Google Ranks AllTheWeb #1 For Yahoo Search

[rustybrick]

Who do you see as the number one result for [yahoo search] in Google?

[google.com...]

I see AllTheWeb! I guess because of the 302 redirect Yahoo has going from AllTheWeb to Yahoo?

[walkman]

rustybrick, mighty quiet on your site. Matt Cutts apparently doesn't even rank for his own articles, scrappers do.

[tedster]

That's what I see too, rustybrick. And you're right, the 302 redirect is the reason. 302 status means that the content on the target page is indexed as belonging to the original source URL (because the redirect is "temporary")

[crobb305]

the 302 also renders the preview tool useless there. It really makes Google search look like junk.

[deadsea]

alltheweb.com redirects to yahoo search (search.yahoo.com) with a fr=alltheweb tracking parameter. I'm sure that because of the redirect from all the web, the page with the tracking parameter has higher pagerank than search.yahoo.com base page. www.yahoo.com of course has higher pagerank, but doesn't use the word "search" in the title because they want to be a dumb portal.

I don't think Google should ever include urls in the index that redirect, be it a 301 redirect or a 302 redirect, but here you have it.

Yahoo could fix this problem by implementing a 301 redirect rather than a 302 redirect, by removing the tracking parameter, by logging into google webmaster tools and setting the fr= param to "ignore", or by implementing the canonical tag on search.yahoo.com when there is a tracking parameter.

[snackers]

I though Google fixed these 302 problems 5 years ago. Why doesn't [search.yahoo.com...] come up for this search?

[TheMadScientist]

Yeah, I don't 'get' the continued 302 issues either ... I understand the protocol says the request is not cacheable, unless designated as cacheable via cache-control or expires, and I understand the user-agent should continue to request the resource from the REQUEST URI location (I even 'get' why), but the standard does not say you have to direct others to the REQUEST URI location before the redirect is removed.

I'm sure they want to be compliant (obviously or there wouldn't be an issue), but I keep thinking if I was personally sending someone to a redirected resource (like telling a friend about a page) I would send them to the new location until I saw the redirect was removed, and I think I would handle 'online direction' to resources the same way.

IOW: I would follow protocol and keep requesting the resource from the REQUEST URI location, but I wouldn't send someone else there so they could be redirected ... I would send them straight to the information they were looking for, at the current location.

[TheMadScientist]

It actually seems like it would be fairly easy to list and link the new location of the resource in the results and put a note below the listing ... Redirected From: [REQUEST URI Here]

Then if the redirect was removed before they noticed visitors could still find what they were looking for easily.