.

In fact in many cases you can analyze the scrapers and redirects that appear above your site and below your site for valuable clues as to what is wrong with your site.

Why do you think this thread is so long?

Because a lot of sites now have spam penalties that used to rank just fine.

GG post in this thread

You mean this one:

"in many of the cases that I've examined, a spam penalty comes first. That spam penalty causes the PageRank of a site to decrease. Since one of the heuristics to pick a canonical site was to take PageRank into account, the declining PageRank of a site was usually the root cause of the problem.

(italics added)

vincentg




msg:732995
 6:15 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thing is I need to see it.

If there is a real problem I would think it would have gotten some coverage.

I also suspect that the poor excuse of an SEO that placed the code on the thousands of websites may well be trying to deflect blame.

This is a perfect cover - blame it on google.

I have seen the code placed on the websites - that is a fact one that all can see.

Would be nice to let the poor souls know - what say you forum moderator - would you be for posting a few or all here?

I believe it's that code that brought about the change in google.

When it comes to a you need faith I say I only trust in God.

As to the no post rule - I do have an email address that is not too hard to come by.

Vin

jd01




msg:732996
 6:19 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> Since one of the heuristics to pick a canonical site was to take PageRank into account

No italics necessary.

Loose English translation, 'one of the determining factors of attributing origination of content was PageRank...'

Logical conclusion: The site with the higher page rank had a beter chance of the content being attributed as theirs.

There was a problem.

Justin

BTW I firmly believe G has the right to deliver whatever results they believe best suit their needs, and are in the best interest of their sole purpose for being in existance as a publicly help corp. - To grow share holder value.

I have not ever blamed G for my ranking, or lack there of. They run their business to the best of their ability, as do I with mine.

Do I believe it is a problem for a 302 redirect to possibly attribute original content wrongfully to a site based, not on the date the content was created, but rather on a ranking that G determines? Yes. Not because it hurts my ranking or ability to do business (I am not dependent on G, and think this should be true of more businesses), but because the wrongful attribution of original content by anyone or any entity is poor at best.

Edited and Added for clarity.

Atticus




msg:732997
 8:01 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Jane_Doe,

While I am open to discussions about whether the 302 problem is a root cause or is symptomatic of some other problem, consider your statement:

"In fact in many cases you can analyze the scrapers and redirects that appear above your site and below your site for valuable clues as to what is wrong with your site."

Don't confuse scrapers and 302 hijackings. In the case of a truly hijacked page, the cached content is identical to your content (and how can one get a "valuable clue as to what is wrong with your site" from that?) and the actual page content is often nothing more than a fast meta refresh. Once again, not much chance of "valuable clues".

Scapers are bad, bad, bad, but they are a completely different issue than 302 hijackings (Although some scraper sites may also be hijacker sites.)

I believe in the 302 hijacking problem for various reasons, but the one that 'sold me' is that it explains the yo-yo effect of sites which have been top 10 for years dropping into oblivion, only to reappear near the top and then drop into oblivion again. I can see no logical reason why G would institute an algo that ranks a site highly, then drops it, then ranks it highly again, then drops it again.

But the possiblity that hijackers target high ranking sites which then fall out of the index, and having fallen out of the index are no longer subject to hijacking are free to re-emerge only to become victims again as they regain position seems reasonable. Thus: the yo-yo effect.

Give me another explaination of the yo-yo and I'll reconsider whether 302 hijackings are a root cause or an side effect of something else.

claus




msg:732998
 9:36 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> At least one full month to propagate

I think i better clarify that statement: Some pages will change URL quicker than others - i've seen it happen pretty fast (days). With "propagate" i meant "fully replace the old pages in terms of URL, snippet, cache, PR, and ranking".

>> Windows / IIS

Don't use response.redirect as that is equal to a 302 (i have to repeat that). You want to use a 301. AFAIK, there's such a thing as an "ISAPI filter" that you can buy and use, otherwise these threads will be helpful:

>> I need to see it

No you don't. Really. You need to see it solved and gone. Besides, you're a little bit late to the party as Google has removed those listings from the SERP's, so you can't see them anymore.

That said, if you trust people at SearchEngineWatch more than the people here, take a look through the SEW forums, they've got threads about this issue as well. Take any SEO related forum.

