| 11:52 am on Sep 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>>canonical page fix
What canonical page fix?
302 hijack maybe fixed (well less obvious to see) but canonical page problems are rampant.
| 11:58 am on Sep 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|One way to tell when an update is due is when webmasters begin accusing Google of being unwilling or unable to fix a problem. |
Beg to differ. One way of knowing when Google is unable or unwilling to fix the problem is when the problem is not being fixed.
| 12:21 pm on Sep 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
LOL nice one oddsod....
| 3:23 pm on Sep 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google's advice is to use a 301, see:
As this was the official advice I did a 301 at the start of August. After that it was the familiar story of being dropped after 5 days.
I'd love to hear from GoogleGuy about this problem. It appears to be affecting a lot of legitimate websites. Modemmike's idea of a paid review service may be a way that Google could deal with the problem. Maybe if the mods put this thread on the Webmasterworld home page it might get the attention from the people at Google that it deserves.
| 9:12 pm on Sep 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Wow, my indexed page count went from 10,000 to 971. 971 is alot more accurate but makes me wonder. I sure wish I knew if your domain stats needed to stablilize (link recalculation) before you get back into the SERP's.
BTW, if Google does read these forums then they surely saw this thread but I suspect there is too much room for manipulation via 301's so nothing will ever be done. My gripe is why they don't say so in the guidelines... you know, a simple, "changing a website domain name will be treated as if the website is entirely new", (only more wordy).
|One way of knowing when Google is unable or unwilling to fix the problem is when the problem is not being fixed. |
My thoughts exactly! Hey, Google, want a couple of sites to look at directly?
| 2:59 am on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
967 pages and falling... maybe Google is just removing my domain altogether now not that it would matter much.
| 8:23 am on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Reseller - good find.
My follow up comment is already there too :)
| 10:23 am on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Are sandboxed sites let out on a mass level or are sites only let out during an update?
| 12:33 am on Sep 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Any speculation on what might happen if I turn off my 301 redirect to a new domain? Or even a portion of my 301 redirect to the new domain (say, a half dozen pages or so)?
Will my rank for those pages eventually return to the former ranking on the original domain, or does the 301 permanently connect the old URI to the new URI?
| 1:00 am on Sep 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I suspect the damage is done Planet, undoing the 301 will only cause more longer term problems. I have also considered this and did a lot research into it... everything I have read is that the 301 redirect is perm for at least 6 months (maybe longer). I really really wish I had not done a 301 but rather left both sites running while I built rank to the new name and aged it in the index.
I initially denied the sandbox theory as being a factor here but that was because I was in the denial stages of my grief... I now just want to know what causes sites to be released from the litter box... is it after an update, or during a mass exodus or what?
GoogleGuy, can you offer any insight into this topic?
| 2:06 pm on Sep 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My indexed count is way up again, 9740 ... this is turning into more of journal than a topic :-) but maybe someone could give some insight into why the index count "fluxing" so wildly.
| 6:26 pm on Sep 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Since the Bourbon update we are having problems in our Google rankings and the actual listings in the SERPs on a very large site that has been listed in Google since at least 2001.
We have had to move servers many times in the past few years and each time had to redirect with the server number in the URL. Our actual domain name has never changed.
To make things even worse, we are required by the server admin to use 302 redirects (301s are not allowed) from the old servers to the new ones.
Here is a short history:
1st URL: [site.com...]
2nd URL: [www-123.site.com...]
3rd URL: [www-456.site.com...]
We are now listed in google for [site.com,...] [site.com,...] [www-123.site.com,...] [www-456.site.com,...] etc.
This was not a big problem until Bourbon. Now all our results in Google are a mess and our traffic from Google has taken a nose-dive. We are at a loss as to what to do.
And that is with a 302 redirect. Now I am not even sure if a 301 would help us.
And from what I am reading here -- we can't even ask Google to remove any of the old URLs with server numbers because it is all the same domain. And we don't want to remove the entire site.
Sorry to go on and on in my first post. I am a good whitehat SEOer and I have been doing this for many years. This is my first seemingly unfixable problem in Google.
| 6:32 pm on Sep 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> whitehat SEOer
Always priceless :)
Welcome to WW, LJCoolB. There are a lot of posts here on 302 problems. Suggestion: Change your "server admin". I used to get nonsense like that from hosting companies running Windows/IIS. I don't take it anymore. Now it's gimme my 301s or I go elsewhere.
| 8:04 pm on Sep 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My last host said that 301's were not possible with IIS to which I replied, you guys really don't have a clue... I have run many servers for large outfits and decided I was done playing games with cheap hosts and got a dedicated server which has been a wise investment time and time again... at $70 a month you can't hardly go wrong. I agree, replace your admin, being a good admin takes a lot more than just server uptime. Running your own server will open up doors in so many ways, something to consider (custom com objects, redirects, scalability etc).
| 8:06 pm on Sep 16, 2005 (gmt 0)|
BTW, anyone else seeing indexed counts all over the place again? Flux? Recalculation?
| 3:46 am on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i Setup a 301 redirect over one month ago,
google has already taken the old site down and now the site i redirected to is open for business, im enjoying much more traffic!
