302 hoax?

Discussion in 'Google' started by SERPalert, May 16, 2005.

  1. NetMidWest

    NetMidWest Peon

    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    151
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #41
    NetMidWest, May 24, 2005 IP
  2. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #42
    Yeah, like Google needs to be #1 in its own SERPs for people to find them or for them to make money :rolleyes:

    I mean, to start with, if you're looking at a Google #2 listing for Google, aren't you already there?
     
    minstrel, May 24, 2005 IP
  3. NetMidWest

    NetMidWest Peon

    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    151
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #43
    Yeah, I've been wondering about why someone who would recognize the 302 problem would find one involving Google. If that experienced, why were they searching it? They know where it is. Perhaps the grayed toolbar keyed them in to something?

    And after re-reading the threads I posted, they really don't show the replacement of one 302 for another so much...

    But it does show Google getting ganked by itself, and then someone else.

    What a hoot.
     
    NetMidWest, May 24, 2005 IP
  4. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #44
    Even that is no longer reliable...
     
    minstrel, May 24, 2005 IP
  5. DangerMouse

    DangerMouse Peon

    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    11
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #45
    With respect... I don't think that's really the point.

    If someone can hijack google's own pages, while google still deny there's a problem at all… there’s BIG questions to be answered!

    Come on Google, admit there’s a freaking problem here…
     
    DangerMouse, May 24, 2005 IP
  6. NetMidWest

    NetMidWest Peon

    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    151
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #46
    I remember alot of 'Google is dead' 'The death of Google' posts all over the net.

    It only had cancer.

    Physician, heal thyself.
     
    NetMidWest, May 24, 2005 IP
  7. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #47
    Dr. Google, I presume...
     
    minstrel, May 24, 2005 IP
  8. dazzlindonna

    dazzlindonna Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #48
    I got a huge belly-laugh out of it this morning. Great way to start my day. Ya gotta love the justice of it all.
     
    dazzlindonna, May 24, 2005 IP
  9. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #49
    Let's see if you're still laughing when Googleguy reads this thread and drops all your sites into the non-active index they keep in the vault in crime-infested Belize... :eek:
     
    minstrel, May 24, 2005 IP
  10. vincentg

    vincentg Active Member

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    #50
    I am shaking a few more trees to see what falls out.

    I just got the adsence page emailed to me but do not see the offending link on the source page.

    Was also told by someone that an exclude in the robots.txt file will prevent it if you are the directory or site that has caused the problem.
    This I guess is fine if the site is running Perl scripts - not sure what a PHP site can do.

    I have had that in my directory for well over a year for different reasons.

    This does seem to be a good suggestion.

    So it's worth a shot to email a website that you suspect is causing the problem to add that to their robots.txt file should it be perl driven.

    Vin
     
    vincentg, May 24, 2005 IP
  11. NetMidWest

    NetMidWest Peon

    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    151
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #51
    If caught in a 302 scheme, a site would probably do better there.
     
    NetMidWest, May 24, 2005 IP
  12. dazzlindonna

    dazzlindonna Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #52
    minstrel, i just don't care anymore. i'm rather tired of chasing google. yahoo and msn love me. yeah yeah, google brings tons more traffic, yada yada, but i'm so sick of them that if they decide to ban all my sites, so be it.
     
    dazzlindonna, May 24, 2005 IP
  13. Darrin Ward

    Darrin Ward Active Member

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    88
    #53
    Friends - Might I suggest we accelerate the resolution to this by getting in touch with some reporters of computer magazines or writers which might be interested that publish in other media.

    If something like this were more well known, and here's the proof, then they'll get it fixed a LOT faster, simply because they're a public company now!

    Try providing links to some places that explain the 302 hijacking and stuff!
     
    Darrin Ward, May 24, 2005 IP
  14. dazzlindonna

    dazzlindonna Peon

    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #54
    More than likely, Darrin, Google will HAND FIX this proof long before a reporter gets hold of the story. I doubt this whole thing will make a difference in terms of Google actually solving the problem, but dang, it sure feels good to see them have to eat their words if only for a day. Remember, for the longest time, G said that the problem didn't exist. Then, they finally semi-acknowledged the problem, but said that it could only happen to sites that already had something wrong with them (i.e. penalty). So, even if this changes nothing for all the poor schmoes who are affected by the 302 crap, at least we have proof that G has lied time and time again.
     
    dazzlindonna, May 24, 2005 IP
  15. NetMidWest

    NetMidWest Peon

    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    151
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #55
    I made a point of watching '60 Minutes' and the story on Google they did recently... surely, they would take them to task, I thought.

    Nope.

    My reputation got dinged for this:
    http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=91149

    The post that took me from lurker to member...
     
    NetMidWest, May 24, 2005 IP
  16. vincentg

    vincentg Active Member

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    #56
    vincentg, May 24, 2005 IP
  17. Darrin Ward

    Darrin Ward Active Member

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    88
    #57
    That blog has screenshots, plus there are plenty of other threads on various forums in witness thereof - so - if at least a few examples could be found, reporters should be interested in in since any company in the world could have their web-preesence taken away from them by any spotty little teenager with some wisdom.

    With the size of Googles audience, I'm pretty sure that some more interest in this could be accumulated - at least enough to give Google a big enough headache to go and fix the problem.

    Attention comes when we work in the masses, so if there was an easy way to submit something like this to various reporters with the click on 1 button, such as a form statement that you'd digitally sign and then click submit, then that form went off and emailed various people - how many would bother signing it? I could set something like that up very promptly.

    As you know, us internet marketers work long hours - I'm really just interested in protecting that investment for all of us!
     
    Darrin Ward, May 24, 2005 IP
  18. NetMidWest

    NetMidWest Peon

    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    151
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #58
    NetMidWest, May 24, 2005 IP
  19. jlawrence

    jlawrence Peon

    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    81
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #59
    That's an interesting example.
    I always believed that whatever happened with a 302 problem (if it exists), the site with the highest PR would come out on top. Having looked closer at the google adsense link, the site with the highest PR comes out on top again - the https adsense site has PR n/a as do all https pages I believe.

    crazygeek was PR3 I believe because all 35 IBL's (that I knew of) were PR4 or PR5 - google as per normal never showed many of the lins. There were a few lower PR links but those were natural - at least I thought so.
    I'm going to have to get my list of links out again and see what's supposed to be pointing at the site - or what I put pointing there.

    Interestingly with the current undergoing IBL update, I'm seeing changes in PR on some sites. So I'll let things settle down for a few days, then see what's pointing at the site.
     
    jlawrence, May 24, 2005 IP
  20. NetMidWest

    NetMidWest Peon

    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    151
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #60
    A petition worked against verisign...
    http://www.whois.sc/verisign-dns/

    Wake Up People! Unite! Don't Tread On Me! United We Stand, Divided We Fall!
     
    NetMidWest, May 24, 2005 IP