Forum Moderators: open
type in: 'mydomain.com' --> no results
type in: 'www.mydomain.com' ---> site found.
My site just shows an updated version but it does not show up for the version without 'www'. Other competitors show up fine.
This leads me to suspect it might be the way the server is configured.
I use a .htaccess file in the root and rewrite *.mydomain.com to /mydomain/ subdirectory.
Usually this problem is caused by a lack of a proper serveralias in httpd.conf.
OR...you may have done something screwy in your .htaccess that is causing this. If you remove all your mod_rewrite stuff from .htaccess, does it work with www. then?
Show Google's cache of www.mydomain.com
Find web pages that are similar to www.mydomain.com
Find web pages that link to www.mydomain.com
Find web pages that contain the term "www.mydomain.com"
That’s OK
When I looking for mydomain.com on Google I get information:
Sorry, no information is available for the URL mydomain.com
?
When I looking for mydomain without .com on Google I get all pages with my domain in text, but my site are #2 on listing.
?
Site has link on Google directory!
Where is a problem? Only update or something else?
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} [^.]*sitename\.com$
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI}!^/sitename/
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /sitename/$1 [L]
Can anyone tell if this could be causing the google not to return any results for the version without the 'www' in the search box?
I seen other postings here complaining about the same thing.
I personally have seen Esmeralda update treat:
www.mydomain.com
www.mydomain.com/
as different sites. In other words a google search of
link:www.mydomain.com
and link:www.mydomain.com/
returns a different number of links.
It only did it to a newly indexed site. Sites that have
been indexed for a while did not have the same behaviour.
So I think the problem is with the Esmeralda update and
not your .htaccess file.
> My theory is if you use a wildcard, it "thinks" that you are rewriting the non-www version to the www version thus google sees it not as a redirect to the correct version with the prefix, but as a rewrite, and thus a "duplicate" entry.
The code you posted above is an internal redirect only, and thus not "visible" to Google or anyone else. It is essentially acting like a "dynamic file rename" and does not affect URLs.
Let's see if this behavior is still in evidence next week - It may clean indeed itself up.
Jim
The problem is that google entered the same file into the new index multiple times for multiple paths. They had not done this before to this extent. Last week it seemed to have straightened out for a couple days, but then reverted.
my3cents