Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
No problem removing the junk links, but I'm pretty sure from experience, as its a seo site, won't get back into google even with a re-inlcusion request for at least 12 months, likely longer.
Its kind of embarassing for a seo site, to have zero pr, and be removed from google, so am redoing site in a new domain.
Need to 301 the site to the new domain protect msn and yahoo rankings.
Should I be concerned about google transferring the penalty to the new site? Should I set the 301 up so only read by msn and yahoo, and let google naturally find the new site... no real problem with duplicate content if google has removed the old site.
Anyone?
Will a 301 from bad site to good, pass a google penalty to the new?
I'm thinking no, but am seeking anyone with personal experience.
I'm thinking no, but am seeking anyone with personal experience.
From personal experience with one site, yes, a 301 did transfer the penalty over to the new domain and it was a decision that the client and I discussed in great detail. They had a presence for years with the old domain. TP got a hold of them and destroyed that presence in less than 90 days. Unfortunately we just couldn't leave all those inbound links, and bookmarks and everything else to return a 404.
So, we did 301 from old to new and we suffered for about 10 months. Then slowly but surely, things started to rebound and today everything is fine.
And you sure it was the 301 from the banned site that caused the problem?
Yes, since this happened before the term Sandbox creeped up around here.
sand·box (sănd'boks')
n.
A low box filled with sand for children to play in.
A litter box, especially for a cat.
If Google can transfer a penalty via a 301 redirect, doesn't this open up the very real possibility of black hat sites bringing down their competitors? I mean, how hard would it be to create a site and break every guideline that google has and then 301 it to a competitor whose rankings you would like to take over?
GuinnessGuy
If Google can transfer a penalty via a 301 redirect, doesn't this open up the very real possibility of black hat sites bringing down their competitors?
You know, I have my own personal opinion on this and yes, I do believe a competitor could do the above and cause damage to another site. There will probably be a bunch of replies after this saying that I'm absolutely crazy and I have a Tin Hat on or whatever, but after my experience and seeing what people are doing with 302s (hijacking), don't you think a 301 hijacking is plausible? Hey claus, where are you when I need you? ;)
I mean, how hard would it be to create a site and break every guideline that google has and then 301 it to a competitor whose rankings you would like to take over?
Not hard at all. In fact, there are all sorts of things you could probably do with 301s, 302s (hijacking), 307s, etc. I'm not real fond of speaking about this at the public level but hey, I need someone to tell me that my opinion on this is unfounded. Since I only have that one experience to base my assumptions on, that doesn't give it much credibility and I'll admit that. But, I wouldn't do it again. ;)
301 Moved Permanently
The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs. Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link references to the Request-URI to one or more of the new references returned by the server, where possible. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise.
I'm probably so far off base with this that I'll be embarrassed afterwards. But, I have to learn some how. Might as well discuss it at the public level, eh?
P.S. You can bet that I did my research and had all my i's dotted and t's crossed when determining that the 301 was most likely the cause for the delay in the site getting indexed properly. It may have been the natural process at that time but I don't think so based on other 301 implementations that I was involved with.
P.S.S. Since your site is in the SEO space, I feel that makes it even more of an issue. I don't think SEO sites ever make it out of purgatory. Much of it depends on what it is that put you there in the first place. Even then, I don't think you would fully recover any time soon (I'm talking years).
Will a 301 from bad site to good, pass a google penalty to the new?
Simply put, yes it does and will. You are taking all of the qualifications of the previous domain and asking Google to consider your new domain under the guise of the old domain.
Yes, that was a long post warning ;-)
Two ways to skin the cat
There are two basic possibilities:
(1) you 301 to a brand new site, or
(2) you 301 to an existing site
(Important sidenote: Here, "site" means "host name or domain name with (or without) a history of content being served from it, and links going into it". The word "site" is just four letters so it's easier)
Actually you could break these down in more fine grained groups but no reason for that here, as these are the main options.
So, nippi is in group 1. An old site will get a new domain name. This is the internet-equivalent of these actions in real life:
(a) A "Joe Jones" changes name to "Joe Jackson", or
(b) A "Joe Jones" moves from "Memphis" to "Cincinatti"
See? It's the same Joe. Now, if Joe had been caught doing speed driving on the freeway, would his ticket expire because he changed his name? Should it?
Perhaps if he paid it first, but, say, if he lived in a little village in stead of Memphis it is possible that the local cop would still keep an eye on him in traffic for a while, even after he paid the ticket (regardless of his name change).
Sometimes it helps translating "Google" to real world situations. To Google, the internet is that little village. At least sometimes ;)
So, yes the penalty would transfer. If it does not it will be because you manage to convince the local cop that you have paid your dues, plus you are now a better human being and you will never, ever do that again. But then, if you do that there's no need to change you name. See?
Case 2: A 301 to an existing site
Or: But, for "normal sites" - is it safe?
When you talk about people doing harm to others by 301'ing you are no longer talking about group (1), but group (2). This is where a breakdown into more fine-grained categories would have it's place.
