homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.72.69.79
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 101 message thread spans 4 pages: 101 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >     
Google: More 301 woes about www and no-www
deleted the 301 and now all pages are back.
cleanup




msg:765791
 7:12 pm on Jul 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes thats right.

After nearly a year of waiting for Google to follow and correct the non-www via a 301 redirect, the only result I had seen was that ALL my pages disappeared from the index.

I waited and waited 10 months is a lot of money down the drain and all my advertisers lost.

So in desparation I deleted the 301 redirect two weeks ago, I figured that whatever happened it could not be any worse that having zero pages in the index.

Result.

The Bad news;
All the pages are back in the index under the non-www listing.

Good News,
All pages are ranking as they were before I tried the redirect and have their original page ranks etc.

So for the moment although far from happy that I can not list my pages in the Google index under www I will settle for having them under the non-www version if I can revive the site and get some traffic back that way.

Anyway just thought I would relay my experience as someone smarter than I may be able to make some sense of it all!

Cheers,
Cleanup

[edited by: cleanup at 7:17 pm (utc) on July 3, 2006]

 

tedster




msg:765792
 7:16 pm on Jul 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

All the pages are back in the index under the non-www listing.

Have you considered pointing the redirect in the other direction, from www to no-www?

cleanup




msg:765793
 7:21 pm on Jul 3, 2006 (gmt 0)


Tedster,
Well,..no I had not really concidered that. Although I suppose its is not a bad idea to avoid the dreaded supplemental trap.

I have been at pains to make all references to the site (both internal and external) the www version so it would be a bit perverse to direct the the non-www now.

I am not sure about that option.

tedster




msg:765794
 7:24 pm on Jul 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have been at pains to make all references to the site (both internal and external) the www version

Ouch! Now I really feel your pain.

This is a very disturbing report to me, especially because it sounds like you followed the direct advice that Google has given us about avoiding canonical issues -- advice that has worked for many websites. I can't quite fathom, given all that you did, why the site was indexed without-www in the first place.

cleanup




msg:765795
 7:58 pm on Jul 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

The site was around happily for years in the index (since 98) unders non-www. I never gave it a thought.

I did the 301 redirect and absulute addressing etc in response to the supplimental issues which arose for me around September time last year.

That was when I researched the redirects, headers absolute www addressing etc etc.

I put all of that in place, checked and double checked, even had some kind members here at www look it over and then waited and waited and waited only to see the site slowly dissapear page by page from the index.

I still believe that the 301 is right from some/most sites but beware as there must be many sites out there that are losing pages from the index because google cannot follwo 301s and fix its index for certain cases like mine.

CainIV




msg:765796
 8:26 pm on Jul 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hello cleanup. Hopefully some of us can help shed some light, although you have already done the checklist I am sure.

If pages that are non-www came back, this could mean a few things, one of which is a bug or rollback which would thus show listings that are ancient when the non www listings were correct.

Sift through your entire site to make sure you do not link home using a relative address ('/') or a filename only. Make every link home on your site in this format:

http://www.example.com/

and double check again to make sure this is how every page addresses your home page.

As well, it could be that the 301 was not implemented correctly on your end, and it is best to get others to check this as well as using a header checker.

Feel free to sticky me with your details and I can take a look as well..

Todd

[edited by: trillianjedi at 2:32 pm (utc) on July 13, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] Please use "example.com" for examples, they don't get "linked". Thanks. [/edit]
[/edit][/1]

g1smd




msg:765797
 8:53 pm on Jul 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

A program like Xenu LinkSleuth could be very useful here.

cleanup




msg:765798
 9:56 pm on Jul 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Thanks guys for the the tips,

CainIV
"If pages that are non-www came back, this could mean a few things, one of which is a bug or rollback which would thus show listings that are ancient when the non www listings were correct."

That is one that I have concidered, although I am seeing the pages return accross ALL dcs and in the space of a few hours. That makes me think that they have been "added in" again after the removal of the 301 and subsequent reindexing.

"Sift through your entire site to make sure you do not link home using a relative address ('/') or a filename only"

Pretty sure I am OK here also.

G1smd
Linksleuth.

Yep that was one of the things people were mentioning back last September when the suplemental fiasco started for me. I had some fun with that program and sorted out most/all the problems that were thrown up.

Its is late here. Tommorow I will recheck the above points although for the moment I am just pleased to see some people arriving at the site again after sooo long!

Thanks again.

abacuss




msg:765799
 12:24 pm on Jul 4, 2006 (gmt 0)

Now even I am worried too. I did a redirection from all these URL's

domain.com
domain.com/
www.domain.com/index.htm

to www.domain.com

Now, I have to see for some period of time and then probably check out what can be done.

