I found this: ht tp://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:web-hosting.thechump.com/paypal-web-hosting.html This is one I followed and had big problems with. Owned by another host. See me there?
You will always have bad website trying dumb things out there. The redirect in 95% of the cases is valid and there is nothing wrong with it. Google has created the PR system almost perfect from the start. PR does not pass with non direct links and there is no problem with that. It's the website owners choice to pass PR or not. In the case of a Directory not passing PR back is better not worse. There are so many misinformed people out there giving out information that's totally wrong and people believe it. Read my blog article in Click4choice to find out why. Then you will understand Direct links are not better in all cases. As for Hijacking it maybe possible but it's much more likely with a direct link since little programming experience is needed. My belief is there is no PR theft taking place and it's a system that works. The recent changes Google made were to eliminate Spam. Monster Template was one that got hit hard by that. So were many others - not a Hijacking problem but Spam filtering is what hurt many. Stuff they used to get away with is now a penalty and you can loose your PR as many have experienced in past 6 months. Google is going after Spammers and I applaud them for it. If you have a PR problem it's due to a problem on you website or a problem with your hosting company in my opinion. If you want me to take a quick look at your site I'll give you solid suggestions and it will work if you follow it. Vin
jlawrence NetMidWest Had posted NetBizCity is a spammer - that's who it was directed at or to the board in general. As to having a listing show up in your results - that means little and certainly does not mean you are hijacked. If you are a programmer then you know that data will show relationships. To mistake what the relationship means is in my opinion not a sign of a good programmer. We have no knowledge of the inner workings of Google and can't assume anything. From my experience of working in Major Companies the quality of programmers is quite high and I believe Google must have even higher quality than average. I can not believe any group in Google would make a high school mistake such as what is being spewed by many. This is core logic we are talking about and not a minor issue. To say that Google is taking it's core logic which it has based the PR on and allowed such a thing to happen is insane. I ask this question - Since the inception of Google, which has been around now for many years, why would this all of a sudden become an issue? This has only become a big issue recently when Google has made changes which did wreck the PR of some pretty big well known websites. This is what Google is trying to stop .ft2 { font-size: 1px; color:#cccccc; text-decoration:none; cursor: default } <a class='ft2' href='http The list of links using this method is very high The above code was placed in thousands of websites by an SEO This I am sure prompted Google to put out the SEO warning on their website. I am sure the websites that have this code embedded in their main page either do not know it's there or were duped into thinking it will help them. familyvoice.com - check it out - you will find many. Now which is more likely - a Hijack or a SEO trying to save his you know what. Could well be a Major that has lost it's PR launching an attack on Google by coming up with this Hijack story. I didn't believe those that thought Paul McCartney was dead back in the 70's. Those people came up with the most absurd reasons why they believed Paul was Dead and was replaced by a double. You could not convince them this was not true! As was the case back then with Paul and is the case now with Google I do not believe there is a Hijack problem. Vin
Isn't that the gal who tried to shoot Gerald Ford? Oh, no - that was Squeaky Fromme. I knew it had something to do with 'squeak'.
http://www.google.com/search?q=http://www.crazygeek.co.uk/ Shows crazygeek's content and cache under a php redirect page from gldir to crazygeek. Since Google uses the cache to rank pages, the cache for http://www gldir.com/linkportal/20050129035619105.php is used. IF you stop your browser on the redirect and look at it, it has a link on the page to http://www gldir.com/ and a meta-refresh set to 0. (Setting cookies to prompt may help slow it down enough to catch it) This page has a PR of 3. Common advice: Linking to or having a meta-refresh is a known rank killer, something to be used inbetween forms and such, not as a method of linking. If you do link off of one, just in case, make it the natural target with a statement of 'Click here if you are NOT redirected'. Google bans for meta-refresh. Keep links focused ahead and no content if you feel you must use one that the bots may crawl. But it defaults to a 302. 