Unbelievable - my site hijacked, too?

[code11]

Hello everyone,

i am not sure. But i think my site got hijacked, too.
But this could be a new kind of hijacking!

- my site disappered from the index
- my pagerank went to ZERO

Firt i thought i did something wrong, but then i took some research on the issue:

1. Search:
==========
inurl:www.mysite.com

1. Result:
==========
www.mysite.com%20/

2. Search
=========
inurl:mysite.com

2. Result:
==========
www.bad.com/go?error=mysite.com%2F/
www.bad.com/strange?Blah+Blah+mysite.com

Is my site hijacked? If so, i will promise all members of webmaster world, that this will be a really good story for the newspapers!

I am working for one of the biggest, german computer-magazines. I am serious journalist, and i know how to get a story, that everybody understands.

I wrote google about this issue. I want to see, if they can fix this problem and how fast they react (and if the react).

Thank you for your help!

[webnewton]

:>)
Welcome to the wild wild world of webmasterworld code 11. You can refer this [webmasterworld.com...]

[grail]

Are there any other signs other than inurl:?

What if someone 302 redirects to you but doesn't have your url in their url. If you see what I mean?

These things are everywhere, am I missing something?

If these things are a problem and google were to take action and amend their alogirthm the effects on their results could be seismic! They may not be able to change their algorithm because the results they end up with after acting on this may not be what they want? Just an idea.

[idoc]

And Google really has no obligation on their part to fix this. To paraphrase an old quote I remember... There is one internet and they don't really care from what particular URL the end user gets to the information so long as the user finds it in the serps. Google won't say how they decide which of the duplicate sites gets filtered. I don't particularly like where I think this all will eventually lead. It would make a nice new thread altogether if the post would clear the mods.

As for contacting Google, I've never got more than the standard automated reply letter from them. I think a good approach for your story would be the conversion of the free Internet itself... perhaps the greatest tool we have ever had to do something good for the world... demoted to just another form of media by the growing mass of webmasters... if you can still call them that... hungry to split nickles a click at a time with G$ at any cost.

[edited by: idoc at 1:30 am (utc) on Mar. 11, 2005]

[stargeek]

I don't particularly like where I think this all will eventually lead.

what do you mean by this?

[jk3210]

<<Is my site hijacked?>>

When you look at the cache of those urls in Google, what do you see --your content or theirs?

[1milehgh80210]

"And Google really has no obligation on their part to fix this."
No, but this problem is growing exponetially and in time their index will look like S&*t.
I do believe they are taking action right now to fix this problem, but from the little bit of reading I've done on the subject, the way they handle redirects is tied in with their basic algo (duplicate penalties)at least.
If you find some genuine bad guys redirecting to your site, file a spam report on them. I did a few days ago & they were gone within 24 hrs.

[theBear]

code11

What do you get when you do a site:mysite.com

[imstillatwork]

How do you tell a hijack from a real redirect from a link list or something? A lot of link exchange lists use server side scripting to load the new link from one of their pages.

for instance:

I did a site:mydomain.com

found a result like

www.otherdomain.com/calllink.php?linkid=85

click it and it loads my page.

I did a http view and this is what it reads

HTTP/1.1·302(CR)
(LF)
Date:·Fri,·11·Mar·2005·05:29:59·GMT(CR)
(LF)
WWW-Authenticate:·Basic·realm="Password·Protected·Area"(CR)
(LF)
Location:·http://www.MYDOMAIN.com(CR)
(LF)
Connection:·close(CR)
(LF)
Content-Type:·text/html(CR)

Next loaded site is mine.

Should I be worried? or is this normal and ok for link exchanges?

[stargeek]

Thats a 302, exactly the type of redirect google allows people to hijack other sites with.

[rocco]

This happened a lot to my sites, now, I don't care anymore as there are 1000's of hijackers which got my sites. I hope, google will change this, one day, as I loved to get that traffic.

Btw. I publicly denunciated some of the cheaters on wm-boards (actually those where no hijackers, but copied my pages) and I eventually found out that they had hired a SEO.

Google has to do a lot of work.

[Yidaki]

code11, if it's the site i think it is, i wouldn't call it "hijacked". It's a site that has a Link Directory using Meta Refresh. Google has indexed the landing url's under their directory url (/go?linkid=...) and not under their original url. If you click the result you will be redirected to the correct url. So the owner of the directory has no adavantage and doesn't intentionally steal / hijack your content. It's again Google that doesn't resolve the Meta Refresh correctly.

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="0;URL=http://www.example.com/">
</HEAD>
</HTML>