Search Engine Watch
SEO News

Go Back   Search Engine Watch Forums > Search Engines & Directories > Google > Google Web Search
FAQ Members List Calendar Forum Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-01-2004   #41
Nick W
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 593
Nick W is a jewel in the roughNick W is a jewel in the roughNick W is a jewel in the roughNick W is a jewel in the rough
I wouldnt go there with anyone elses sites but your own lots0....

GoogleGuy,

Let me be blunt: You have what 50 phd's on staff and you cant spot some 302 naughtiness going on in your own results?

Come on mate, give us a break, we're not really that stupid.

apart from these recent threads there is an 8mile long one over at wmw that's been going for quite some time...

Nick
Nick W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004   #42
lots0
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
I wouldnt go there with anyone elses sites but your own lots0....
I would never ever expose a client or a friend to that kind of risk and it is a risk...

I am sure that if googleguy is willing to give a guarantee, like the one I asked about in this thread, the google engineers will have more than enough examples to study.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004   #43
Mikkel deMib Svendsen
 
Mikkel deMib Svendsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,576
Mikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud of
lots0, I don't think your suggested guarantee from Google is realistic. They cannot guarantee you that a certain domain will never be penalized - if if it does, they most likely won't like to tell you why. So, the domain could be penalized but for something else and you would never be able to know for sure.

Anyway, thats just my personal feeling
Mikkel deMib Svendsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004   #44
Nick W
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 593
Nick W is a jewel in the roughNick W is a jewel in the roughNick W is a jewel in the roughNick W is a jewel in the rough
My apologies lots0 I should have known
Nick W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004   #45
seobook
I'm blogging this
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: we are Penn State!
Posts: 1,943
seobook is a name known to allseobook is a name known to allseobook is a name known to allseobook is a name known to allseobook is a name known to allseobook is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikkel deMib Svendsen
They cannot guarantee you that a certain domain will never be penalized - if if it does, they most likely won't like to tell you why. So, the domain could be penalized but for something else and you would never be able to know for sure.
would be pretty darn cool to own a domain that had a 100% sure guaranteed amnesty from the major search engines.

image the stuff you could do with a domain that would never be penalized no matter what.
__________________
The SEO Book
seobook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004   #46
bobmutch
seocomapny.ca|Project Support Open Source|Top 40 Dirs rated by Inbound Link Quality
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: london.on.ca
Posts: 575
bobmutch has a spectacular aura aboutbobmutch has a spectacular aura about
Lots0: "If google is not getting examples of this glitch now, maybe publicly publishing step by step "how to" instructions will give their engineers some examples to study." I don't think statements like this are not warrented and to me their look to much like a threat. You may want to, how ever provide GoogleGuy a step by step howto for their engineers to study and provide them with the URL so they can monitor it happening. We have their attention and we have an example coming so lets all keep calm and upset them : )

Everyone: The purpose of this thread is not really to prove that it can be done as a number of high profile SEO exports have gone on record saying it is happening and even Yahoo has openly acknowledged it happnes. We believe them. This thread purpose is more to perhaps serve as a catalyst to bring attention to the problem and perhap provide an example to Google staff that they can look at.

Last edited by bobmutch : 12-01-2004 at 11:18 PM. Reason: shhhhh
bobmutch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004   #47
DaveAtIFG
Highly experienced lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 48
DaveAtIFG will become famous soon enoughDaveAtIFG will become famous soon enough
Hey guys, I've DONE some testing, see http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/25638.htm starting around post #232. It's documented about as well as it can be under WMW rules. And my resources for testing were somewhat limited, but it looks to me as if Google is making some progress on these hijacks.

GoogleGuy welcomed the data I provided and the volunteers/victims benefited from their reports within a day or two.

Do some additional testing by all means! But IMHO, it's simply unreasonable to demand Google fix what may be a subtle programming problem without providing examples of the problem. Many of us have "forgotten" an anchor character in a regex while scripting at one time or another and spent hours tracking down how "that *&$#* result!" appeared in our data... I'm told it happens in "the BEST of families."
DaveAtIFG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004   #48
mcanerin
 
mcanerin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,564
mcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond repute
To be fair, it's also unreasonable for Google to ask for examples from people who may be hurt in some way for giving them. It's kind of like asking a hacker to describe a security hole and give examples, all the while knowing that said hacker would be in big trouble if they are caught and therefore have a vested interest in keeping their mouths shut.

It's even worse if it was an accident and you still get punished.

The only way Google is realistically going to get these examples is by either someone "outing" someone they don't like but have a lot of information on, or by public demonstrations such as this one.

M$, a company that knows a lot about security issues (albeit mostly self-inflicted) has said several times that sometimes it's safer to NOT disclose a security breach - at least until a fix/patch has been made. Otherwise, the information goes from a small group of talented individuals who typically are fairly focused on what they are doing and gets transmitted to every script kiddy on the planet, who think nothing of random destruction just for the hell of it. It's a balancing act. A small amount of ongoing security issues vs a huge epidemic.

Of course, the BEST answer would be to not have the darn glitch in the first place!

I would ask the participants to avoid giving out enough info to arm the SEO equivilent of script kiddies and lamerz while at the same time demonstrating this issue well enough that disclosure is made.

Please use caution and common sense, and encourage others in the know to do the same. If you don't believe in "ethics" then at least consider using the same set of rules professional hackers use - ie don't feed script kiddies, and don't hand children loaded guns.

