homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.240.10
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 819 message thread spans 28 pages: < < 819 ( 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 > >     
Google Update Bourbon Part 4
GoogleGuy




msg:736898
 12:02 am on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Continued from part 3 here: [webmasterworld.com...]


I did the rounds to check on the state of various data updates. I'd estimate that the "0.5" (not algorithmic changes, but rather responses to various spam/porn complaints + processing reinclusion requests) should go out this weekend sometime or possibly Monday. There should be a binary push this week to improve a corner-case of CJK-related search, and that new binary should have the hooks to turn on the third set of data. Regarding finishing up the second piece of data, there's still two data centers with older data. Those data centers will probably be switched over by Monday. By Monday, 2.5 of the 3.5 things will probably be on.

 

Clint




msg:737528
 3:58 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint - There is nothing wrong with a 302 redirect as a link - it is a very very common way of linking to sites, and most sites would normally stop robots from following the 302 redirect (via robots.txt). It is where Googlebot is following these links there maybe a problem.

So then is it safe to say that Yahoo is blocking via robots.txt? Maybe that doesn't even matter with them. So is it safe to say that if you find a "disallow" tag in the <head> tag for SE's that the site is OK? I checked the sites that were 302'ing me and of those that DID have a robots.txt file, they were:

User-agent: *

Disallow: /images

Which appears they are not blocking any SE from indexing the pages. Of course if there is no robots.txt file, it's implied to index all. Also, if these sites have replaced you for your phrases where you ONCE were pre-May 21st, is it safe to say that these ARE the bad 302 hijacks? I didn't find any <head> tags either that were disallowing SE's.

bunltd




msg:737529
 3:59 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

so it's the 302 found responses that are apparently the ones to worry about.

Some of the headers I checked show 2 302's being performed before reaching my site, what's the impact of that?

LisaB

walkman




msg:737530
 4:00 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> I've begun cc'ing CNN on all my whinings to Google about 302's and canonical page issues. Maybe that's why the stock is dropping. <<

Yp, that's how it works. CNN controls the stock prices. Keep cc'ing them...it works.

Dayo_UK




msg:737531
 4:01 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yep thats about right Clint - even so 90% of the time the sites that are perhaps hijacking you are not doing it delibrately. Although it would not be the page with the link on in the serps - it would be your site cache under their links url. (Hope that make sense)

But GG has denied this problem - canonical url GG? (Any thoughts)

annej




msg:737532
 4:15 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

From what Clint says in message 514 along with Google Guy saying they are working on correcting it I'm wondering if many of us who had sites plunge in this update are also victims of a hijacking. It would help solve the mystery of why Google is suddenly hitting some of the good, formerly well ranking, content sites like this while not penalizing others. I have two sites one doing fine and one hurt by Bourbon and really can't see any difference between the two.

Clint




msg:737533
 4:19 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yep thats about right Clint - even so 90% of the time the sites that are perhaps hijacking you are not doing it delibrately. Although it would not be the page with the link on in the serps - it would be your site cache under their links url. (Hope that make sense)

Hee hee. Not really. At least saying what I said is "about right", I understand that. Sounds like you're saying that websites that now appear in the G-SERP's that replaced my site, that are IN the results because they link to me, are NOT hijacking anything even if my link on their page is a 302?

MyWifeSays




msg:737534
 4:20 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is there anybody other than helleborine with evidence that a 302 redirect to their site might be causing problems?

People seem to be seeing 302 redirects and jumping to conclusions. Anybody else seeing what helleborine saw, that is a page redirecting to hers with exactly the same set of backlinks as hers?

helleborine, are the backlinks of the redirecting site still the same as yours? If not when did they change?

Dayo_UK




msg:737535
 4:21 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

annej

The only problem with 302 redirect theory is that virtually every site in the world would be effected - 302 redirects are everywhere.

As GG said somewhere (I think - correct me if I am wrong) a 302 redirect becomes a problem when the site loses reputation.

But why so many sites have lost so much reputation - well perhaps canonical url probs?

Dayo_UK




msg:737536
 4:25 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint

Those sites are there based on the link to you/on page content etc (they may be there even if they placed a normal html link to you - those pages have not replaced you in the serps.)

I am not seeing exactly what you are seeing of course so I may be wrong.

AFAIK.

[edited by: Dayo_UK at 4:27 pm (utc) on June 9, 2005]

kgun




msg:737537
 4:26 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is there a W3 standard for etichal and objective search?

Should the serious searchengine companies sign a form, to follow such a standard?

We that make linkcollections, portals, libraries and directories "hijack" the results from searchengines. But that is the job of searchengines to be our workhorses. But we do not like an advanced crawler to "hijack" our 10 year work in seconds.