Continuing the "Joe Jones" example you could say that, eg.:
(c) "Joe Jones" goes from self employed to employee status in "ACME Corp"
(d) "Joe Jones" goes from self employed to partner status in "ACME Corp"
(e) "Joe Jones" is hired as CEO of "ACME Corp"
(f) "Joe Jones" buys "ACME Corp"
Now, if we say that "ACME Corp" is a Fortune 500 company producing cars would it inflict on that company's reputation if one of it's employees had once been fined for speed driving? If a partner had been fined? The CEO? Owner? Then think about the same thing if it's not a F500 but a garage shop with only one employee (possibly with J.J. as initials). Would that change the impact on company reputation in these cases?
Yes, I'm really just beating around the bush here, but I needed to say this because it is important to realize that not all cases are equal.
Especially the history and scale of what you "301 from" relative to the history and scale of what you "301 to". Point a shady pr0n doorway page at yahoo.com with a 301, and nothing will happen to the ranking of YHOO.
So, when people beat around the bush like that - ask the question again:
Yes.
... for all normal situations, transferring one page (or a set of pages) from one URL to another using a 301, is perfectly safe.
Also, if some "Joe" decides to 301 his shady pr0n page to your four-year-old-site-with-lots-of-good-ranking-pages, then normally he's just wasting his time.
He will succeed in doing harm to you if, and only if, he manages to cheat the Google systems so that it looks like he has actually taken over your site and is now using it for whatever shady purpose he used that other site for. That is; it must look to Google as if the "quality" of your site has been reduced, somehow. We all know there are many possible indicators for this.
So, it is possible that this may happen without your participation. Most things are possible. But it is not likely. It is extremely unlikely that it may happen *only* due to a 301 redirect from somebody.
(But this does not mean that PageOne is crazy: He's right, it can probably be done. I'm just saying you need more than a 301, and more than more than one of them. You will need "something else" as well, whatever that may be.)
So, what didn't I say?
(I) point one spammy plus one clean site to a third (new) domain
Those may tank. Could also do fine if the new site isn't seen as spammy.
(II) point several spammy to one new
Will probably tank
(III) point more that one clean site to one third (new) site
Those may "duck", ie. lose a little for a while and then get back. They may also tank. Or be safe. This is a tricky one as there are so many ways to do it -- including some outright stupid ones -- but play it safe and most likely you will be safe.
(IV) point spammy sites to existing (pages on) clean sites
Shouldn't matter much. (In all "normal" cases.) Added: "shouldn't matter much" also means no benefit to the spammy sites.
(V) point spammy sites to new sections on existing clean sites w/ spammy content (in the new sections)
...now we're talking. It's like the common cold; If your spammy pages are just moved to a clean site, but the spammy pages are still spammy, then the clean site is no longer clean. So, don't transfer your spammy domains to your long-range sites. Should be obvious, really.
But of course.. that would require some level of "participation" from the receiving site. At least a coordinated effort of some kind.
Well, time to wrap this up, or shut up...
As much as I hate to say this, given that it's been labelled as a "SEO site" ... P1 you owe me a beer for this one ;p
Nippi, you worry about MSN, right? At least the thread title says so.
For Google I would just build a new clean site on a new URL, and get new backlinks to that one. I wouldn't even do the 301 thing, as... well, why should I?
Yes it will take time to get it ranked, just as with any other ste, but Google will not give you benefit for the existing links anyway as they just dumped you, so why bother trying if you're only going to transfer your penalty to the new site?
So, build a new clean site for Google and try to get that ranking by doing something else than what got the other site banned. Or advertise it.
For Yahoo: Same as with Google.
For MSN: Just leave the old site there. If it's top ranked then keep it. Don't change it, just spend your time developing the new site in stead. When the new starts to rank, just shut down the old one and take it offline. Or perhaps put up a simple link from the old to the new.
Don't worry about Google seeing that link. Of course they will, but if you get any problems that link will not be the reason. There are several thousand pr0n sites linking to "disney.com" or similar. No probs.
But.. and this is important.. wait a long time before you link from old to new. The new site must be established as "clean" first. If you do it too early you risk that it becomes harder for the new site to show that it's clean.
I'm right here PageOne, I hear you :) Actually I've got no less than three stickies in my mailbox with "301" in the title, so I'll write a bit more than four words, and then I hope that I might be able to refer people to this post.
lol! One of those Sticky Mails was mine begging for claus' participation in this topic. I respect claus for his level of knowledge in this area and after his coverage of the 302 hijacking incidents, that respect solidified.
Thank you claus for helping me to retain my Tin Foil hat as some call it. ;)
1) Has someone at Google who's in charge of these things thought this out as well as claus has? Probably.
2) Have they drawn the same conclusions as claus? Probably in most cases.
3) Can they be relied upon to implement these policies according to their own beliefs? I think that sometimes they do, sometimes not. I think parts of this model are too complex and dynamic for automation just now, based on my own recent experience.
It's still a bit of a crap shoot, IMHO.
andrea99:
I wouldn't know what they're thinking at Google, but they are bright people, so I guess that they have thought about most cases. Not all, as you can never do that.
I think your Q3 is key: Not everything can be implemented in a way so that you will always be able to guess the outcome in advance.
For simple cases you might be able to judge what will happen based on other equally simple cases, but when you start messing with multiple pages/sites, and multiple (different) redirects in multiple directions (as some do, even for 100% legit reasons) then things become very hard to predict.
