Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 107.22.14.254

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google's 302 Redirect Problem

     
4:17 pm on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ciml is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



(Continuing from Google's response to 302 Hijacking [webmasterworld.com] and 302 Redirects continues to be an issue [webmasterworld.com])

Sometimes, an HTTP status 302 redirect or an HTML META refresh causes Google to replace the redirect's destination URL with the redirect URL. The word "hijack" is commonly used to describe this problem, but redirects and refreshes are often implemented for click counting, and in some cases lead to a webmaster "hijacking" his or her own URLs.

Normally in these cases, a search for cache:[destination URL] in Google shows "This is G o o g l e's cache of [redirect URL]" and oftentimes site:[destination domain] lists the redirect URL as one of the pages in the domain.

Also link:[redirect URL] will show links to the destination URL, but this can happen for reasons other than "hijacking".

Searching Google for the destination URL will show the title and description from the destination URL, but the title will normally link to the redirect URL.

There has been much discussion on the topic, as can be seen from the links below.

How to Remove Hijacker Page Using Google Removal Tool [webmasterworld.com]
Google's response to 302 Hijacking [webmasterworld.com]
302 Redirects continues to be an issue [webmasterworld.com]
Hijackers & 302 Redirects [webmasterworld.com]
Solutions to 302 Hijacking [webmasterworld.com]
302 Redirects to/from Alexa? [webmasterworld.com]
The Redirect Problem - What Have You Tried? [webmasterworld.com]
I've been hijacked, what to do now? [webmasterworld.com]
The meta refresh bug and the URL removal tool [webmasterworld.com]
Dealing with hijacked sites [webmasterworld.com]
Are these two "bugs" related? [webmasterworld.com]
site:www.example.com Brings Up Other Domains [webmasterworld.com]
Incorrect URLs and Mirror URLs [webmasterworld.com]
302's - Page Jacking Revisited [webmasterworld.com]
Dupe content checker - 302's - Page Jacking - Meta Refreshes [webmasterworld.com]
Can site with a meta refresh hurt our ranking? [webmasterworld.com]
Google's response to: Redirected URL [webmasterworld.com]
Is there a new filter? [webmasterworld.com]
What about those redirects, copies and mirrors? [webmasterworld.com]
PR 7 - 0 and Address Nightmare [webmasterworld.com]
Meta Refresh leads to ... Replacement of the target URL! [webmasterworld.com]
302 redirects showing ultimate domain [webmasterworld.com]
Strange result in allinurl [webmasterworld.com]
Domain name mixup [webmasterworld.com]
Using redirects [webmasterworld.com]
redesigns, redirects, & google -- oh my [webmasterworld.com]
Not sure but I think it is Page Jacking [webmasterworld.com]
Duplicate content - a google bug? [webmasterworld.com]
How to nuke your opposition on Google? [webmasterworld.com] (January 2002 - when Google's treatment of redirects and META refreshes were worse than they are now)

Hijacked website [webmasterworld.com]
Serious help needed: Is there a rewrite solution to 302 hijackings? [webmasterworld.com]
How do you stop meta refresh hijackers? [webmasterworld.com]
Page hijacking: Beta can't handle simple redirects [webmasterworld.com] (MSN)

302 Hijacking solution [webmasterworld.com] (Supporters' Forum)
Location: versus hijacking [webmasterworld.com] (Supporters' Forum)
A way to end PageJacking? [webmasterworld.com] (Supporters' Forum)
Just got google-jacked [webmasterworld.com] (Supporters' Forum)
Our company Lisiting is being redirected [webmasterworld.com]

This thread is for further discussion of problems due to Google's 'canonicalisation' of URLs, when faced with HTTP redirects and HTML META refreshes. Note that each new idea for Google or webmasters to solve or help with this problem should be posted once to the Google 302 Redirect Ideas [webmasterworld.com] thread.

<Extra links added from the excellent post by Claus [webmasterworld.com]. Extra link added thanks to crobb305.>

[edited by: ciml at 11:45 am (utc) on Mar. 28, 2005]

1:36 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



add.cgi displays all of eight pages, but 885,000 are claimed

apply.cgi shows seven pages, but 1.38 million are claimed.

update.cgi 341,000 editcat.cgi 100k

Double everything for lowercase and capital letters, add a dash of Supplementals for deleted categories, and you start getting close to how Google's numbers are eight times off what is the reality of real indexed pages.

1:50 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



For months, I have been carefully cleaning up all the redirects to my site that I could find in Google. I started with site: and now I'm finishing up the last in the inurl:.

Yesterday, I snooped around MSN a little. Wow, there must be dozens, if not hundreds, of other people's pages with my pages in their caches. A typical one is like www.theirsite/fwd.php?url=http://www.my site.com.

I assume that Google also has a lot of these pages in its index but just doesn't display them all in searches. Am I assuming correctly?

