| 7:35 pm on Aug 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm a little confused why a CGI script being used as a link could be considered duplicate content. Ordinarily, these scripts take you to an intermediary page that then redirect the user to the right page. This is done so as to track link clicking and so as not to "leak" Google PageRank.
That kind of link may or may not help you but how would that be duplicate content, which basically is copying an entire page?
| 7:43 pm on Aug 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Normally, I would agree with you. However, Yahoo, and at one time Google, has problems correctly interrupting redirecting links. Instead of seeing them as links it sees them as actual URLs than does a comparison between the content of the redirect link and actual URl content and sees them as the same and drops the lower pr site. Problem is that it use the top level pr to make the determination, usually directoires have high pr so my site was unable to compete and was dropped.
I wrote to Tim about the problem and he said he would look into it, but that was months ago. I tried writing him several times recently but his email box is full.
| 7:52 pm on Aug 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
(Now it seems that my site is banned from Yahoo all because someone linked to it using a cgi redirecting link. )
Same here ,i have to create a whole new site with new domain from the begining and wait a few months
| 7:59 pm on Aug 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Actually, the problem with my site is quite serious because the directory linked to dozens of sites which are now all experiencing the same problem. At one time one search I did produced 4-6 links out of the top 20 that were just cgi scripted links.
| 8:20 pm on Aug 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm a little confused by this, if only because it is a massive massive loophole in the basic Google rule that there is almost nothing anyone can do to hurt your web site.
You have no control over how someone links to you and Google, certainly, has spent much effort making sure that nobody can destroy your site as you claim. If they could, competitors would have a trivial way to get rid of their rivals. Almost surely the same is true of Yahoo.
| 12:29 am on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Any chance you could get that site copied over to a new domain, and some of the links transferred?
Getting back into Yahoo and re-establishing a site are both excruciating processes, but at least you have some control over the 2nd option.
| 4:02 am on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The fact is this types of link can have this type of effect. I have actually noticed several competitors sabotaging sites by linking to them. It is similar to the old trick of copying a competitor's site and getting them dropped for duplicate content then changing your site back so noone notices what you've done. It was/is a popular trick with Google, I've had several clients affected.
Before I get side tracked too much. The reason I started this thread was to get the problem resolved. I feel like I'm almost there. The link is gone. Now I just have to get my site back in the index.
Any suggestions on how to get Yahoo to lift the penalty?
| 4:17 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Today, I am visiting a major client that I am helping with their web content and I noticed they were ranking really poorly on Yahoo. I couldn't understand this because they have excellent content and well over 500 links. However, after looking into the ranking problem I noticed that their site is listed as domainname.com instead of www.domainname.com
So I looked further using the link command I noticed Yahoo shows 2 links for the non-www version where it shows 540 links for the www version.
This is another case of duplicate content problem with Yahoo. Where Yahoo mistakenly thinks the www and non-www versions are two different sites and penalizes the ranking.
So how do we fix these problems.
1) cgi script links
2) www and non-www
How do I speak to Yahoo? I am offering free consultant services to Yahoo. If Yahoo is listening this is great opportunity usually I charge $100-200 per hour.
| 10:22 pm on Aug 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've noticed in this thread, as often frequently on this forum, an attitude that is (I suspect) getting stubborn webmasters in trouble.
It's that silly "www." subdomain.
The fact is, that convention has been dead for years. It's four characters that nobody should have to type; it is an unnecessary and pointless appendix to the URL.
And you're fighting a losing battle to try to keep it, because you're running afoul of one of the current affiliate scams. See, the homepage of your favorite affiliate site creates a subdomain for every affiliate: john_doe.myspam.com, richard_roe.nyspam.com, etc. The search engines are going to have to strip off that subdomain and favor the bare domain name ... they have no choice.
And neither do you. Get with the program, drop the www and start fixing your URLs. And start living down the results of a past fixation on the ancient location of your cheese bin.