Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google has empty cache with meta-refresh of 0

Has anyone else experienced this, does it go away?

         

TheDave

1:32 am on Aug 16, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Hi. I posted about this about 2 months ago. My site's listing in google has no description/snip, an empty cache and a meta-refresh of 0 when you view the cache. It has been like this for well over 2 months now, and we have been crawled (over 1000 pages) twice now. Does anyone know what is causing this? Has anyone else experienced it before? The site has a PR4, so I don't think it's because of a ban or anything. Also, the site never appears under any of our keywords, only under our business name (which is quite obscure). It worries me that people will not know what the page is, and not click it if it does happen to appear under some relevant keywords. I havn't had a single hit from a google searcher in over 2 months. Previously, google was our best performer, when we had a site which was completely static HTML. About 3 months ago we updated and began using ASP for our products, and as soon as google crawled that we lost it all. Does anyone have any advice other than sit-tight and wait, because I have been sitting tight for 2 months now?

Hemsell

2:05 am on Aug 16, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



put your url in your profile please.

TheDave

2:11 am on Aug 16, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Ok, I have done that.

Completely out of curiousity, what is the reason you cannot post a URL on the forum? I didnt post my URL because I noticed everyone who does has it snipped

Knowles

2:16 am on Aug 16, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



To answer that question real fast TheDave in the TOS #14
# Please don't drop promotional urls (we do not allow sig file urls). Signing your name is fine, however commercialized posts will be edited. We tend to err on the side of caution to protect the integrity of the system by reducing flippant commercialized posts. Affiliate based URLs are not allowed any where on the system.

That and it cuts down on the please review my posts. Sorry to jump off topic and answer that question.

TheDave

4:58 am on Aug 16, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I tried the advice suggested in another thread, of running the page through a html validator. This is the result:

1 1 Missing DOCTYPE declaration at start of document (explanation...) <HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="REFRESH"CONTENT="0"></HEAD>
1 50 end tag for "HEAD" which is not finished <HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="REFRESH"CONTENT="0"></HEAD> (explanation)

But this is the head from the actual page when I view it's source. I've removed our title, desc and keywords, but everything else here is as the page is when I select view source from the internet exlporer menu:

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>Page</title>
<meta name="keywords" content="products">
<meta name="description" content="Page">
</head>

Why is the validator coming up with a completely different head than ours? I've never had any formal training in HTML (hence Frontpage) so please forgive me if I am missing something obvious.

Visit Thailand

8:20 am on Aug 16, 2002 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Try putting this at the top of your page above the <html>

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

Then run it through the validator and clean the code (especially some of those strange meta tags you have).

Also I recommend you capitalise the first letter in yoru Keyword (not keyword) and Description (not description) tags. Perhaps even putting the descrip above the keywords.

Not sure if the latter will help but should.

TheDave

2:11 pm on Aug 16, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I'll try putting that line at the top of my page, thanks.

Those strange meta-tags get added by Frontpage, and it is impossible to get rid of them without manually editing the page in notepad or something afterwards.

I still don't see any reason it should be getting a meta-refresh of 0 from that header?

kosmodrom

2:34 pm on Aug 16, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



This causes your problems:

<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">

;)

(Hey, no offense... ;))

Visit Thailand

2:36 pm on Aug 16, 2002 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



kosmodrom, I am not sure if you are joking but those tags won't cause any problems I know of.

kosmodrom

2:41 pm on Aug 16, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



O.k., o.k., i was joking, its just the fact that imho using MS Frontpage can allways cause some Problems (destroyed JavaScripts etc...).

But that would be another topic in another forum...

Just forget it.

taxpod

11:22 pm on Aug 17, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



IMHO, put the title tag after the head tag. I had this problem with .asp pages and moved the title up and got back into the database. I don't believe that's the right thing to do but it did the trick for me after 2 months of waiting.

But on a more important note, again IMHO, I think you need more text on you pages to give the spiders some words to chew on.

Just one man's opinion.

martin

12:39 am on Aug 18, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Well you don't have any meta redirect for Opera, but it would be a nice idea to get rid of FrontPage.

Your page produces js errors in Opera 6 Linux.

Are you sure you are not cloaking, Google's cache has a meta refresh?

>I recommend you capitalise the first letter in yoru Keyword (not keyword) and Description (not description) tags. Perhaps even putting the descrip above the keywords.

This shouldn't be a problem at all, case is not important, order too.

/added
Checked with telnet, it may be a Google bug, it also issues a 301 permanent redirect to almost the same page (& becomes &amp;, but it's basicly the same).

Chico_Loco

2:04 am on Aug 18, 2002 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Interesting way for google to waste bandwidth!

Someone with a T3 (such as myself) could probably sit there waiting for the page to open and be downloading megs and megs of refreshed pages!

Weeeiirddddd.

TheDave

11:05 pm on Aug 18, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



No I'm not trying to do anything dodgy like cloaking, I've never really given much consideration to search engines (does it show?) but ever since all our visitors from google have dissappearred I have had to start trying to figure this stuff out. Amazing isn't it. You spend 4 years not caring, and getting all the visitors you need. Now that I am trying, nothing is working :/ I give up. Thanks for your help.

martin

11:34 pm on Aug 18, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Dave, I don't think you're doing anything wrong - mail Google to ask them, it doesn't seem like something normal.

TheDave

2:02 am on Aug 20, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I believe I have solved it. I changed the type of my default page to a default.htm (instead of default.asp). I didn't change any of the htm in the file, just stripped out a tiny bit of ASP code (which was pretty irrelevant). Now when I run it through the HTML validator, I don't get the META-REFRESH error. Now all I've gotta do is wait for google to pass by again :)

I think what was happening is because the default pages on my web-server must be set up as "default.htm,default.asp" or something like that, when it didn't find the default.htm it would send a meta-refresh to get the next page in line. Well that's my theory. Hopefully it corrects itself now.

martin

2:55 pm on Aug 20, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Actually Dave, I didn't see such an error at the validator. May have been a temporary problem at your server.

TheDave

8:00 am on Aug 22, 2002 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Everything is OK now on www2 and www3, so I assume that will carry over to www soon? Actually it's better than OK ;) Someone stop the music! ;)

Thanks for your help. I did mail google, and the response I got was fairly unsatisfactory. It looked like a cut-and-paste response, which didn't even address the issue. Anyway, it's all good now and I am happy again :)