3:21 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I assume that Google also has a lot of these pages in its index but just doesn't display them all in searches. Am I assuming correctly?


nothing ever completely disappears on the web.
especially with google. 1.8 billion served.
But even they want to filter out bad results don't they? The google search algo is one thing but their database is quite another.

my philosophy is write good content with clean code (not html soup) follow Brett's 29 guidelines as much as possible, make sure googlebot works and you end up with a stable site that will weather the googlestorm or at least be ready for reinclusion.

googlestorm
1 302 problem in index
2 algo change
3 debug (tweaking at the plex)
4 algo change
5 debug
6 algo change
7 debug .....

8:46 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



>> Google also has a lot of these pages in its index but just
>> doesn't display them all in searches. Am I assuming correctly?

Yes Vec_One, sofar Google's "fix" has been hiding the URLs in stead of deleting them. They have also made other changes, but they have not removed those URLs that are not pages - you are just not allowed to see them.

And MSN... Well, it's still Hijackers Paradise there.

10:18 am on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



How can i contact Google about webmaster and url issues?
5:51 pm on May 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Cat5 -

Google support is here: www.google.com/support/

3:43 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



claus - what do you mean about google hiding pages?
4:00 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



joeduck - read back in the beginning of this thread and you will find Googleguy basically stating that they are removing the ability to see these pages in a site: command search - while the pages still exist in the database you just wont be able to see them using the normal tools
5:06 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Marval -

Wow - I read that GG comment differently but now you have me wondering if things have changed in the way the index treats the 302s. Claus is saying it's not fixed and we have seen some odd site:oursite results recently.

GG said this:

"We changed things so that site: won't return results from other sites in the supplemental results."

I thought this meant they had fixed the 302 redirect problem that was treating _external_ pages as pages located in the site. If these bogus pages are still in the index, but not shown, it's creating an invisible problem rather than a solution. If they show you can often find a way to zap them with Google exclusion tool.

GG - this issue about what site:site.com tells us about 302 problems would be very helpful to clarify.

"O where O where has our GoogleGuy gone?"

7:03 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Thanks for leaving us hanging again Googleguy. This is how rumors get started. From lack of information. I have done everything I can think of to comply with the google guidelines and my site is still messed up in the serps?
9:35 am on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Okay, sorry about the confusion. It's like Marval says. And then some.

2005-05-08: Status: Problem STILL NOT solved

The 302 redirects are not removed from the index, they just don't come up when you search using the "site:" command. So, they're still there, but they're hidden in that command.

I also misunderstood GoogleGuy here. I thought that they would be hidden in general. They're not. The only place you can't see the hijackers now is when you use the "site:" command.

Now, who will most likely use the "site:" command? Yourself. Not the searchers who are the real targets of this hijacking. In regular searches 302 redirects are not hidden - they still take over the snipppet, cache, and title of the target page.

The problem has not been solved. I still see 302 redirect URLs in the SERPs for regular queries, like, say the #1 for "african darfur crimes". (just to pick a hijack of BBC - that is, 100% non-profit and non-competitive).

So, the only one that can no longer see these hijackers is the webmaster that has been hijacked, when using the "site:" command.

Nice? Not!

4:31 pm on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



>> The problem has not been solved.

That's what I said, like, 2 weeks ago (and I then had a nice technical sounding answer from GoogleGuy using the latest obfusciated buzzwords - something about heuristics and matching and supplemental results {why did he mention supplemental results anyway? they weren't in the original question} - that was supposed to make me think it was fixed, but which actually said nothing of the sort).

6:46 pm on May 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



g1smd

Have you got a link to that post?

Things are strangely static in the index for me at the moment. (I am hoping this means they are testing a new index/algo/fix prior to launch - but then I have been hoping along these lines for weeks/months.)

6:56 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



They are not testing/fixing new algo, they are busy trying to sort out the mess created by their brand new Web Accelerator.
7:09 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



They are not testing/fixing new algo, they are busy trying to sort out the mess created by their brand new Web Accelerator.

Or there are 2 teams one working on each, and neither team knows what the other is doing because 'it's a secret'.

11:14 am on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member zeus is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Now we have to us inurl: and look for same title and description or take a look at the cache of each site.

The worst thing, if you have no more redirecting/hijacking problem then you will still not be listed in the serps, because you have got some kind of supplemental ban and I also wonder this emails we had to sent for a reinclusion, with a special title text, is maybe just so they can easy trash those, because they fill up the indbox at google.

1:52 pm on May 9, 2005 (gmt 0)



It must have been about a month now since GooglyGuy told us how to file for a re-inclusion request. All I got back was the automated response. My supplemental listed sites have not been spidered for 4 months!


Continued... [webmasterworld.com]

[edited by: ciml at 4:33 pm (utc) on May 9, 2005]

This 467 message thread spans 16 pages: 467
 

Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month