Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
joined:Dec 29, 2003
You often see the such a error - somesite.com/action.php?url=http:/ /www.yoursite.com&id=426709&action=go& and if you check the cache you see your site.
we are in the middle of an update.
URL only means that google is aware of the page but has not indexed it yet.
If it loses it's description it likely has already been re-crawled and the index is updating. Just wait it out.
1-2 month my pages are without title and descript, during this last 2 months gboy make 2 big crawls (last crawl still doing 8-9k pages), but the only result i got is .. . that google delete all supplemental results and 30% of pages without title and description.
i have ~18 000 pages, but still in google database 530-600 pages are indexed (50% without description and title).
the only thing that i agree with u is ,, that if some days at may i check 21 000 results in google, and all of them are with supplimental result or without title and descr. , now i view only 550 pages and 60% of them with title and description.
nothing else :-(
All they need to do is tweak the crawler to not follow, aka index whatever the crawler finds at the end of dynamic links that have “http://” appearing after the “?” (in the url). That’s all there is to it really. The crawler should flag such links just the same as it would flag the “rel=nofollow” attribute. 302 hijack problem solved for approx 80% of affected sites on the web.
now how hard or complicated is that?
This will bring back from the cold thousands upon thousands of innocent sites that are currently paying dearly for this false dup content stupidity.
http: //hijacking_site.com/redir.pl?goto= http://www.hijacked_site.com
note the “http://” appearing after the "?", this should automatically set a flag just like the “rel=nofollow” tag does.
Actually, come to think of it, maybe any URL with "http://" appearing twice should be flagged and not followed by the crawler to avoid being indexed under the incorrect domain.
[edited by: max_mm at 12:20 pm (utc) on June 15, 2005]
It just seems that if the 302s are a major problem and removal doesn't seem to have helped the actual hijacked pages rankings.