Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
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]
I have the same problem as "GuinnessGuy" url only shows when searched for www.sitename.com not even for its "unique name". When searched for site:sitename.com it brings 50 results total from previous 12,000 or so out of that 50 half of them are url only and the rest some are listed as site.com/pages and some www.site.com/pages. Please help!
About the email, i had sent an email to webmaster@google soon after that i got a reply to send an email through [google.com...] which i did but i chose "My site disappeared from the search results or dropped in ranking" i guess i was supposed to send it at "Adding my site to Google" which i did now.
I have also mentioned my webmaster world handle in the msg. Was i supposed to mention that in the subject line "reinclusion request - webmaster world handle - illusionist"? Please advise...
Thank you!
One could very well say that a "302 Moved Temporarily" is actually the right code to use, as if you maintain a list of links, and one of those link targets move, then you will correct that link to point to the new place and hence it would not be permanent. For directories this is something that happens so often that it wouldn't be wrong to view every single link as a temporary location. Then again - just like an address IRL, some tend to keep the same ones for a long time.
So, if you just want to avoid 302'ing some sites, use a 301. If you really want to do the right thing, make an assesment of the sites you link out to, and judge if you think their URL's are mostly temporary or mostly permanent (are they likely to change, ever?), then choose 301 or 302 based on that. My personal experience tells me that most URL's change.
If you use a 302 it will probably be best to put the URL to your redirect script in your robots.txt-file - the downside of this is that the search engines will not be able to follow these links, but the upside is that then they will not cause any problems.
As I wrote in that thread [webmasterworld.com], "The next question, is how quickly the benefit of the backlinks will be applied to the rightful URL". Time will tell. I think a lot of webmasters should take note of GoogleGuy's experience that in many cases a spam penalty had reduced PageRank, leading to a change in the listed URL.
GG:
url canonicalization is definitely on our radar now
Excellent. :-)
Thank you. I was just trying to offer some help for people like myself who wanted to get a jump on the 302 removal. I hated searching for the site: command and seeing a dozen of those unrelated urls listed. Sure, the hijacked page may have previously seen a decline in PageRank, making it vulnerable to the "hijacking" as Googleguy mentioned. But, I didn't know that at the time. All the signs were there of a true hijacking as I have stated many times before and my efforts to help the situation seemed reasonable and were well intended. Googleguy has always been a big help around here for years so I believe things will get better for all of us who have persisted in developing a good website.
Most people followed the procedure correctly, but I am sure Google would have rather it never been mentioned. At any rate, here we are and I think most will be happy with Google's progress in a couple of months and that this will all be a thing of the past. Fingers crossed :)
Have a good weekend.
Chris
I submitted to support using the button "My site disappeared from the search results or dropped in ranking" i guess i was supposed to send it at "Adding my site to Google" which i did now.
Does this matter really? Did GG say either way? I imagine it will get to the same place but who knows.
Should nicknames be incl in subject lines?
C
Either way, the removal of a 302 URL pointing at you should not be a problem. The danger is that someone ignores your cautions - e.g. by leaving the robots exclusion too long or submitting the wrong URL.
> this will all be a thing of the past. Fingers crossed :)
I'm sure I said something similar in 2002. :-) The good thing is that the issue is getting more intention now.
Fact one: www.site.com and site.com are different URLs for Google (as we see in the index).
Fact two: they are the same URL for URL Console.
In November 2004, I did a mistake, and removed www.site.com to avoid duplicate. I used meta-tags, and made them to show noindex only in the version I wanted to remove. I intended to leave site.com, but both are gone since then. Googlebot crawls it at least once a day and follows all new links I place in the index page, but the page itself is still missing in the index.
After 90 days, I e-mailed Google, and received automated answer, that site shall be gone for 90 days. I e-mailed again, explaining that 90 days have already passed (I cited the date from URL Console), and that I actually didn't intend to remove the site, but only a duplicate.
Few weeks after that, a WW member noticed that URL Console now says about six months. Shortly after that, I was removing an outdated domain, using robots.txt, and noticed, that URL Console listed both www and no-www version separately on the list of "pending" requests. I submitted only www-version (the only one that had been indexed from this particular domain), but URL Console added no-www version to "pending" list. I realised it's a new thing, as I used Console many times and it used to show only this version of URL that was submitted. It's much better that we are warned now, however I wish it weren't after submitting the URL.
I see that Google realised the problem, maybe because of my mail, or maybe because someone else's. But this, very honest indeed, informations showed in Console, are not a complete solution. I trust Google they are working for something better.
The ideal solution would require two things:
First: URL Console should either treat www and no-www versions separately, or perhaps Google URL indexer should merge www and no-www at the very start, just as it does with / and /index.html. But both should obey the same rules, to avoid confusion.
Second: URL Console should have one more feature implemented - the ability to cancel the six-months URL absence from index. I can see the list of URLs I have removed during last six months, so it's just a matter of a button at each URL saying "Cancel the removal" or "Reinclude".
I'd really wish to hear GoogleGuy's comment on these two suggestions.
Googleguy: I'd be curious to hear of any remaining canonicalization issues
I sent an example in a few days ago. The redirecting site does not use 302s, but uses other methods that cause pages to be hijacked, and is still showing canonicalization issues in the current serps. I did not include a handle. I can post the support ticket number, if that is allowed.
