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]
This has been brought up many times.a ----> 302 -----> b ------->301 ------>c = a--->302--->c
also how can you redirect visitors from your high rank home page to a low rank page?
if b is your high PR page how will googlebot index it after you bypass it with a redirect?
My thoughts were to redirect only visitors/bots from the offending site not all visitors via REFERRER REDIRECT.
302 redirect or an HTML META refresh causes Google to replace the redirect's destination URL with the redirect URL
Set up REFERRER REDIRECT on the index.html page which is what these site link to, and if they come from the offending site, then redirect them else where.
If there is a website that has used a coding method to steal your PR we need to look at it close to see how it was done.
Everyone is only guessing on how it has happened to those effected by it.
If we can look at both sites that will give you an idea if it can be prevented.
But the only solution to this is at the source which is google.
I would really like to know how wide spread this problem is.
Vin
I'm sick and tired about hearing that there is nothing we can do about it.
What are we, a piece of crap on the ground that everyone steps over.
We have no say in Where and How our sites are presented.?
You'll have to decide that, but I'm certain on how my site should be displayed and how.
<snip>
I read most posts of the Re Direct problem and I see everyone standing around winging and winning.
[ Tears in the eyes] saying Google is the cause of all my problems and my “SERP” status and there’s a bad man / woman out there taking all my traffic.
Mummy can you help.?
<snip>
[edited by: lawman at 6:28 pm (utc) on April 3, 2005]
Then you have come to the right place vincentg. Start out with reading the whole of this 713 message thread [webmasterworld.com], then continue to work your way through those mentioned in the opening post of this thread. It should give you a fair impression.
My thoughts were to redirect only visitors/bots from the offending site not all visitors via REFERRER REDIRECT.
Redirecting visitors from the offending URL will do nothing to prevent or fix the problem, there probably are very few (if any) visitors following that link anyway.
Googlebot does not have a referer string and is not coming from the offending site. It has recorded your page as belonging to that site earlier and is now coming through the front door to retrieve that page (which is the temporary location).
We have tried to see this from every angle, there is no way to stop it.
It is googles problem. We can only point out the problem and offer a patch solution until google fixes it. This forum is doing a good job of making the problem known so that google HAS to fix it.
[edited by: Reid at 8:58 pm (utc) on April 2, 2005]
[edited by: lawman at 6:29 pm (utc) on April 3, 2005]
Who is going to moderate this witch hunt?
[snip]
Who is going to check every directory and decide wether it is being done intentionally or unintentionally
It’s simple to evaluate the sites that are using this method for the sole purpose of inflating their own PR or stealing yours.
All you need to do is to request the removal of your link from their site, if they refuse or do not answer the request that is reason enough to post the details.
Webmasters of legitimate directories will have no problem in removing your link.
In the case of the DMOZ dynamic feeds you may have to get DMOZ involved.
decide which are really the bad guys and which are just competitors trying to diss someone
Redirecting visitors from the offending URL will do nothing to prevent or fix the problem, there probably are very few (if any) visitors following that link anyway
It's the sole purpose of why these site's do this, to get credible listings and rank and to get the traffic so they can capitalise on it.
[edited by: vitaplease at 10:41 am (utc) on April 3, 2005]
[edit reason] rude language [/edit]
Webmaster world has decided that you are a bloodsucking scumbag. We have added you to our blacklist. If you would like to appeal this decision then you can come to our forum and beg forgiveness.
If this forum started 'blacklisting' I sure wouldn't come here anymore. And if any forum decided to add me to their 'blacklist' I would just laugh about it and continue on my merry way.
Getting people organized and motivated around here is like “The Life of Brian” It reminds me of the scene where The Peoples Popular Front of Judea make an aborted rescue attempt on Brian. It’s time to take some definitive action, what’s the point talking about patches and fixes?
The 302 redirect problem is entirely Googles problem. There are no patches or fixes. It is a fact that Google’s index can be manipulated by these scumbag webmasters.
GoogleGuy gave us all instructions on how to report canonical page issues, but as far I know, no one ever got an intelligent reply. Google told me to contact the webmasters hijacking my sites and ask them to remove the redirecting links.
Everyone is only guessing on how it has happened to those effected by it.
If we can look at both sites that will give you an idea if it can be prevented
I can show you one right now, or 2 from the same 'supposedly reputable' directory.
Both sites got a 'free link' from this place opting out of the 'paid inclusion'. This was a link building campaign that I learned a few lessons from.
One is on my site where I asked them to remove the link and they did. Only problem is that the .cgi file still exists and I can't use the URL removal tool because it says 'the page exists but is not retuning a header'. The day, no the hour they removed that link my site traffic jumped 50%. The link is still sitting there in site:mysite with the old cached page from Nov 1st. I'm now (after 2 weeks) gone from 20-30 uniques a day to 60-70.
The other one is my buddy's. The same directory did the same thing to him. But they refuse to remove his link. I removed the link from site:hissite over a week ago with the url removal tool but it's still sitting there (but moved to 'omitted results' and his site is still crap. 15-20 uniques a day.
His site went up (last august) 2 months after mine so were hoping that he will come out of the sandbox 2 months after I seem to have but who knows. His link (rather their link with his description in site:hissite) also has the cache from last Nov when I added both our sites.
Both of our homepages are changed dramatically. The old cache of our homepages show empty boxes where images used to appear but no longer exist.
It's pathetic, I guess google will never update that cache or what?
How can I tell if ours is a variation on this theme where we have "hijacked" our own pages?
site:oursite.com shows enormous numbers of our *tracking links listed as pages at our site - these resolve to the external sites. 6 weeks ago we changed robots.txt to allow bots to follow our tracking links, but that has not removed them. Our substantial Google traffic was reduced by 90% on Feb 3.