Hissingsid




msg:765800
 1:12 pm on Jul 4, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi,

FWIW I got my host to remove the no-www from the DNS so if you now go to http://example.com the browser and robots can't find a server. It seems to work fine that way.

I can't remember the details of the instructions that I sent them to set this up perhaps someone else could point to the method and pros/cons of this method.

Sid

sid560




msg:765801
 5:30 pm on Jul 4, 2006 (gmt 0)

"FWIW I got my host to remove the no-www from the DNS so if you now go to http://example.com the browser and robots can't find a server. It seems to work fine that way. "

I just did the same thing. Anyone have any comment on this method (before it is too late).

JeffOstroff




msg:765802
 3:44 am on Jul 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I think it is unsafe to continue with your www and non-www separated like that. Nor do I like the idea of having your web host remove the non-www from the DNS, that is asking for trouble.

What if people list your url on their web site when they link to you as example.com? Then they get a 404.

I like the idea bette rof making a 301 work. Could it be the method you used was notworking? Did you use a good header checking tool, to show the 301, then the 200 status afterwards?

I'm not sure how you implemented your 301 redirects before you removed them, but we did ours in the .htaccess file. Here is the code to use which covers a number of scenarios and reroutes everything to the www version of your web site:

<IfModule mod_rewrite.c>
Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} .
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST}!^www\.example\.com
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.example.com/$1 [R=301,L]
RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /(([^/]+/)*)index\.html\ HTTP/
RewriteRule index\.html$ http://www.example.com/%1 [R=301,L]
</IfModule>

Be sure to replace "Example" with your site name in all 3 spots. It should take a week or so for Google to re crawl and re-index your site. Make sure that they are indeed crawling your site and absorbing the 301 redirects.

tedster




msg:765803
 4:04 am on Jul 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

One important aspect here is how are your urls currently indexed? Cleanup said "The site was around happily for years in the index (since 98) unders non-www."

Given Google's intensity around historical data, I can see how the algo's logic may have trouble with the "curveball" that redirected every url they had. Still, one year and no resolution seems way out there. And it's also amazing that no "with-www" urls were indexed. In a situation like that, I would probably choose to support the status quo with my redirect, rather than look to reindex the entire domain.

301 redirects aren't links -- and I think many webmasters are throwing them around much too casually in recent times. If you have a canonical problem, sure I can see it - especially because that's what Google says to do. But trying to prevent a problem that isn't currently showing up could get a bit dicey.

Google has struggled with redirect handling for many years -- both the 301 and 302 flavors. Yes, things are better now, but it still feels a bit cobbled together to me, and it can sometimes take a long time to see effects in the search results. Plus, I can't help but notice that 302 still plays into some successful spamming.

So I will set up the canonical fix 301 redirect when a new domain is launched, or if I see that canonical trouble exists for an established domain. But otherwise, I don't want to play in that playground. Too much like wearing a target during hunting season.

cleanup




msg:765804
 6:15 am on Jul 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Here are the details.

I used the follwowing redirect in the .htaccess file;
Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^SITE\.com
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ [SITE.com...] [R=permanent,L]

It returned the correct 200 code when checked by;
seoconsultants header checking tool and others.

Each page has the following line of code at the top;
<BASE href="http://www.SITE.com/">

All references within the site to other pages are
either [wSITE.com...]
or page.htm

Lots of high PR incomming links for wwww.SITE.com both for main page and internal pages.

The site is small only 150 pages.

I think Tedster makes a fair comment above about not changing the status quo. After seeing the way Google failed to react to the 301 and the subsequent loss of all my site pages I am very reluctant to make any changes at the moment, and that includes redirecting to the non-www version.

The problem is that this is a Google bug and we simply do not have the information at hand to do the "workaround" for them.

So my advice would be;
1)New site - YES do the redirect.

2)Existing site that is OK in all respects and does not have the non-www indexed - YES do the redirect.

3)Existing site that has most or all pages non-www in the google index. - Leave well alone.

4)Existing site that has ocasional pages as non-www - Redirect on a page by page basis or redirect the whole site if you can live with the possible loss of the non-www pages.

[edited by: tedster at 2:30 am (utc) on July 6, 2006]

g1smd




msg:765805
 9:17 am on Jul 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> I got my host to remove the no-www from the DNS so if you now go to http://example.com the browser and robots can't find a server. <<

Bad move. For any pages that are listed in Google search results you want anyone clicking on them to end up on your site being served your content.

