Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google's 302 Redirect Problem

         

ciml

4:17 pm on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



(Continuing from Google's response to 302 Hijacking [webmasterworld.com] and 302 Redirects continues to be an issue [webmasterworld.com])

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]

arubicus

8:11 pm on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Ahh yes.

theBear

8:17 pm on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



And since we are dealing with software controlling hardware that was written by wetware we are really really in trouble ;).

Just between us wetware types.

arubicus

8:35 pm on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



And also that the angle of the dangle is directly proportional to the heat of the beat.

steveb

9:29 pm on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



No one on webmasterworld reccomending doing anything bad. Some people did the bad thing on their own.

The main problem, and no reason to dance away from this, is Google's failure to handle this issue properly, both from a technology standpoint to start with, and then from a deal-with-webmasters one later. Google has adopted a cloak of secrecy about its many technological problems, and in doing so leads to webmasters more or less staggering around in the dark trying to fix problems caused by Google.

Of course Google owes nobody nothing, but that is not the point. The point is Google's database and search results are crippled by the combination of their bad technology (and thinking) combined with their cloak of secrecy.

If Google wants better search results, Google needs to learn from their mistakes. A small bit of evidence has shown up suggesting they have learned some, but more evidence abounds to suggest they have much more things to learn.

reseller

10:18 pm on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



steveb

<Of course Google owes nobody nothing, but that is not the point.>

You are right. But honest decent publishers who follow Google´s own webmasters guidelines expect at least fairness of Google. And its not fair at all to remove or penalize sites just because somebody has decided to hijack their contents against the will of the owners of these sites.

BillyS

10:41 pm on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



"a particular page returned in the search results might not be a supplemental result for all search queries that it could be returned for".

This is what was so scary to me since my site is currently returned as a supplemental page for my own name.

Vec_One

10:53 pm on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Well said steveb. I don't, however, entirely agree that Google owes nothing to anyone though. Google doesn't manufacture all of those web pages it displays. It makes its money from resources supplied by us. It also promotes itself as the world's leading information organizer. I think that people who provide content and use the search engine deserve at least a minimal level of professionalism.

Some tour companies make their money guiding people around national parks. If they were to start forest fires, cause accidents, or lose their clients in the woods, they would be held accountable.

Then, there's Google. Overnight, it can ruin years of work of thousands of webmasters without as much as an apology. That might be legal but it ain't ethical. As a company, Google has some growing up to do.

sailorjwd

11:07 pm on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Google owes us terms of:

Reasonable support
Professional business conduct
Consistent product

To the same degree that Microsoft, the Telephone Company, and many others owe us. I built my business around needing the telephone company, Microsoft Windows and many other services. I give Google more than $200K income per year - I expect better from them.

Do I get calls from Microsoft, the telephone company, and others to help improve my business? YES! And I generate a lot less revenue for them.

<added>
I don't want Google to call me. I just don't want them to destroy my business overnight unless I have done evil.

joeduck

12:15 am on Apr 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I fear we've lost the thread's "redirection issues" focus and lost GG's very helpful participation.

If he returns I'll apologize and buy beers for any participant in this thread who attends the New Orleans Conference.

BillyS

1:11 am on Apr 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I submitted a reinclusion request earlier today. My site appears to be under some kind of penalty since Google accounts for exactly 1% of referrals.

I have to say that I was hesitant since this is like admitting that I did something wrong - which I never did. The site is approaching its 1st birthday in the end of May. Every night I write till I can't stand it any longer. At least one article a day, now 850 pages - over 500,000 words.

I'm starting to see good traffic from Yahoo. MSN has me on page 1 for a 230 million term (which I have to admit is probably an overstatement of my site's importance for this particular word). And my wife thinks I'm nuts when I try to explain why she can't find my website in Google (it's at 213 tonight, showing as supplemental).

I figure if I give up now, it's like admitting defeat. I'm just not a quitter, so... it's back to writing - then maybe a Margarita!

If Google lifts the penalty, I will make one promise... You'll see me at the next Conference (although I will be writing later that evening...)

This 467 message thread spans 47 pages: 467