302 is a temporary redirect code. Google does not want to dump a temporary page. And it will come back to check again, and again. The old one will be back eventually, is the intent of a 302 header. So it keeps the gldir page in the serps as crazygeek, as well as crazygeek itself. Somewhere in the process, it decides the domain with the higher PR is the correct one to resolve the duplicate content problem. Makes sense, but crazygeek gets dumped. Redirect page wins. Since the page has a link to gldir, and a PR3 (given by use of the wrong content), and it is in Google's cache, Google will not drop it. But Google will crawl the link. Viola... crazygeek's PR is on a redirect page with a rank of 3, and has one outbound link to gldir's homepage. The next step is something you have to see to believe, and the timeframe to see it has seemed to have passed for this example. I will try to find another, but the window for viewing this phenomenon is small: If you had done the searches in one of my previous posts in time, you would have see all of crazygeek's internal links attributed to gldir's redirect page. Crazygeek was showing the same links as being to it. Google will attribute the links to crazygeek as being to the gldir redirect page because it sees it as most likely correct. Once Google realized this would happen, they then tried to fix it, by attibuting the PR AND LINKS back to the page the link to the redirection is on. The logic seems to me to be 'If a webmaster puts up a link that results in a 302 temporary redirect, we should just hold it. Add the links to the page the redirect link is on, and show that page.' Flaw: The page with the redirect is the page in the gldir directory listing crazygeek. The anchor text used in the link to the redirect page is now the anchor for the page in the directory, will kill off any attribution of those words to crazygeek. Those serps would now belong to http://www gldir.com/20050205094041610.htm. That is how it was done to me and many others, except for the link on the redirect page. If a page had multiple redirects out, and the pagerank for the domain itself was higher than one, it would eventually rob the first page it won the battle with, and mess with the other's fresh updates. For a site with 'close but will win' status, they would see great serps right after an update but slide because Google was confused as to who owned what until it processed data and dumped the 302 in favor of the real site. The redirect page got the fresh boost, and eventually the page the link was on would. In this case, I think Google may attribute to the htm page or gldir.com eventually. Perhaps it is the link itself that sticks the PR to the redirect page itself right now. Interesting to see what happens with a page that would normally get dumped. Google seems to have intecepted this particular mess at this writing, but the real test of this actually occuring to this particular site will be in the serps update. It does seem to be at the edge of holding all for the htm page. About the time I saw Google start to 'Hold Everything' they also stopped showing all backlinks. I don't believe that was a coincidence... it would be very obvious if some showed all for some, and the attempted to hide the wrongly attributed links on others to avoid confusion to anyone seeing them. If it is not fixed, a search for 'crazygeek' will bring up the above htm page above anything from crazygeek.co.uk. To show that it will kill even a good targeted anchor with different text I linked to crazygeek for the phrase 'Closed Directory Project'. Neither may show, because gldir does not have that text on the page, and Google has that page held as a temporary bookmark for crazygeek. Basically, that's how it works. GoogleGuy has come out on 302 problems. Several major forums have huge threads on the subject and its effects. The few people I discussed this with as I saw it evolve thought I was nuts. As I began to knock off directories by pointing out the flaw to those that were unaware, you could see another take over. This helped my credibility and sanity. Some even tried to use the whole DMOZ to create the directory pages. When they popped up for 'netmidwest' in Google, many more saw the relation. Including Google. (But if I could convince Shawn... perhaps that is the real test!) Most got dumped. Links out from sites caught in those traps started to count. Sites that had never seen the top 100 for pages they should have started to show. It seemed like a major change had been made to the serps and algo in early February. I am still convinced the real serp update was almost 2 weeks later, but the changes were not as significant as the first, and was dismissed as a re-adustment. Look at the cache link I posted. Google ads and a submit button to an on topic site at the top, someone else's serps on a page full of links below the fold to choose from. Some content and interlinking to keep it alive. I am sure they made some bucks off my intended traffic. I think having that page in the cache hurts my backlinks still to this day. I can't wait to see what happens when it gets dumped. Look back at old emails if you ever asked Google if someone was hurting your site. Somewhere in the standard reply is the caveat: "Additionally, please note that there is almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index." Seems I've read that on their site somewhere as well... Someone there knew. They let me down. Do No Harm? What about if you just do nothing and cause harm? That Okay Google?
