go for it, darren. i'll sign and promote it - i'll blog about it and i'm sure we can get all the other bloggers to do the same.
OK - working on it already, should be done in a bit. Perhaps people would like to send me their list of people/reporters they think should be notified through this thing.. you can email me their names, email addresses and where they report. Don't post them here out of courtesy to them. They will be given the option to "opt-out" of receiving the things, but by then they will know enough about it! Send to my email: darrin@darrinward.com
OK, so here is it: http://www.darrinward.com/google302/ - I don't have 10 posts, so I can't make it a live link! If you agree, and are interested in having your view sent to those that can hopefully cause enough commotion to make a difference, please sign it. I feel strong on this one as it has effected me. what bugs me the most is that a resolution would surely not be too difficult, they should just always list the URL that is being redirected to and that would be it... Yet no resolution has been put forth by Google, even though it's been brought up several times. Their philosophy is "Do No Evil", but that seems to also be "Do No Good"! Donna, hopefully you can stick it on your blogs as mentioned. Perhaps in signatures if anyone feels strongly enough on it.
I definitely will Darren. I've signed your petition and will write up a post about it tomorrow. I will also encourage all the other seo bloggers to do the same. Thanks.
Live now. Yeah, it would be easy. Convincing people is hard. Is it evil to do nothing while others suffer? Bet they thought it was a petty problem... until it happened to them. A text link on the homepage work for you?
have you noticed how Google have fixed it for Adsense. I just wish I were a fly on the wall when they realized what had happened. Oh let me guess - a freak incident that has never happened before nor will ever happen again? Wake up Google and listen to webmasters. I think it's fair to say that webmasters actually made you what you are today, so the least you can do is listen when we detect bugs. A year later and you had to wipe the egg off your own face. You could have avoided that if you had of listened before!
NetMidWest No but I did dig deeper into it and after talking to many I have changed my viewpoint. Now the page I wrote has become a work in progress. Had a number of emails exchange with Danny and Claus on this subject. Claus is quite knowledgeable of the problem. He wrote: I see from your URL that you run a directory which use 302 redirects, so you have perhaps gotten a few emails from concerned webmasters. However, you have disallowed your cgi-bin folder in your "robots.txt" file, so you will not be causing any hijacks yourself. A listing with you should be perfectly safe. The exclude has been there for years for different reasons but nice to know it makes my website safe to others from this problem. Seems I went off and jumped the gun having had little input from anyone on the topic. Although the page did get results in that it helped to push the topic more and I did get many return my emails. Sometimes you need to start a fire. Was hoping Danny would write more on it - I would like to see a page out there that tells people what to look out for and just how much you are at risk from being hurt. The term Hijack from what I found out is not correct - it's really more like a penalty. As to why google issues the penalty is the problem. As to why I jumped into this topic - I am concerned as to the well being of sites listed in my Directory. The method I use I believe is the best method for a Directory since it retains PR. Switching to Direct Links would have killed that and a Directory with zero PR pages is almost useless. By pushing the topic I have learned more on what the problem is and how wide spread it is. This topic has really helped to uncover the truth on another topic - which directories pass PR. Vin
Have you ever heard of a directory called dmoz? You might not be hijacking peoples sites, but you aren't doing them any good either. I hate directories that use redirect espesially when they do it to keep PageRank! I think it's even sneakier trying to ban spiders from seeing your outbound links - Geez, are you running a directory?
Vin, Any method used to stop 'PR leak' is not worth the decreased link exchanges. You will gain more incoming links with good, solid text-based anchor links going out. I, as do most, look to see what kind of link and possible placement on the site before considering an exchange. Most understand that a link that does not allow PR to flow is worthless, and other engines will not follow for indexing either. Since we seem to have converted you, although you still see it as penalty (For whom? The webmaster getting screwed by another site?) please consider signing this: http://www.darrinward.com/google302/ Lawrence
Especially since PR leak doesn not exist. That's like using redirects to try to prevent ESP and alien abductions...
DangerMouse A directory that uses a method of non-direct links has benefits. Where as a directory that uses direct links offers nothing but a link. Directories with direct links offer no PR since the page will most likely be PR zero. So all a directory can offer is exposure and a PR of zero offers none. Read my article on it at click4choice and I may just convert you. But this is a whole other subject and I will not go into it here. It's unfortunate this problem has come up with websites being hurt because of certain types of links but think it's a mistake that google made and not a website owner. But I think some website owners are guilty of trying to show a false PR. I think Google may have spotted the problem and is fixing it. That we see PR no longer shows in your Toolbar is an indicator that a change is taking place. Vin
For anyone interested, I threw a couple of 100 links at my crazygeek site. The redirect on gldir.com is still there, but I've now got the correct url returned by google when searching for the domain name.
It depends on how one defines "leak". A page does not actually "leak" its PR out through external links, but it does reduce net PR for the site. To rehash this for the umpteenth time: A page has what we might call an "inherent PR"--the PR it would possess with zero outbound links. That "inherent PR" is based on many things, but high, if not top, on the list is inbound links, which includes, by the mathematical definition of PR, inbound links from other pages of the same site. (Whether or not the engines somewhat devalue intramural links is immaterial: they do have some effect.) Most pages of a site will have at least one link to some other page of the site, perhaps the index page, and typically several intra-site links. Those links will have some effect on the PR of their target pages. Now: when one puts links to external (non-site) pages on as well, the net PR-granting value of each link on the page to its target is reduced, because a page can spread its PR-giving value--derived from its own PR but not subtracting from it--only as a fraction based on total outbound links. That is, if you have five outbound links (all, say, to other pages of the same site), then add five more links all to external pages, the PR-giving value passed by the five intra-site links is halved for each. Thus, the net cumulative PR of the site is decreased by external links, though not the PR of the linking page itself. (Actually, that's not quite true: if Page A's link to Page B of the same site is diminished in value, then a link from Page B back to Page A also loses some value, owing to Page A's receiving a trifle less "PR-giving value" overall, so Page B suffers an even slighter dimunition itself--all of which is why PR calculation is an iterative process.) I am using clumsy terms to try to make clear that "PR" as such is not "passed" by a link; what inbound links have is a "PR-generating" value to their target pages, which is not quite the same as PR itself. So, in short, external links do "leak" overall cumulative site PR; whether the size of the leak is worth worrying about is another matter, and one hard to generalize about. But the effect exists, as the mere definition of PR demonstrates.
No, it does not. Not as stated, anyway. The page providing the outgoing links loses nothing. While you do get to that point later (I think - I find your writing style a little difficult to understand at times), even stating it the way you do in your opening salvo is likely to add to the confusion. It is true that each outgoing link you add on a page reduces the value of PR the page can "pass" to the targets of those outgoing links. That's not "leakage. That's just stating the obvious -- that the total PR that can be passed cannot be greater than the total PR "possessed" by the page on which the outgoing links exist. Thus, how much PR will be passed for each outgoing link from a PR6 page will be less if there are 20 outgoing links than if there are 5 outgoing links. The originating page "leaks" nothing. The originating page loses nothing. The PR of the originating page is not affected. I really wish the term "PR leak" would be left in the dumpster. It is confusing and misleading and gives rise to way too much mythology and misinformation.
Question: I have a site with a main page of PR 6. I just realized that my "redirect" link (a link counter for me) that links to my site (from other sites) is a PR 7. Of course, this is just a regular header php direct page, I don't specify 301 or 302 with it. What are my options here? If I change it to a 301, will that FIX the PR issue or should I start back tracking and see about changing all my links to point to my main page. This was back before I was aware of PR. Thanks.