Whether that is done via a 301 redirect to the correct URL, or through a custom 404 error page with some basic site navigation on it is up to you.

If you mainly have non-www pages indexed then redirect from www to non-www. To serve both as "200 OK" is asking for more problems in the future.

RichTC




msg:765806
 12:45 pm on Jul 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

g1smd

You can however see the posters frustration

Having had a 301 in place now for over 7 months on one of our sites its very frustrating to see see pages that were ranking fine pre this update that had the www. prefix in the google serps now missing and in their place lower down the same page of the serps without the www. prefix pages with a cash date goind back to late Jan.

Like the poster has done it is tempting to not serve non www pages from your server after all if these pages are being treated as duplicate its not helping you rank at all.

The non www pages have no page rank where as the www. versions of the same are PR5/PR6 so where google is listing your non page rank version its obviously not going to do so well.

You would think by now that google would have fixed this issue yet its hasnt and obviously couldnt care less about it!

JeffOstroff




msg:765807
 2:08 pm on Jul 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Are you sure that Google is indeed crawling your pages and updating them? It seems odd that your 301s did not take hold, when ours took only a week to take hold.

If your pages are supplemental, it can be months before Google gets around to updating the 301 on them. We had 4 pages in our site 2 weeks ago that WERE supplemental, and the 301s were not appearing to take hold. This is because Google had not cached those pages since January.

In our case, they were old, no longer used links anyway, so we used Google's Urgent URL removal tool to clear them out of Google's index. Thus eliminating the need to wait for Google to come do a re-crawl.

In your case however, you want the URL to remain in Google, you just want Google to crawl it and re-assign the 301 to the www version.

But your problem could be that the pages which are subject to your 301s are not getting re-crawled. Are they supplemental results?

Also, you said you used SEOconsultants header tool to verify and you saw a 200 status. I hope you only told half the story, because if all you saw is a 200, then your 301 process is broke.

If your .htaccess file 301 redirect code is working, you are supposed to see TWO printouts from seoconsultants header tool, you should see a 301 first, THEN you see a 200.

Here's an example we just ran on our site:

#1 Server Response: http://example.com
HTTP Status Code: HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:56:16 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.33 (Unix)
Location: http://www.example.com/
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Redirect Target: http://www.example.com/

#2 Server Response: http://www.example.com/
HTTP Status Code: HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:56:16 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.33 (Unix)
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html

So the above results show that you entered your site via the non www. version, and the server responded by issuing a 301, and correcting it to the full www version, and the headers tool shows that output and the resulting www version of the url, followed by status 200.

You are supposed to see both steps in the printout, otherwise the 301 is not working.

WARNING: Some other header checker tools don't show both steps above, they only show you the final step, so your choice of using the seoconsultants tool was a wise one. They prinout both steps. This also helps you track down unwanted 302 redirects to your web site.

cleanup




msg:765808
 4:26 pm on Jul 5, 2006 (gmt 0)


JeffOstroff - Thanks for your most helpful post.

I just put up the .htaccess file and ran again the
seoconsultants tool, this was the result.

---->>
Consultants Directory Check Server Headers - Single URI Results
Current Date and Time: 2006-07-05T09:12:34-0700

User IP Address: 80.103.36.206#1 Server Response: [SITE.com...]
HTTP Status Code: HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:12:28 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.36 (Unix) mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635.SR1.2 mod_ssl/2.8.27 OpenSSL/0.9.7a PHP-CGI/0.1b
Location: [SITE.com...]
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Redirect Target: [SITE.com...]

#2 Server Response: [SITE.com...]
HTTP Status Code: HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:12:29 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.36 (Unix) mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635.SR1.2 mod_ssl/2.8.27 OpenSSL/0.9.7a PHP-CGI/0.1b
Last-Modified: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:08:22 GMT
ETag: "c348a5-54e9-44882146"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 21737
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
<<<<-----

Seems ok does it not?

Now..,

"Are you sure that Google is indeed crawling your pages and updating them? It seems odd that your 301s did not take hold, when ours took only a week to take hold."

You may be on to it here. The pages were suplemental for a while so I suppose it is possible that they are not being crawled. That is one reason why I waited ten months.

OK now comes an embarassing admission on my part.. I have no idea how to check if a particular page is being fetched by Google or not.

How do you do that? My use of web statistics is confined to webalizer and I a few other programs that my host offers. Is there an easy way to find this out?

Thanks.

g1smd




msg:765809
 4:31 pm on Jul 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

You need access to your raw log files.