Googleguy: If you do a reinclusion request, please include your handles so I can try to get someone to find you.
In addition to the aforementioned example, I also sent in a reinclusion request. I did not include a webmasterworld handle. What happens to requests that don't have handles?
May I make a suggestion?
Some of this is a bit off topic but it needs to be said.
What I see taking place is google sits back and does not come out publicly on topics that are important.
Topics such as how PR is passed or this 302 issue.
When you do this these issues take on a life of their own and the darnedest things start happening.
The passing of PR issue for instance. SEO's claim that direct links will pass PR where 302 links will not. I think Google should clear this up.
I think you have done a good job by adding that piece on being careful with SEO's since there are many bad ones out there.
But you need to go one step more in my opinion.
Clear up the issues of a redirect to www for a website and how it will effect the ranking.
Clear up the issue of a direct link verses a non direct link.
Does having a text entry have the same effect as a link?
Such as "http://mydomain.com" verses <a href="target url
I think the PR ranking number is over rated but many believe it's very important - so much so we are now seeing offers for links on high PR rated sites for over $100 a month.
So since Google is the source of this ranking then it should state what it's relevance is!
And most important put out something on this topic of a 302 issue.
Google is number one and as such the pressure on Google is much higher than any other SE.
I believe you need to come up with some way to communicate important things such as these topics else you will find a crisis will take place that will become a mess.
By not clearing up these issues you allow those undesirable SEO's and others to claim things which are not true.
That in turn fuels even more problems by those following bad advice.
I am seeing the WEB becoming more and more a jungle.
And the major search engines are part of the problem rather than being a solution to it.
How many website which are targeting Google Adsense will it take before you start to clamp down on it for instance? If this is not addressed we will see a search engine war soon and that will have far greater effects on website owners than this fever of a 302 problem.
In my viewpoint google is allowing this spam by not eliminating these targeted websites from being adsense partners.
And it is nothing more than Spam when a site is designed with only one thing in mind - targeting adsense keywords!
And if I was Yahoo or MSN I would be thinking of blacklisting all websites that contain Adsense.
If that happens then where are we?
Vin
I know that this might change already tomorrow or tonight and my pages positions on the serps might decline again. But for now I shall forget the Rotating Algos and enjoy "RESELLERīs DAY" :-)
Have any of you who have been affected by allegra noticed something similar today?
Along with the lumping together of non-www and www even when you specifically stated only one of them; try these:
- Removal is quoted as 90 days in some places and 6 months in others;
- After removal, Google sends an email to webmaster@removed-site.com (as well as to the email address you used to sign in to the URL console itself) saying what has been done. In the email to the webmaster it says:
"From : "Google URL Console" <ur1-remove@goog1e,com>
The following urls/messages have been removed. Please contact goog1ebot@goog1e,com if you do not approve:
yoursite.com/ NOINDEX"
If you reply to that message, to the address that they indicated to use, then you get this in response:
"Thank you for writing to Google. We'd like to assist you, but we only respond to messages submitted through our online contact form. Please
visit [google.com...] to submit your message, and we'll get back to you soon. We apologize for any inconvenience, and we look forward to hearing from you."
GoogleGuy mentioned:
NOTE: Do not submit your own site to our url removal tool in attempt to force a canonical url. I repeat, do not submit your own site to our url removal tool. Using the url removal tool was some idea that a WebmasterWorld member came up with and started talking about.
What I think is that this is a result of an unwanted combination of circumstances, and posts in different threads about different subjects. In several 302 threads, the use of the URL removal tool was discussed to remove hijacks. Because 302 hijacking has not been a big issue for me I haven't followed these threads intensive, so I wasn't fully aware of the discussions taking place there and the important role of the url removal tool to solve the hijacking issue.
At almost the same time I have posted in the supporters forum about a specific www vs. non-www problem of a fellow member--and the possible duplicate content problem involved. In this thread I have mentioned the use of the url removal tool to clean up supplemental results. My intention there was to use the tool as intended, i.e. remove old and obsolete entries from the Google index. In the past I have used the removal tool to remove obsolete urls from deleted pages that were supplemental for quite some time with success. That was the scope of how I wrote that sentence, but may not have been the scope how others have read it.
I didn't mentions tricks like temporary adding "noindex" meta tags to remove just one of the versions, because I wasn't aware that people would combine the advice in the hijack threads together with mine about another subject to try to remove one of two current versions of their website. As most of us, I also didn't know that for the url removal tool the www and non-www urls are identical.
That evening I sent a private e-mail to the fellow member with the www non-www problem that it might be best to first wait until the effect of the 301 was visible before using the removal tool and went to bed to forget the whole issue.
Now that I have seen GG's specific warning not to use the URL removal tool on the own site to remove canonical url problems, I am affraid that some people have combined my advice, in combination with the trick in the hijack threads as a last resort to try to get back in the SERPs again. With disasterous results. The hijack removal trick, used on your own domain in an effort to resolve a www vs. non-www issue, in combination with the Google interpretation that www.domain.com is identical to domain.com has sent websites on a six month journey to Neverland.
If anyone was triggered by my post in the supporters forum about using the url removal tool, and started to experiment with it to remove one of two versions of their site or homepage, I would like to apologize. It was not my intention, and if I would have had the slightest idea that a specific use of the removal tool could harm sites in such a way as is now known, I would certainly have made that clear in my post, or not have posted that advice at all.
