bumpski - 8:51 pm on Jan 30, 2011 (gmt 0) [edited by: bumpski at 9:00 pm (utc) on Jan 30, 2011]
I was confused by that too.
I don't believe that my site has been hacked. I just checked the source code, from my downloaded page. It looks OK.
No I don't believe your site was hacked either.
I looked at your problem from two perspectives:
1. What about the thief's site could possibly fool Google into ranking the stolen copy higher than the original.
2. What about your site might bother Google and it's newest algo's.
So for number 1:
The thief has two links on his home page, one directly to the stolen copy of your page, but another link on his home page goes indirectly to the stolen copy through a 301 redirect. Why he/she would do that I have no idea, other than Google has had problems with 301 and 302 redirects since I can remember.
For number 2:
Your index pages like:
This page has a cascading 301 redirect. If I type your domain www.example.com/medicine with no trailing slash, the browser (and Google) will see three redirects in a row before it reaches the actual medicine/index.htm page. Google likes one 301 redirect, but I think it has a problem with 3. Each redirected path should go directly to the final page. Perhaps these redirects have been added over the years. This redirect cascade may upset Google's new algo's since 301 redirects used to be a major problem for the Google crawler. So this could be a very long path for Google to take to get to your page that was stolen. (The thief's website has a much shorter path)
This is very difficult to demonstrate but Google has indexed each of your index.htm pages twice. Once through the path (for example):
and directly through this path
This is usually not good.
Perhaps the 301 redirects and the two indexed paths to the index.htm pages have triggered a quirk in Google's algo?
Really it would be great if they'd just keep a real good history of the page's life. (but I think this is harder than it sounds)
I'll bet some of the webmasters here at WW can explain this much better.
[edited by: bumpski at 9:00 pm (utc) on Jan 30, 2011]