You can see exactly who accessed each page of the site, and when.

jobonet




msg:765810
 8:06 pm on Jul 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

JeffOstroff - good posts

I have an ecommerce site that had over 40,000 links in Google until early June. Results then dropped to 72 normal results, and all other pages went supplemental or disappeared. I used 301s to correct a canonical issue that involved pages with www and non-www versions, and I used robots.txt rename to stop bots from indexing the https versions. I also changed my ugly php + long queries into friendly html pages with 301 and rewrote old php links to new html links. I verified my 301s using the steps that Jeff mentioned in his post. I found that even pages that were supplemental have been changed in Google serp within weeks. After approximately 2 weeks I have about 1,000 pages back in normal index. I can't say that the 301s or a Google filter mod were responsible, but I'm looking forward to better long term results.

Here is some of my htaccess file. I found that on Red Hat most of the examples that I found online would not work. Hope this helps!

RewriteEngine On

# force www
rewritecond %{HTTP_HOST} ^ yoursite \.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ [yoursite.com...] [R=301,L]

# special robots.txt for https
RewriteCond %{SERVER_PORT} ^443$
RewriteRule ^robots.txt$ https://www.yoursite.com/robots_ssl.txt

# parses static to dynamic
# this will allow php to parse your static url
RewriteRule ^([^&]+)-([^&]+)/?\.html$ search.php?make_select=$1&model_select=$2 [L]

# rewrite dynamic to static
# this will 301 redirect old style php?query to static html pages
RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} search\.php\?make_select=([^&]+)&model_select=([^&]+)*\ HTTP/ [NC]
RewriteRule store/search\.php$ [yoursite.com...] [R=301,L]

JeffOstroff




msg:765811
 3:13 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Cleanup:

A couple of things here. First, when you look at the Google SERP page and see the results for your page, click on the cache link, and look at the date that Google says it has in the cache.

That is the last time they crawled that particular page.

If it has not been crawled for a while, I would recommend you join the sitemaps program, where you can feed Google your own XML sitemap file, with commands telling google how often to crawl your pages. That could get them to crawl you on demand. We joined sitemaps, and it's cool, they tell you when you crawled last, as well as it gives you some cool stats about what they found on your site.

I would suggest you have a 404 page in place before verifying your site in the Sitemaps program. Google is adamant about web sites having a real 404 error page when a known erroneous URL is entered.

But this supplemental problem you are having... that is disturbing. We don't know what criteria Google uses to make your page a supplemental result, but I suspect it means they don't like the page, or don't value it. So check for duplicate content, search Google with sentences from your page and make sure other sites don't have it also.

Make sure you are not using the same title tag across your pages, or the same description metatags either. Also, make sure your pages all have incoming links.

I know that in May and June, Google seemed to really be clamping down, making people's pages supplemental.

cleanup




msg:765812
 6:45 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

When I look at the cache I see a date of 3rd July 2006
for all pages.

The main visitor is 66.249.65.176, would that be Googlebot?

My supplemental problems occurred September last. The site has been widely scraped, I would think that any site that has been around for eight years with any degree of success can expect that. I have ruled out chasing down the webs concerned as it would just be an impossible task.

It did put a sitemap up for google but did not join their program as such. Given that they were back around indexing within days of my removing the 301 I don't think Google interest in my site is the problem.

Now the non-www pages are all back , indexed and ranking again.

For me it seems to be a block at Googles end. They have me down as non-www and refuse to see the site any other way!

Hissingsid




msg:765813
 7:04 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> I got my host to remove the no-www from the DNS so if you now go to http://example.com the browser and robots can't find a server. <<
Bad move. For any pages that are listed in Google search results you want anyone clicking on them to end up on your site being served your content.

Hi,

It works for me as I don't have any non-www pages listed. I also use absolute links in the full form http://www.example.com/example.html.

The way I see it www is a different place to non-www but the way Apache and other servers are set up by default they are not. So when you launch a new web site you should decide which place it is going to be and block the other one. For an older site I guess that if you have a load of pages on the other side already indexed then you will lose those but eventually you will have a clean situation. There is clearly a risk though and a possible short term loss which folks will have to make their own mind up about. I'm not evangelising what I've done just saying thats what I did some years ago. I've been at #1 for the big volume terms in my nich for most of that time.

Sid

alfred clarifies




msg:765814
 10:11 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well My site (has more than 100000 pages indexed in google) is also around 8 years old and had a 302 redirect from non www to www.The pages were indexed in google as non www. Three months back we changed this 302 redirect to 301 and since then the toolbar PR for all these pages are showing 0.
However when i do check through a PR checker for http:domain.com/section i get to see the old PR .