But the pages are indexed, if you do not exclude serious engines. But hopefully they always remain in the database / memory of the searhengine.

Sometimes the best is the enimy of itself.

Professor BOT, please build my brand.

KBleivik
"No I am more confuesed, but on a higher level."

Clint




msg:737538
 4:30 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Those sites are there based on the link to you/on page content etc (they may be there even if they placed a normal html link to you - those pages have not replaced you in the serps.)

Well they actually HAVE "replaced me". Before May 21st they were not there and I was 1st. May 22nd I was not only not found 1st on the 1st page where I was, but I was totally removed from the G index, and replaced by this website that links to me with a 302. So does that tell you anything? ;)

kgun




msg:737539
 4:33 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint, build an extranet. Use 100 sites to get customers.

Screen the customers.

KBleivik
"The devil is in the details. You eat a hamburger in the same way as an elephant, bite by bite."

[edited by: kgun at 4:35 pm (utc) on June 9, 2005]

bunltd




msg:737540
 4:34 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

People seem to be seeing 302 redirects and jumping to conclusions. Anybody else seeing what helleborine saw, that is a page redirecting to hers with exactly the same set of backlinks as hers?

Yes, don't like jumping to conclusions, just trying to make sense of the nonsense and I'm looking for something that fits.

FWIW - I don't see what helleborine saw, none of the 302's I found for my site seem to be behaving that way. They have no backlinks, and I didn't see any caching of my site on the offending urls. Back to square one?

LisaB

Dayo_UK




msg:737541
 4:35 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint

But were they number 2 before? If so they have not replaced you as such - you have just gone (for what reason is the question - I assume from GGs earlier post he knows the answer.)

Dayo_UK




msg:737542
 4:47 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

The Cat Example people are talking about.

I assume this is similar to the Adsense Hijack situation - but it is not outranking the correct homepage - neither is it showing its backlinks.

I think GG said he would explain how the Adsense Hijack came about in time.

The way things are going though I am getting concerned too though :( - Hopefully faith will be restored soon

flicker




msg:737543
 5:03 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hey, does that mean [64.233.183.104...] is close to the final result (except, hopefully, for the reinclusion of some content sites that got dropped)? Because [64.233.183.104...] looks EXCELLENT for educational searches. This update has been completely unnoticeable in the educational sector till now (SERPs were pretty good there in the first place), but now a bunch of so-so pages with low content have moved off the first two pages in the topic I'm most familiar with, to be replaced by high-quality sites of colleagues of mine moving up. All but one of the top twenty results for this search are now pages from sites I consider such good resources that I link to them myself. Ran through a few other educational searches and they look good too.

I wonder if you just get more sophisticated spam or a much higher quantity of it on certain commercial topics, so it's harder to keep those ones clean. Google pretty much cleaned up the redirects-cloaked-to-look-like-educational-sites infestation we used to have in these search terms way back in Florida, and there've been few problems in this sector ever since.

Just a bit of good news amidst the hubbub. (-:

helleborine




msg:737544
 5:07 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

helleborine, are the backlinks of the redirecting site still the same as yours? If not when did they change?

My offending link was on a "self-service" directory. I logged in and altered it. Within minutes of altering it, the link: results for the hijacking link and my site didn't match. The effect was reversible.

Janiss




msg:737545
 5:10 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

None of the DC's posted have shown any improvement whatsoever in my site - a search on the name of my site, even when you use quotation marks, shows my site on page 2. A site that stole snippets of text from my site and has it hidden on their page is #2 or 3! I am still not showing anywhere meaningful for any of the keyword terms I used to be on page 1 for. I still rank okay for a handful of keywords (handful meaning less than 5). But more often than not, when I look at my stats and see someone has clicked through to my page for a keyword that was good for my site, I check and I'm on page 7 or 8. (I don't even know why they bothered going down that far, unless they really hated the results on pages 1 through 6. Frankly, I would have just zipped over to Yahoo or MSN before getting that far.)

And, just to repeat, my site is well respected. I interview world-class experts in my topic. The reviews from my website get quoted on DVD boxes. This is not some thrown-together, junky spam site. I white hat SEO with the reader in mind, not the search engines. And my traffic has dropped by 80% since Bourbon. I really, really want people to come to my site and read and benefit from my articles, i.e., content! My site is definitely penalized by Bourbon's algorithm. It's very, very frustrating.

helleborine




msg:737546
 5:13 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Don't let the Cat Example distract you.

It is but one example of several quite different ways for your site to be obliviated in the SERPs. Such examples have been documented, and will be illustrated in a manner similar to the Cat Example, in order for webmasters to become proficient in indentifying hijacking, or potentially hijacking links.

