Gossamer Forum
Home : Products : Gossamer Links : Discussions :

Re: [afinlr] 302 redirects

Quote Reply
Re: [afinlr] 302 redirects In reply to
The solution offered in that article, treating same-domain-name redirects differently as off-domain-name redirects is a fairly good one. Usually, when a site does a temporary redirect for maint, the 3rd level domain name is changed, not the second. So, if www.domainname.com has been serving the pages, www2.domainname.com will be the temporary server.

Google has the technology to do this, why they don't, is potentially a problem in numbers.

They are now a public company, and not the "good guys" people want to still believe they are. (Look how Bill Gates went from boy wonder to devil incarnate).

If they rearrange how they index pages, then total amount of indexed pages will suddenly drop (like when AOL did their first purge of unused member names waaaaay back).

There is a selfish, profit-motivated reason for doing what they do.

The only thing that might work, is making this 302 issue a top priority on your websites, writing the various media REGULARLY on it, sponsoring "awareness" campaigns, etc. Put pressure on Google to explain why they *knowingly* allow fradulent and malicious data to be stored in their database, and why they make it so hard to get it corrected.

We have sites that have taken our page titles, turned them into the name of an html page, and get higher raking than we do, for UNRELATED products! Google refuses to take action, and this is OBVIOUS and MALICIOUS FRAUD. Pure and simple. They are using our business name, location, and product to promote and steal traffic for an unrelate product. IT does no one but the hijackers any good -- it deceives the surfers and makes their index less useful.

As I've always said, an index is only as "good" as the data it returns. If it starts returning bad data, people will stop using it.

M$N, oddly enough, is starting to come up with more specific, and valid searches, than Google for some things. And, if M$N actually figures out it's "value" of the content returned (which they can't control, but they *can* index), they can end up controlling that sector, simply because they have more money than anyone else to throw at it.


PUGDOG� Enterprises, Inc.

The best way to contact me is to NOT use Email.
Please leave a PM here.
Subject Author Views Date
Thread 302 redirects ppuglisi 17728 Dec 4, 2004, 1:28 AM
Thread Re: [ppuglisi] 302 redirects
Andy 17504 Dec 4, 2004, 1:34 AM
Thread Re: [Andy] 302 redirects
ppuglisi 17461 Dec 4, 2004, 2:28 AM
Post Re: [ppuglisi] 302 redirects
Andy 17435 Dec 4, 2004, 2:35 AM
Thread Re: [ppuglisi] 302 redirects
paulj 17419 Dec 4, 2004, 8:10 AM
Thread Re: [paulj] 302 redirects
ppuglisi 17425 Dec 4, 2004, 3:37 PM
Post Re: [ppuglisi] 302 redirects
afinlr 17416 Dec 4, 2004, 4:34 PM
Thread Re: [ppuglisi] 302 redirects
pugdog 17404 Dec 5, 2004, 7:16 AM
Thread Re: 302 redirects
minesite 16844 Mar 19, 2005, 9:09 PM
Thread Re: [minesite] 302 redirects
loxly 16779 Mar 20, 2005, 11:44 AM
Post Re: [loxly] 302 redirects
minesite 16726 Mar 20, 2005, 5:32 PM
Post Re: [loxly] 302 redirects
brewt 16754 Mar 20, 2005, 10:54 PM
Thread Re: [minesite] 302 redirects
HyperTherm 16723 Mar 20, 2005, 5:59 PM
Thread Re: [HyperTherm] 302 redirects
loxly 16704 Mar 20, 2005, 10:40 PM
Thread Re: [loxly] 302 redirects
Alex 16746 Mar 20, 2005, 11:35 PM
Thread Re: [Alex] 302 redirects
afinlr 16708 Mar 21, 2005, 7:40 AM
Post Re: [afinlr] 302 redirects
pugdog 16688 Mar 21, 2005, 9:35 AM