---
Welcome back dogboy, long time since i've seen your nick around here. Lots of people have received those emails, they're just a standard reply like a thank you note, nothing more than that. They don't really make any sense for this situation at all.

[edited by: claus at 9:47 am (utc) on April 27, 2005]

claus




msg:732999
 9:42 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> One month isn't my experience wrt non-www to www 301s.

I should emphasize that i wrote "at least one full month" in that sentence. That said, that six-month case definitely doesn't sound normal. That does not mean that i don't believe you - i do. There's probably something else going on here in addition to the 301. I don't know what that might be, but it could be all kinds of stuff, both with or without 302 trouble thrown in.

I read the other thread as well and g1smd's suggestion sounds good to me.

Dayo_UK




msg:733000
 9:45 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> One month isn't my experience wrt non-www to www 301s.

I recieved an email from Google and they stated a few crawl cycles. (Bit vague but I would suggest 2-3 months.) Whether the rankings fully return I dont know - yet.

reseller




msg:733001
 10:11 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Atticus

< I believe in the 302 hijacking problem for various reasons, but the one that 'sold me' is that it explains the yo-yo effect of sites which have been top 10 for years dropping into oblivion, only to reappear near the top and then drop into oblivion again. I can see no logical reason why G would institute an algo that ranks a site highly, then drops it, then ranks it highly again, then drops it again.>

Lets start by a simple question which shall clarify the assumption of the Rotaing Algos which you call "Yo-Yo" effect:

- With the "Yo-Yo" situation in mind, is it possible for any SEO company to present its clients for stable positions of their sites on the serps as a result of the work of that SEO company?

Of course not. Because if you present your SEO work results as a SEO specialist to Mr. Marketing Manager of Widget Trading Inc. at 9 am and run few queries for specific key-words/phrases to demonstrate Widget Trading Inc. position as #10 on the serps, you risk that Mr. Marketing Manager will see entirely different results or even can't find his site on the first 40 serps at 9 pm of the same day or the day after, when running the same queries.

The conclusion might be; its rather difficult or nearly impossible for SEO companies to operate while the rotating algos "Yo-Yo" are in effect.

As a result of above, Mr. Marketing Manager will be forced to start thinking AdWords, and not SEO companies anymore.

And guess for a second who is the winner from all this?

It should be very clear by now for all fellow members involved by one way or the other in SEO/SEM that Google has started a war against the SEO/SEM communities on the 3rd February 2005 threatening the financial existance of the two communities.

And the tragedy is that members of the SEO/SEM communities, Instead of finding solutions to survive, they just keep telling each other; sit tight..wait..and see and several posts on these forum illustrate this unfortunate passive attitude.

claus




msg:733002
 10:21 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks Dayo_UK :) So, these days it could be a couple of months.

>> considered the possibility that your sites have penalties

That angle was new to me until GoogleGuy posted it a while back. I don't remember if it was here, or on Slashdot. I gave it some thought and i think he's probably right in some cases, perhaps even most, but definitely not all. That said, the word "penalty" is the wrong one, as this is not about "spam", it's more like "weakly founded pages" which can mean anything from few links/low PR/new pages, to duplicate issues (www vs. non-www, vanity domains, and such), and probably more.

And... it's only half the picture. Weakly founded is "weakly founded as compared to the script".

The real issue, and the very core of it, is that the redirect script is interpreted as being a page although it is not a page. I've said that a lot of times, but let me add something new this time. First, i just have to say this yet another time: It is not all that has an URL that is a page. Add to this that some pages have several URL's and you get an interesting problem, which we know way too much about by now.

Back on topic: Here's the real deal, again

You know why "site maps", "terms and conditions", "about us", and such often rank pretty high? Because they're linked to from every single page of the site. That way they're pretty strong pages.

Need i say more?

Okay then, you know what you get when you link to a certain script numerous times on every single page of a site, and that script is interpreted as a page? A pretty strong script, that's what.

You don't get your PR5 replaced by a link on a PR2 page - you get your PR5 replaced by a "PRetty strong script". That's what.

Links don't have PR. Pages have PR.