Sweeet, im happy!
| 4:12 am on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One month and already out of the sandbox... congrads, just wish I knew where I went wrong.
| 5:36 am on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think its luck,
Honestly where my keyword position is in the Serps I am wondering if google knows what it is doing!
I mean honestly my site has about 5x the relevant content 1-2 more pr than the rest of the sites at #1 and im not using dodgie seo tricks,
But yet im still #50 odd.....
| 2:52 pm on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This thread has been very helpful.
The company I work for owns the servers. So we can't move to other servers -- because it is our company Web site. We are currently fighting to get these 301s in place of the 302s. I am just hoping that if we do succeed with the 301 battle, that we will see the results -- that is, our Google results will be fixed to the correct URLs and our clickthrus from Google will increase (or return to close to where they were before Bourbon).
| 3:16 pm on Sep 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
LJCoolB, stickymail me your URL so I can see what sort of server you are on, maybe I can suggest an easy 301 fix.
| 11:37 pm on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It is a not a server issue per se, but corporate policy. We once had 301s, and then corporate policy changed and we were only allowed 302s.
It is a very sad story, especially as I understand now that only 301s can help us dig out of this Google hole we are in.
| 3:41 am on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|We once had 301s, and then corporate policy changed and we were only allowed 302s. |
Talk about inane bureaucracy...
You just said "We used to be able to define our redirects (according to HTTP Protocol 302 is undefined -- 307 is temporary and 301 is permanent), but now we can't, because our company made a decision."
Glad I can refuse to work for anyone that stupid...
| 5:32 am on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I can't fathom how anyone would develop a corporate policy dictating only 302 redirects. Can you imagine what those meetings must have been like?
The truth is, most people in a position to make a decision don't know or care about the technical details. I'm guessing some slacker in your tech department couldn't be bothered to work out the details on an issue that could have a signifcant imact on your business.
| 7:03 am on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have a cool one here too.
Recently remembered about one of the domain names that I registered last October. 1 Page Website(was and is now.) Has, one large graphic and about 150 words of text and a keyword reach link to it self on the bottom of the page (A domain name with spaces between words). Page got pr2 after Bourbon Update and Ranked at 46 for the phrase. 3 weeks ago put a clean 301 from none-www to www. and put a date stamp on the bottom of the page.
Here is the thing.
Type domainname.tld or www.domainname.tld in search box. Result is the same as it should be(cached version returns 2 days ago cached copy).
Type the keyword phrase site (tanked 203 points to 249) - cached version is from before I did a redirect (has no date stamp on it). "Site:" command has the old version as well.
I donít believe that putting a date stamp on the page could do such damage...
| 12:52 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There is definately a 301 bug. I 301'd all of my websites I built from non www to www and they are all gone from google.
that is 14 websites gone. You definately don't want to 301 your sites right now.
| 12:54 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
eyezshine, being that you only did the non www I think your fall from grace will only be temporary but please keep us updated.
| 1:07 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well, one of those sites was #1 for it's keyword for 4 years and I once was in the $10,000 club for adsense.
It's been about 6 months now sinse the websites all tanked.
It had to be the 301 redirect because all of the websites were different content and built differently but they were also similar in their html. They all had H1 tags for the header etc...
But the 301 was the only thing I did to all of the sites at the same time. Then a month later they were all gone. Completely gone.
Your search - site:www.mydomain.com - did not match any documents.
That's what I get.
| 1:30 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For a site redirected from www to non-www back in March, the 301 has worked in so far as getting all of the non-www pages indexed with full title and description. The non-www pages have a cache from a few weeks ago, and updated every month or so.
The down side is that Google is now re-showing (as of a few weeks ago) loads of www pages, and all of them with a cache from a year ago, instead of hiding the www pages away as asked (by the 301 redirect).
| 2:35 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Interesting, I created a new page on 9/17 for a new feature on my site... I only linked to it from my forums, one link, not on the menu or any place else... today the page is position 30! So it appears new pages are not being sandboxed, I repeat, new pages are being filtered! So now what, go and make a bunch of doorway pages to beat the sandbox LOL, no, that would only land me in blackhat world.
| 3:49 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have a theory. If you put a 301 redirect from the frist day your site is launched you should not have any problems.
I think the problems arise when time has passed after the launch of a site and then a 301 is put in place. After a site is launched, Google likley has pages of both www and non-www (because of different ways links point to a site regardless of how you link internally within your site). If Google has both www and non-www pages at some point in time, and a 301 is put in place, it seems like Google just can resolve that properly.
Just a theory not based on much beyond speculation. Any thoughts, any evidence to support or disprove this?
| 3:58 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, 3 year old site that has only had the redirect for 6 months has pages that are not wanted still coming and going in the index - but the pages that are wanted are now FULLY indexed since the redirect was applied.
Year old site that had the redirect since the beginning is perfectly indexed under only one domain, and the seven redirected variants do not show in the index at all.
| This 246 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 246 ( 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 9 ) > > |