WMT Suggests More Sites I Should Add to my Account

[steerpikegg]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before (couldn't find it), but the strangest thing happened this morning when I logged into WMT.

Google suggested quite a few sites that I add to my account (all pre-verified) - these are all sites that I set up years and years ago, and for the most part had pretty much forgotten about. The only link that I can think of is that the domain owner details are 'similar' - I say similar because I moved house twice and never bothered updating the domain details.

There's nothing untoward, but it's particularly disturbing the amount that G must be spying on you.

[indyank]

GWT is also acting strange now...

it is asking me to add the www version of domains while I have already added the non-www versions and 301 redirect the www to non-www versons...

[sandboxsam]

I have an existing GWT account for, "www.mysite.com". Now GWT informs me that I am the verified owner of "mysite.com" and wants to know if I would like to add it to my GWT account:

“You have more sites!
You're also a verified owner of these sites. Would you like to add them to your Webmaster Tools account? “

Also having problems with GA. GA shows zero visitors yesterday.

[aristotle]

Google suggested quite a few sites that I add to my account (all pre-verified)

How were these sites pre-verified?

[netmeg]

it is asking me to add the www version of domains while I have already added the non-www versions and 301 redirect the www to non-www versons...

Thats normal if you are setting a preference as to how you want it displayed. I have both www and non-www in GWT for most of my sites. Because those are technically different urls, you have to verify that you own or control both of them.

[edited by: netmeg at 12:32 pm (utc) on Nov 3, 2010]

[yaix2]

How were these sites pre-verified?

@steerpikegg Do you have GA on those sites?

WMT suggested to me all the non-www versions of the my sites (I have verified them as www version). I supposed that the "pre-verification" was based on the GA javascript found in the HTML.

[trakkerguy]

Also having problems with GA. GA shows zero visitors yesterday

Yeah, I got a little scare seeing the same thing, until I saw it on a couple other sites also and realized it must be a mistake. Fixed now...

[Receptional Andy]

I can see this too. It looks like these are sites where Google has detected a valid meta tag or HTML verification file, but they are not present in the account.

[steerpikegg]

@steerpikegg Do you have GA on those sites?

No, I don't run analytics on any of my sites and adsense on only one of them.

[indyank]

thanks netmeg...that was something i never knew...

I will go ahead and add them then..hope google doesn't do anything to the sites...otherwise my clients wil kill me...

as i have read somewhere here that google started showing the wrong versions in the index, even when they clearly marked in GWT, the version that google should have in its index.

[JoeSinkwitz]

We're seeing it too for all sites and don't use GA or adsense; this feels like yet another canonical bug by Google.

[CenSin]

How were these sites pre-verified?

In my case, they're all subdomains. I have quite a lot of them.

[MrWumpus]

It's doing this to me too. My sites have always forced either www or non-www so this is confusing.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Red flag - While this would seem to be a helping reminder it may also be a move to gain more cumulative data about webmasters.

If it is, and nothing about Google's recent behavior suggests it isn't, webmasters need to monitor their entire portfolio as one instead of on a site by site basis. Matt Cutts recently stated that moving forward it may be best to work on only one or two sites instead of many in a youtube video.

[mrguy]

Recently stated that moving forward it may be best to work on only one or two sites instead of many in a youtube video.

So MC has decided that it's best for the web if Webmasters only work on one or two sites?

Is that what you're saying?

[Robert Charlton]

Matt Cutts recently stated that moving forward it may be best to work on only one or two sites instead of many in a youtube video.

This is the Matt Cutts video that I've seen most recently on the subject, probably the one you're alluding to....

What's your take on "addon domains"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlNPRonDxuU [youtube.com]

I think only "one or two sites" is a considerable misinterpretation of what Matt said. Matt gave good advice about redirecting vs developing a portfolio of multiple domains... where to 301 redirect and where to develop... and he concluded with this...

The one thing I would avoid is making a ton of sites where they're all auto-generated and they all look just a little bit spammy, because you're not putting any time, or love, or attention into individually developing those domains.

Many experienced webmasters on this forum have been giving this same advice for years.

[tedster]

Red flag - While this would seem to be a helping reminder it may also be a move to gain more cumulative data about webmasters.

That's too paranoid for my palate, Sarge. Google already has the webmaster associated with those sites and they already have the data - it will populate as soon as the webmaster verifies the site.

If Google was suggesting you put Analytics on another site, then maybe I'd be suspicious. But not Webmaster Tools.

[tangor]

you have to verify that you own or control both of them.

Some of that is bunk... some is also ordinary webmaster clean up.... Google is looking to REDUCE the number of sites they visit by insisting that webmasters are either www or non-www.

And scaring folks at the same time.

[netmeg]

Hunh?

[leadegroot]

oh great! I said 'yes' to all the sites they suggested, now my list of sites is twice as long so the site I want is twice as hard to find!
I wonder how I turn them off again. The 'wrong' urls get no traffic, so I don't actually need to see these results :(

[mslina2002]

leadegroot, I did the same thing and then I went in and deleted the ones that didn't matter.

I already have them 301-ed anyway.

I do wonder if I did the right thing.

[leadegroot]

@mslina2002 I thought I would at least them in for long enough to see if any stats accumulate, then I'll figure out how to delete them :)
I wanted to get rid of that big block of domains at the top anyway (stupid 'verified for these sites' message); the first time I saw it I thought I was in the wrong place!

[netmeg]

I have something like 400 sites in one account (between my own, my two companies' and my clients' sites) Most of them are duplicated www and non-www. It's a PITA, but there it is. A useful feature for GWT would be a "hide" option. Or, as in Analytics, the ability to star the primary sites and then just view the starred ones.

[rhwd2003]

anybody know how to delete them from suggesting? there is no option to say no thanks, so everytime I login i have a long yellow box list of these sites I obviously don't want in my GWT account?