And it's mighty good fun, too!

Dayo_UK




msg:737547
 5:17 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

helleborine

Well I have moved from 80% to 75% convinced my site has a canonical url problem.

Problem with the cat example is that it still ranks well (ish)

Ho-hum..

Janiss




msg:737548
 5:20 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Problem with the cat example is that it still ranks well (ish)

No it doesn't - it may show for its own name (eventually), but it shows not at all for any keyword it used to rank for. The site has virtually vanished from Google.

I know this because the cat herself told me so. ;-)

Maia




msg:737549
 5:38 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint,
When you were number one: the result looked like:

Clints Title
Clints Description
Clints URL

Does the site that replaced you look like:

Clints Title
Clints Description
Highjackers URL

Are the title and description are exactly the same as yours was? When you click the cache does it show your home page?

If so, then you have been highjacked.

Otherwise, if you are seeing something like:

Widget Directory Page Title
blah blah blah ..."a sentence from Clints page" followed by clint's url...blah, blah
Widget Directoy URL

You are probably seeing a scraper site with a bunch of URLs and 302 redirects, or a directory site that has linked to you and maybe with a 302 redirect. That doesn't mean you have been highjacked.

At least that was my experience back during this ordeal: [webmasterworld.com...]

Clint




msg:737550
 5:40 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint
But were they number 2 before? If so they have not replaced you as such - you have just gone (for what reason is the question - I assume from GGs earlier post he knows the answer.)

No, they were not on the first few pages, I never even noticed them before.

FTR, and all those that asked, I don't even know to what GG is referring by "clint-type sites". So, I can't even comment on that. I don't know if he's referring to my 1st post on my 302, or something else.

Dayo_UK




msg:737551
 5:44 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks Clint

So nobody knows but GG.

Sooo - things will improve for some sites that have problems - but no-one knows what the problem are, why it started and how it will be fixed.

Forever more they will be known as "Clint Type Sites" :)

I hope I have a "Clint Type Site"

Sorry GG just being silly ;)

Clint




msg:737552
 5:48 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dayo:

If you do a search for link:domain.com does it show different results to link:www.domain.com?

If you have the G Toolbar with Page Rank - do you get different page ranks for domain.com and www.domain.com?

If yes to all three then it might be worth considering a 301 redirect - you may have seen this discussed a few times on the thread and in GG post number 7 here:-

The answer to those respectively is a not anymore, and YES. I did have more pages showing for one way using the link: command, and after doing a 301, both ways now show the results of the previous method that had FEWER results! The PR indicator showed 2 points higher for my www version. I of course can't check the non-www version anymore now due to the 301, but the PR for my www version is the same as it's been for years (since to G toolbar came out that is).

Dayo_UK




msg:737553
 5:51 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint

I would have thought that when the backlinks and pr are the same on the non-www and the www you may look to recover.

It seems to take a little(long) while though.

Dayo

Clint




msg:737554
 5:51 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint, build an extranet. Use 100 sites to get customers.
Screen the customers.

Sorry, I don't know what that means. ;)

samwise




msg:737555
 5:56 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi

The keyword combination for one of my own products has been moved to postion 59 (pre Bourbon it was #1). I created a software product with a somewhat unique combination of words and it's not popular word at all.

My site was first hit on Feb 2005 and with bourbon has almost completely been removed (anywhere from 60th to out).

Clint




msg:737556
 5:59 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint
I would have thought that when the backlinks and pr are the same on the non-www and the www you may look to recover.

It seems to take a little(long) while though.

I mentioned this before and I don't know if anyone even read it. Using link:mydomain.com DID show over 500 results for me. As of recently, this is now an 'astronomical' 17 :( :( :(
<reaches for bottle of valium......AGAIN, and CD of really bad country music. Contemplating taking up new extreme sport of "parachute-less" skydiving along with bungee jumping with dental floss: order of which still undetermined>

(Edited to read "dental floss". Thought that was funnier than "sewing thread").

[edited by: Clint at 6:02 pm (utc) on June 9, 2005]

Dayo_UK




msg:737557
 6:00 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint.

How many does link:www.domain.com show?

Clint




msg:737558
 6:03 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

(Hee hee! I made an edit to that before you posted).

I mentioned above they both are the same, only showing 17 now down from over 500. A few days ago they were an incredible 20. So they've dropped even MORE. Oh how I long for the good ole days of Monday. <sarc>

[edited by: Clint at 6:04 pm (utc) on June 9, 2005]

This 819 message thread spans 28 pages: < < 819 ( 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 > >
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