Earlier both the version of the doamin www and non www used to show similar PR..

Could anybody tellme as to why it is happening?

cleanup




msg:765815
 11:03 am on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)


Alfred - PR0.

Yes, that is what I found. I bet if you take away the
redirect and access the non-www pages you will see they are still credited with the correct PR.

Why? how to cure? that is what I have been trying to figure for 10 months. As you will see I have decided to remove the 301 as that seems the only way to continue to receive traffic on affected pages/sites.

tiori




msg:765816
 2:18 pm on Jul 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

The 301 and 302 problem is far from solved by Google IMO.
I have several sites and I did the 301 www - non-www redirect as suggested by Google (MC or GG) and they went all supplemental and have been there for months.

Several weeks ago, in frustration, I removed the 301 redirects.

The PR is now the same for www and non-www.
And most of the supplementals have disappeared!

In an earlier post I commented that I thought the 301 redirects may be doing more harm than good and everyone just blew by it. But now I'm getting the feeling that there is something seriously wrong at Google with the 301's.

(And, yes, I did the redirects correctly)

alfred clarifies




msg:765817
 5:51 am on Jul 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi

I Just need a clarification from Cleanup and tiori that after removing 301 redirect what kind of redirect you all are using in place of 301.Is it 302 redirect , meta refresh or something else.

Can any one reason that why a site(indexed in google as non www) that had a 302 from non www to www used to show toolbar PR for both the versions of the page i.e www and non www whereas after replacing the 302 with a 301 the toobar PR has gone down to 0 for www. It shows the original PR if i do a PR check for the non www page with an online tool.

Regards
Alfred

arubicus




msg:765818
 6:46 am on Jul 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Many moons ago I have posted about possible 301 problems. Last year our site has had much problems during a supposed 302 fix and the hijacking fiasco. A possible mention that 301's and canonical problems Google has be having (along with some filter tweaks). I believe somewhere around February of last year.

Our site disappeared from the index showing many different versions to the home page and the bulk of the site having non-www versions of internal pages. We had a 301 redirect from non-www to the www versions many months before that drop occurred. Yes the redirects were and still are properly in place. At that time I have seen pages linking to a 301 redirect get indexed with the content of pages LINKING to the 301 redirect under the url of the 301 redirect(such as tracking scripts). Another occurance was old urls were ressurected as supplementals with caches of the pages they were redirecting to which replaced the correct page. Yes, there were 301 problems webmasters have ingored the few of us who have reported these problems.

Now the famous Europeforvisitors site also took a beating at that same exact time. Although his site is reversed (prefers non www) he had no redirect put into place until AFTER that drop. From recommendation from others here (webmasters reflecting what GG has said) he had put the redirect in place and the site bounced back (don't know if this is actually why the bounce back happened). From the sounds of it his site has been doing well since then. So this threw me off as maybe it isn't 301's causing problems.

Jump to a year and a half later. Many aspects of our site seem to have been corrected but all PR has been lost on internal pages (mainly due to the canonical last year). Home page PR increased to a 5 a few months back but that is as far as it goes. A big fat 0 on internal pages. I have not seen any incorrect non-www URL's any longer and haven't for some time. Old php extensions and old directory structure supplementals keep haunting us from time to time. But what others have said here there could be a possibility of something going wrong with 301's and our sites. Or it just could be that google needs a ton of time to sort it our (possible re-sandbox effect).

I have noticed recently that Googlebot has been focused on crawling old 301 redirects quite heavily that past few days. These redirects old directory structure changes that still have good incoming links to the old versions. There is just too many to even want to contact webmasters to have them changed and yes they provide traffic. I am wondering if any changes were made concerning 301's and what will happen once it gets done. It could just be a supplemental crawl as many of the pages are being crawled are our haunting supplementals.

cleanup




msg:765819
 9:01 am on Jul 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Alfred, I am using no redirect at all at present.

I should be. Just as google should have followed the 301s and sorted this by now.

I let google have 10 months to sort it out, the only result was pr0 on all internal pages and then all internal pages removed from the index.

So I prefer to let things be for the moment as at least I have traffic back again.

I will let things settle for a while and may even, as was sugested in a previous post, redirect to non-www..!

Dayo_UK




msg:765820
 9:15 am on Jul 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

arubicus

Exactly the same here.

With reference to Cleanup site - It just goes to show how wrong/poor Google still is at handling the 301 redirect situation - I, based on advice mainly from Google/GG/MC - (what a con), was one of the ones who said that the 301 was the way to correct the problems his site and others have had.

This 101 message thread spans 4 pages: 101 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >
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