Google Update Bourbon Part 3

[Sweet Cognac]

Continued From:

[webmasterworld.com...]

---

My whole site has a new cache date of May 25th. Maybe once these other sites around me get recached, I won't hold such an honorable top position. But at least Google has found my pages worthy to sit in the Search again.:) It seems strange to look at the stats and see Google in there, after 6 months of just seeing Yahoo and MSN referrals.

My website has plenty of outbound links, but they are on relevant pages. The problem my site has always had, was a lack of "inbound links." I got tired of searching for people to link to me (with all the spammy sites around) and gave up. So my pages have acquired some links naturally I guess(and I'll bet I still don't have more than 30 inbound links for the whole site) Still have a PR4, which I've had since it disappeared in Nov.

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 8:54 pm (utc) on May 27, 2005]

[Dayo_UK]

jd01

Changed your mind jd01 ;)

cyberfyber

I dont think they would class it a penalty in the traditional sense - after all your pages are probably still in the index.

Depends how they check these things out.

[japanese]

Dayo_UK

It is the duty of the webmaster or hosting company to resolve the non www to the canonical www version before a new site gets up and running.

It is also the duty of the hosting company to insure that as many errors in a url resolve to the canonical url such as in a missing trailing slash, a . dot in the url before the slash etc etc etc.

All of these errors invariably cause a 302 FOUND Temporarily moved directive in a poorly constructed or poorly maintained server. By default some later apache servers default some of these issues with a 301.

God help you if you use a IIS or similar windows server that a competitor can target. All he has to do is submit your site here and there or place a [yourwidgets.com....] or [yourwidgets.com....] or [yourwidgets.com...] links all of which google will pick up as totally separate urls poisoning your websites pagerank. It is when googlebot follows into your server and attributes your internal pages to any of the above then dilution of your pagerank occurs.

A simple engine on mod rewrite will fix these issues if done before googlebot has access to your website and its internal pages. Root level .htaccess will cause a loop so it must be done in the configuration files of the apache or internet control panel of the IIS.

Google will punish any site using a php redirects in its root folder pointing out 301’s

Hosting companies are also to blame for not helping website owners resolve the non www at the root level of ANAME RECORDS. All of the above problems are avoided if done before site goes live. When you purchase a name, the first thing is to resolve the non www to the www version obviating the inexperience of hosting companies to look after your URL.

So the previously aggressive guy who claimed I an against 301 is talking a lot of cr*p. I wholly endorse resolving a website but not in the middle of a major update such as bourbon where “Clint’s website” has gone into total oblivion.
.

[jamie]

i am loving this thread ;)

>> Google will punish any site using a php redirects in its root folder pointing out 301’s

japanese. if i understand you correctly, we have done this for years on several successful sites. i think that's a bit of a confusing generalisation.

[Dayo_UK]

>>>Root level .htaccess will cause a loop

? Are you saying a 301 redirect in .htaccess causes a loop?

eg:-

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} .
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST}!^www\.example\.com [NC]
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.example.com/$1 [R=301,L]

or

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^example\.com
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.example.com/$1 [R=301,L]

We might be talking at cross purposes

[edited by: Dayo_UK at 7:33 pm (utc) on June 3, 2005]

[notawebmaster]

Tropical Island

GoogleGuy’s desiderative here is to micturate an insensate catharsis on behalf of google.

HUH?

Translation = GoogleGuy wants to urinate on a lame release of emotion on behalf of google :)

[Dayo_UK]

notawebmaster

That's what I go too.

Could not decide whether to go to Babelfish or Dictionary first :)

[glengara]

FWIW, I've seen two sites claiming victimhood to "Bourbon", both had enough cause to fall without any algo change/update.

Makes me wonder if there are ANY innocent parties unfairly hit by "Bourbon" ;-)

[japanese]

jamie,

I hope to be of help, not to confuse.

If you run a server with the root folder index file containing 301 php redirects to subfolders within the same server is what I meant. This is a big subject and off target in this thread.

Can you provide any evidence that it were not detrimental and how you conducted your array of 301 redirects so that we too can avoid being penalized for it? Just like your many successful sites that used this method?

[sailorjwd]

What's the chances that a badly programmed .htaccess file could cause site's pages to go url-only and subsequently removed from index?

[helleborine]

I've seen two sites claiming victimhood to "Bourbon", both had enough cause to fall without any algo change/update.

You're lacking a control group. Can you find a site for which there would never be any cause at all to ever fall without algo changes/updates?