Atticus




msg:733003
 11:40 am on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

reseller,

I dumped the 'rotating algo designed to thwart SEO' theory for the 302 theory in explaining the yo-yo effect, because 1) I believe that searchers would see a rotating algo as an unreliable algo, reducing G's traffic in the long run and 2) because it has been my experience that when people make mistakes (such as G and their increasingly crappy SERPs) it is more likely to be the result of error rather than maliciousness.

Of course, the modern corporation generally seems to prefer killing the goose in the name of short term profits, so you could be right...

theBear




msg:733004
 12:06 pm on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Jane_Doe intoned in a qoute of GoogleGuy

That spam penalty causes the PageRank of a site to decrease. Since one of the heuristics to pick a canonical site was to take PageRank into account, the declining PageRank of a site was usually the root cause of the problem.

Pointing out in italics that declining PR was the cause and the decline in PR was because the site spammed the SE.

You should also note the use of the weasel word usually, as in NOT ALWAYS. LOL, I've been reading too many court transcripts.

It could just as easily be that the reason that the site "spammed" the SE was because the stupid wetware blew it and thereby caused the software to act as though the 302 belonged to the site that was degraded because of spamming. That site view had until Google changed it recently two or more copies of the pages in question. One under the proper URL and one under the 302's URL. In addition Google's urlconsole gave approval for the removal of the other sites URL from the INDEX by changing the robot meta tag on the targets page.

It sure looks like, sounds like, and works like a duck, so I'll call it a Duck

In any event Google had all of the information to correctly attribute the page to the proper site, the proper site in ALL cases is the TARGET of the 302, that is where the data is and that is also the owner of or licensee of the data.

zeus




msg:733005
 12:07 pm on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

The talks about that this 302 is not a problem is just pure bull, so lets focus on those sites that have now removed every 302 links and hijackers from the site:yourdomain.com - the problem is now:

do the original have a ban? if so it would most likely not be a personal removal, it would be a kind of filter, but why is it still not crawled and indexed fully after the removal of the bad sites, what could be the reason? what does it take to get back to old listings? a fully crawl by googlebot is what one should hope for. Another thing why is it that sometimes your site is back to old ranking in google.com.my for a few sec. in the logs?, for that I realy dont have any clue.

Maybe the only why to get back is to make a collection of all former hijacked sites and still hijackerd/302linked sites in one email, if so I would gladly collect all sites(no bad ones you know what I mean), but on the other hand the must be a logic to this situation after hijackers/302 are removed, to get back in the serps. and not just 2sec. in google.com.my

reseller




msg:733006
 12:35 pm on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Atticus
<I dumped the 'rotating algo designed to thwart SEO' theory for the 302 theory in explaining the yo-yo effect, because .........

2) because it has been my experience that when people make mistakes (such as G and their increasingly crappy SERPs) it is more likely to be the result of error rather than maliciousness.>

Agree. But do you really believe that the bright engineers of Google have been busy for 3 months in finding a fix to correcting a programing mistake?

Pls don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there is "maliciousness" involved. Its just a business practice from Google side to boost the AdWords revenues.

union_jack




msg:733007
 1:34 pm on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

wow i find this confusing.

On advice of many guys on here and one in particurlar who i would like to thank ( i have just sticked him personally), i have know removed my 302 redirect in favour of a 301. I have to point out that when i ran site:mydomain.com it only showed www results so i dont think i have a problem even thoe my traffic dropped by 80% on the 23rd of march. Ill let you know if it comes back.

i sure hope i have done the right thing.

Cheers

Jane_Doe




msg:733008
 3:31 pm on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

In the case of a truly hijacked page, the cached content is identical to your content (and how can one get a "valuable clue as to what is wrong with your site" from that?) and the actual page content is often nothing more than a fast meta refresh. Once again, not much chance of "valuable clues".

I have looked at hundreds of instances of 302 redirects where a page shows in the other site's cache, including some from PR9 sites. However, in most cases the pages still do just fine, except in the cases where the site the page belongs to most likely has been penalized.

The valuable clues come from analyzing why some pages from these redirect pages "get hijacked" while other pages, subject to the same redirect code, do not.

Nosmada




msg:733009
 5:08 pm on Apr 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Just becuase a particular site might have a lower pr then the pr9 one doesn't mean that it should be penalized further or fall pray to other problems it might just be newer. So the strong get stronger and the weak (or new) get weaker?

This 467 message thread spans 16 pages: < < 467 ( 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 > >
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.
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