The Google Guy never said there was a problem. He only suggested not to use the removal tool and gave a subject line to include on emails sent in to Google. One person did get a response as to his problem and the Google Guy said it was a Spam Penalty. He visited the forum once and never came back - shortly after the forum was closed. Not one Major "Search Engine News" source has written about this. That does not look to me like a sign that Google or anyone else is acknowledging anything. Since a Spider never executes a link how can Google know it's a 302 link? My viewpoint is still the same - there is no such thing as a PR Hijacker. How Google ranks a website is unknown with the exception of the basic rules Google made Public. I suggest you stop trying to figure out how Google's Engine works and try to Figure out why you don't rank as well as you believe you should. Directories do not pass PR so links in those don't count. This does not mean you should not list in directories - just means the system did not give you an easy way out. Check those links to your website - Sites with high PR and few links are of value. But they must be direct links and they should be static pages. Each link has value - some are good for traffic and some Help with PR. Check you Site for possible Penalties - over use of a keyword, hidden text, links to bad websites and non-existing CSS class names just to name a few. Read my website tips - they majority of sites make the most basic mistakes! I rank well for click4choice - it's where I spent the majority of my efforts. I have spent little effort on promoting NetBiz since it does not generate an income. I believe it's suffering a penalty also due to the .net and .com being on the same IP. A mistake I made a long time ago and will correct later this year when I install DNN which will replace the current two websites. Vin
NetMidWest Your example shows a site with so few links I'm surprised it has a PR3. Keep in mind that only a few links out can wipe out that PR. Also directories do not pass PR since the PR is depleted by the number of out going links or they use non-direct links which do not pass PR. Each link is a vote which gets deducted from your webste - too many links out will zero out your PR. I am still looking into this issue of PR problems many have claimed to ave but have not yet come up with some solid info. It seems there has been some kind of a foul up with they way Google sets up relationships between websites. As to what the cause is still unknown. Best info so far is no website has caused it or can cause it - question is then what is causing it. The website you show is dynamic written in PHP - not sure that that matters. I do know dynamic websites do not show True PR in the toolbar - they show the page rank prior to links being tallied. So dynamic sites will show high PR on pages that would normally be zero PR. Seems the main page PR is passed down to sub pages but links are not deducted when direct links are used. This shows me Google still has problems with Dynamic pages. Vin
I have had a chat with someone that has told me there is a problem that effects very few websites. It's not a problem where a site will Hijack your page but one where Google has made some kind of mistake which causes a website's PR drop. It's not very clear on how this happens but due to this I have re-written the article. From what I found out the problem effects very few sites and they are not sure as to why - which I believe means they have no fix for it yet. Maybe we will get more as time goes by. Vin
NetMidWest Can you show me others? Are they all PHP pages that show a high PR? I know that google has problems with dynamic pages and I know that some times the PR does not show correct. For instance http://www.websavvy.cc/Business-and-Economy/ show a PR of 4 but the real PR is zero It's zero because they are direct links on a dynamic page - he has done a rewrite in the .htaccess to show the page as you see it but it's realley index.php! The real page has a PR zero! Google may not see the real page also! This then maybe the real problem and not a 302 redirect but a dynamic page which has the .htaccess altered. Your example of gldir.com is the same Possible? Vin
Certainly conceivable. I don't know why people feel the need to do that htaccess rewrite thing anyway... SEs don't have any problems spidering dynamic pages if they are properly constructed...
Ofcourse there are other reasons to do a mod_rewrite, but yes Minstrel you are right. But people are after the green, in more then one way Actually dynamic pages not showing the green, can have a very high "true" pagerank, and dynamic pages can show a high pagerank, while they have a very low pagerank. Its construction, and they way G "understands" an constructed url. Sample: http://ezinearticles.com/ = PR7 All their categories and articles have a visible PR7 too. This is not according the "theory" of PR PR should gradually decrease along the "click path", thats natural Ezine Articels has some static pages as well, and there you see a more natural decrease of page rank. Actually their innner pages have a PR2 or lower Also if you look at the back links of some of the authors pages, you should aspect a few from Ezine, but they are minimal or none existent.
SEs don't have any problems spidering dynamic pages if they are properly constructed... I think that that is so, but . . . What is "properly constructed"? Also, it has been oft rumored that the SEs can spider dynamic pages up to X level (typically stated as 3, for no clear reason) of php trailing parameters. While it is always pleasing to mock many-tongued rumor, who can say for sure, considering the massive ineptitude of the SEs? So the careful site operator tries to be sure that even the Phuds at Google can understand the links, even be they 4 or 5 levels of parameter. The 302-hijacking issue is, as best I understand it (I have never focussed closely on it, but did follow some involved threads a few months ago), real. What perplexes me is that after a long, somnolent afternoon sleeping in the sun, G suddenly awoke with a fit and a start, and attacked the problem with all the wit and finesse of a three-year-old seeing its toys being played with by another. Most notoriously and infamously, they penalized essentially every 302 redirect that was in place over some modest time (a day ot two) with Draconian measures. How or why it might be thought that a 302 within the original domain could be a threat to the chastity of pure and virgin web sites is beyond me, but then, so is most everything G does.
"Properly constructed" means, in essence, no session ID's for spiders and limit the number of of other variables at the end of the URL.
To get back to the original thread topic... Looks like google adsense has been 302'd! Search G for adsense... 1st result ISN'T Google Adsense... but 302's to it. More here: http://www.threadwatch.org/node/2640
Oh... there was me thinking it was my scoop never mind, eh? certainly quashes the hoax theory anyway...
That is why I do not believe that the 'Superbowl Update' was a true serp update... it stuck across datacenters with both new and old results for some time. I theorize that Google took the database and pulled all 302's, then crunched to see the difference. Then the pages were added back in, was propogated to some datacenters. If they were of true value, they came back.