Someone tricks google

Is it so easy to trick google?

[baron13]

Hello,
I have found something very strange in google! A company abuses high ranking websites to get their positions in google.com by the following way:

Site "A" ranks good in google. Site B ( cheater site ) grabs the position of site "A" and displays its url at the position of site "A"! The description, the title,
the cache(d) and rank are from site "A" but the url and the link in the google serps is from the Site B.

Site B redirects the user to a site "indix.html" to trick him. The original "index.html" is hidden and I think that "index.html" mirrors site A and shows this to
google!
An other very strange thing is that the backlinks of site B are exactly the same as of a site C. So maybe site B can change from site to site every few month
because last week site B had the google cache(d) of site C.

How is this possible? I tried to write google but they are not interested in this and I received a standard email!

[edited by: Marcia at 11:26 pm (utc) on June 17, 2004]
[edit reason] Extraneous information. [/edit]

[idoc]

There are several threads on this error in handling redirects:

[webmasterworld.com...]

With nothing more elaborate than a slightly modified click tracking script... this is happening widespread. Nobody has given a good reason that I have seen to date why G can't deal with this and the board is pretty silent on it compared to most of the lesser important issues. I think the idea that the problem looks so simple to fix on the surface... change how they handle 301 and or 302 redirects... means there must be a larger underlying problem with doing this one seemingly simple thing.

Just my theory... that because a simple variant of an ad tracking script will accomplish this, therein probably lies the underlying larger problem why it hasn't been fixed. We didn't see this widespread type of redirect hijacking before the domain park type of advertising concept was introduced. First, G introduced the concept and then essentially cut everyone under a certain traffic count out of participating. I think it spawned ideas with these current spammers and hijackers right about the time G was clamping down on their older types of spamdexing. Now nobody wants to talk about it.

[Marcia]

>>I tried to write google but they are not interested in this and I received a standard email!

I wouldn't assume that they're disinterested in anything that affects the quality and accuracy of search. And a standard email is, well... standard.

[muesli]

it won't help the cheating site on the long run, quite the contrary.

and it won't help google that it takes so long to fix this long-known issue. that's sth i can't understand, getting redirects right shouldn't be a major challenge, every webbrowser is able to do that, dmoz is able to do that, just google isn't.

[kaled]

disinterested

A neutral arbiter is disinterested but someone who is bored is uninterested. Was your word selection deliberate? Some might say both are applicable to Google these days.

Kaled.

[webnewton]

You're right Baron. This has been happening for last two months now. Even i've used such redirects for two of my url are they're performing really well. But be assured this is something which is not going to stay for long.Changes at google as usual take some time. Be patient.

[baron13]

Thanks for your replies!
Is it possible to solve this problem without google? Someone out there which can help me to get back my url at the position where the spammer is currently?

[muesli]

i imagine you could try to use the same trick once more and see if you can hijack your own page back. after some time you then delete this third page.

[fclark]

Yes, I had thought this may work, and posted the same question elsewhere:

[webmasterworld.com...]

Was told that you need greater PR to hijack a page, and I assume you would need greater PR to hijack it back as well.