Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
So, you when these type of things happen Google "always" corrects them/rolls them back later?
I meant &filter=0 is always showing pages returning to their "correct" rankings now.
" Strange, my main travel site is hijacked by a religious site.
The religiuous site is an old site from 1998, no pagerank and powered by Jesus Christ
according their logo.:) They copied the whole bible and my site."
- - -
So not even religious tutnams and scripture stop a dedicated scraper.
This is another reason to put in solid full [wwwyoursite...] links onto your pages.
THEN when some whacko rips content, chances are your link goes with it.
I had to laugh really. I doubt the Holy Book has many URLs.
That leaves your link(s) as the easiest and most likely way to exit this rather unbecoming site.
I would bet there are a hundred here would would like to know those formulae.
Best -Larry
Yeh, on their homepage you see heavens gate which you have to click on to enter and my content provides the exit of this paradise. I wonder what they have in mind. From their ten commendments to a nice hotel of mine in Paris. This can't be the opposite of heaven.
I found a GoogleGuy post talking about the &filter=0, duplicate contents and more, which might be of interest.
msg #:38
[webmasterworld.com...]
========================================================
GoogleGuy
Senior Member
view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
posts:2828
msg #:38 4:35 pm on June 17, 2003 (utc 0)
the "&filter=0" just shows all pages, even pages that appear to be duplicates. Normally if there are pages that appear to be duplicates, we try to pick the best one to show (but no heuristic can be perfect--it's like having two people claiming to own the same essay).
If you're seeing one of your own pages listed as a duplicate (e.g. domain.com/index.html shows up instead of www.domain.com/index.html), I wouldn't worry very much. That page should still appear in searches, and probably we can make it into the canonical version over time.
If someone else has copied your page, then you should try to solve the issue with them. In the worst case, you could escalate it to assert your ownership of your page.
This is not really a Google issue, other than the fact that "&filter=0" might allow you to find someone who copied your page. Even if we removed the other person's page (which we wouldn't do without a correct DMCA request, because we can't tell who really owns the page), you could still have the same problem with the other person's page showing up in other search engines.
So: Google tries to be the best reflection of the web that we can, but if someone has copied your page, that's a copyright issue, and not a spam issue. I encourage you to work with the other person to resolve the issue, because even if you did a DMCA request with Google, you'd still have to worry about those pages showing up on other search engines.
===============================================
so for some terms you might be lost..on other terms you are a few spots below where you were before...add the filter=0 and back to your normal spot you go
The news right now is when you add &filter=0 the serps are no longer only adding the filtered sites back in; the results now are altering significantly.
This may be either good or bad news....
could still be a duplicate penalty applied across the domain itself...pages deemed too similar to a threshold number of other pages get chopped...
because i still see examples where some pages are affected and they all share the same template..and then on the same site other pages retain ranking but they have a different template....
The idea that duplicate content is just a "copyrite issue" and just "take it up between yourselves and leave us out of it" argument would be fine if Google did not take the proactive step to decide which is real and which is not.
In other words if they can't do a decent job of making that choice why not just leave it all in there and have complete (and in most cases better) SERPs.
This is not really a Google issue,
So, even though you can look at registrar information, you are too incompetent to figure out who is the original? None of you $100/hour engineers can figure this one out?
I don't have this problem with MSN.
I don't have this problem with Yahoo.
Must be you.
>>Google Guy's ancient comment is obsolete so should not be mentioned here.<<
Not exactly. When it comes to duplicate contents issue, I guess GG hasn´t changed his mind much, not yet ;-)
Take a look at his reply (msg #:30) to buckworks:
[webmasterworld.com...]
=================================================
buckworks
Senior Member
view member profile
send local msg
joined-Dec 9, 2001
posts:1798
msg #:12 8:43 am on June 2, 2005 (utc 0)
How can we keep our original articles ranking higher than stolen copies of our content? (which are sometimes impossible to get taken down)
==========================================
==========================================
GoogleGuy
Senior Member
view member profile
joined-Oct 8, 2001
posts:2828
msg #:30 9:03 am on June 2, 2005 (utc 0)
buckworks, report 'em via the spam report form if the sites are doing wholesale duplication in a spammy way. If it's your content, a properly-formed DMCA complaint is the correct way to assert your copyright: [google.com...]
But whenever possible, I recommend going to the site that's copying your content first and trying to solve it at the source. Even if you file a DMCA complaint to Google, other search engines may find the copies as well.
Finally, if the site seems scuzzy/scraperly to you, use google.com/support/ to report it in addition to using the spam report form.
==========================
This is effecting pages that have no copies at all, and is domain wide, so Google Guy's old comments are not on the point here.
(Not even mentioning this is primarily effecting top/original listings that should never be filtered by any criteria like age, pagerank or whatever.)
I see several sites in various categories where only a few important rankings were lost: Small percentages of pages from these sites have come under sniper fire ... with no signs of dup as the culprit in these cases.
But these sites all have another issue in common, and it's related to links/kw's. ;-)
I still don't get it. My old spammy sites are up but my main clean sites are being filtered. I just want to know the reason so that I can make necessary fixes for the next update.
Links with keywords in the anchor text is my opinion, looks like google is getting wise to site buying links and run of site links! IMO
Deep, minor pages are lost for obscure searches that they easily rank first for. The pages themselves only have three or four links to them, and the search terms are not in the links at all.
Multiple things can be going on of course, but the &filter=0 phenomenon is not hitched to links or keywords or anything like that, and is not even totally consistent as some small number of pages rank normally and some pages have only dropped a bit while others dropped like Bush's poll numbers.
We have been wiped out after 5 previously successful years - the siege strategy is obviously working on everyone. 30 people are now out of work - mainly jounalists I employed - and I personally, along with the business, now facing possible bankruptcy. 5 years of our content has been stolen from us as we too tried to "clean up" our sites by changing URL's and taking OUR content and putting them on the sites - its only now how these ramifications are hurting us - I cannot believe how much of our content has been STOLEN - remember what was good for Google 3 years ago was the best information available at that time - the sites we worked away at tirelessly to make the Internet a better place - well that was what I thought we were doing. We also started linking our sites heavily after trying hard not to - but Google did not respond very quickly (I HOPE THEY DONT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE HERE) - to stay alive in this business we were forced to start linking cautiously as possible to remain in the SERPS.
Google needs to act if it wishes to keep its good name. The only thing that would hurt them would be bad publicity which could be perceived by the general population as unfair they hate seeing the small guy being wiped out by a giant - something I think a lot of us maybe now seriously considering.
My suggestion to Google is to have a list of instructions where we can prove the sites worth and the content ownership along with the history. Or something similar whereby the SPAM remains out but the innocent get included. Just our sites alone have made Google over 5 million dollars via Adsense - so it works both ways - Google don’t cut the hands that have fed you when you were not so strong - you may very well regret it in the future.
Like the people stuck in the Superdome - we, the webmasters who have stuck with you for the last 6 years are crying for HELP - please don’t just CONTINUE to ignore us.
