Forum Moderators: open
All static internal pages have a meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0;URL=../../cgi-bin/profile.cgi?s=ABC"
The homepage also allows crawlers to crawl the cgi bin
These CGI pages have similar but not the same text. In addition each product has about 4 other pages with just one or two lines of text and links back to the other pages.
Apart from the non veiwable static pages the whole site is run from the cgi bin.
For nearly all the relevant keywords google is giving them the no 1 and no 2 spot, one for the static page and one for the cgi one. In nearly all cases the cgi pages are No1.
They only have two weak PR 4 backlinks to the homepage and the text is not really optimised.
Any ideas as to why this is working so well for them.
I really can't see why this site is ranking #1 for some KW's. It doesn't appear to be cloaking.
As it it not optimised , and with 0 sec refreshes, you would think it would not do well and run a big risk of a automated ban.
Is it the .uk domain I found in google?
Also, why is the cache not showing the KW-filled text? I'd love to know the answer to that one
J
Anyway what happened is that this page was deep crawled when it was a hidden text filled spam page/site. Then they changed it to this opperation with the redirects. Google then came by with the fresh bot. Now google is showing the fresh bot cache while it is using the hidden text page for the index.. Make sense...
Why I know this.
1) On one of my sites I changed the pages after the deep crawl this month, but google is showing the fresh bot caches and the kw's from the deep crawl when I search for it.
2) I downloaded the site in question with FrontPage to look at the redirect page with all the KW's. I then searched for a unique phrase from that page and the only result that came up is the OLD hidden text page with that unique phrase.
Use the wayback machine [web.archive.org] to look at the old site.
In conclusion redirects with hidden text DO NOT WORK! IMO next update this page will drop like a rock when google deep crawls the new page with very little content. Google will not index the content on the 0 sec. refresh page. Why do I know this?
I have several sites that use redirects as part of the navigation based on null or filled database fields. If this field is blank redirect here or use this page... blah blah programing info/tech stuff. BUT the point is google indexes the pages I redirect to and the content there, and not the page that redirects...
[edited by: ciml at 4:31 pm (utc) on Nov. 2, 2002]
[edit reason] Please let's not identify the site. [/edit]
BUT the point is google indexes the pages I redirect to and the content there, and not the page that redirects...
A good example is my home page, which is the target of a redirect (apparently benign) from another site. See the thread "Another site's link redirects to my page" at:
[webmasterworld.com...]
Google displays my page with the redirect page's URL. Also, the Google cache shows my page at the redirect page's URL. However, a person clicking on the link (whether at Google or the redirecting site) will be taken to my page, which then displays my correct URL.
Other good examples are the redirects used by About.com. Several hundred About.com "guidesites" were cut more than a year ago, and their URLs are still turning up in Google. Search on the name of a certain Zurich funicular, for example, and you'll see a URL about 2/3 of the way down on page 2 of the SERP that has no title, no text, and no cache copy. And if you click on that URL, you'll be taken to a different About.com site.
Google really needs to find a better way of handling redirects. Deceptive or confusing redirects are confusing to the user, and in the example I gave in the last paragraph (the non-existent funicular page), they just clutter up the index with irrelevant search results.
What the blazes is happening? I would have thought "Not ranked" pages shouldn't be in the results let alone so high.
The sites have taken a hit this update but they worked for 6 months+.....(Xlinking the sites screwed me now I think)
IMHO, get your optimisation & link strategy right, and sites with very low pr can beat high pr ones. Lots of people will disagree I know but thats my experience.
J
However it doesn't explain how a nearly linkless, greyed out, non otimised site can do so well.
Only a thought: The homepage (pr5) only goes to cgi generated pages and maybe each page is getting the effect of the homepage just linking out to a single page.