Ian
__________________
International SEO
mcanerin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004   #49
lots0
 
Posts: n/a
I don't think that is unreasonable to ask for a guarantee that the domains will not be banned or penalized because of THIS issue. I understand that other issues may still cause a ban or penalty and I never asked for a domain to NEVER be penalized/banned (would be nice though), I would just like to see some type of assurance on this issue.

Dave, I followed that entire thread at wmw. I think most anyone with a bit of web savvy could figure out the process of redirect 301\302 or meta refresh hijacks from reading that thread. Makes me kind of wonder why everyone is making such a big deal about posting step by step instructions.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004   #50
4eyes
Quit - its just not worth the bother anymore
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 64
4eyes will become famous soon enough4eyes will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Hey guys, I've DONE some testing,.......It's documented about as well as it can be under WMW rules
Thanks for that, Dave

It is hard evidence that Google were aware of this months ago.

This sort of thing has been discussed in the forums for a while now.

Sure the exact technique wasn't discussed, but enough information was given for me and my mates to work it out and we don't even have one PHD to our name, let alone 50.

When the poachers start telling the gamekeeper how to spot their traps, its time to sack the gamekeeper.
4eyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004   #51
GoogleGuy
Unofficial Representative
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 66
GoogleGuy is a glorious beacon of lightGoogleGuy is a glorious beacon of lightGoogleGuy is a glorious beacon of lightGoogleGuy is a glorious beacon of lightGoogleGuy is a glorious beacon of lightGoogleGuy is a glorious beacon of light
Quote:
Googleguy, If someone were to send you some examples, would you be willing to guarantee that the domains in question will not be penalized or banned, as long as the examples show only inadvertent (non-deliberate) hijacks?
Sure, I'll promise that no spam-related action will be taken based on the reports. If months later, the domain comes up for review for an unrelated reason, then that's a different matter, but I'll instruct whoever collects the feedback to only use it to check out how we pick canonical pages.
GoogleGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004   #52
mcanerin
 
mcanerin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,564
mcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond reputemcanerin has a reputation beyond repute
Wow - I AM impressed. And stated publicly even <applause>

Thanks GG! You've been really helpful

Ian
__________________
International SEO
mcanerin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004   #53
Chris_D
 
Chris_D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 1,099
Chris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud of
GG - you truly are a gentleman!

No excuses now guys.

Chris_D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004   #54
Nick W
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 593
Nick W is a jewel in the roughNick W is a jewel in the roughNick W is a jewel in the roughNick W is a jewel in the rough
Hat tip from Nick
Nick W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004   #55
Dave Hawley
Please remove heart from sleeve before replying
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 573
Dave Hawley will become famous soon enoughDave Hawley will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Please use caution and common sense, and encourage others in the know to do the same. If you don't believe in "ethics" then at least consider using the same set of rules professional hackers use - ie don't feed script kiddies, and don't hand children loaded guns.
Totally agree! It's a real shame that certain types in this Thread have no common sense and would likely believe that, handing a loaded gun to a kid is ok if the kid knew where the gun was anyway.
Dave Hawley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004   #56
dannysullivan
Editor, SearchEngineLand.com (Info, Great Columns & Daily Recap Of Search News!)
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Search Engine Land
Posts: 2,085
dannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud ofdannysullivan has much to be proud of
Quote:
Dave, I followed that entire thread at wmw. I think most anyone with a bit of web savvy could figure out the process of redirect 301\302 or meta refresh hijacks from reading that thread. Makes me kind of wonder why everyone is making such a big deal about posting step by step instructions.
I don't have any problem with these type of instructions being posted. Dave, if you want to go into depth, feel free.

Here's the point. I've talked with Google on this subject and have been told they don't see it as a big problem, if much of one at all. If that's indeed the case, then posting the instructions do nothing. Put them up, so everyone has a clear idea of what the concern is, but we're all safe in the knowledge that in reality, Google says this isn't a problem. There is no loaded gun to worry about.

If it IS a problem, then posting the instructions still doesn't hurt anyone but the people who would ultimately misuse them. That's because if the technique works as described, then Google will have to come up with a solution to it in short order.

FYI, my understanding of the way it operates is that if you redirect a URL that you control to point at someone else's URL -- and if your URL is of a higher PR value than the URL you point at, then you can trick Google into thinking YOU have the original URL.

So say we have this situation:

Page A ranks tops for "cars" and has a PR value of 6

Page B is someone who copies Page A and gets indexed, so they appear as a mirror of that page. Google sees this but sticks with Page A because that page has a higher PR value than Page B.

Now Page B gains PR score of 7 somehow. They then redirect to Page A. Google sees this and decides that Page B must be the best URL to show. So the top listing gets replaced with Page Bs address.

Now, what good is this to Page B? After all, it's still pointing over to Page A. Well, the redirect stops, so that the traffic for this "cars" listing can be pointed elsewhere. And eventually, if Page B's content is different than Page A, Page A should pop back up. That's also why this doesn't appear to be a major problem for many people -- it seems to be a short term thing that's going to work more in cases of pages with low page rank values. Amazon is unlikely to get hijacked.

That's my understanding without digging through the notes I have from talking with Google and others about this. It's been in the works for me to do my own article on it. Others can feel free to dive in and correct me or enhance as appropriate.

And I'll say it again -- the point of the thread or posting steps is not to help people hijack pages but to determine if this really is a problem people need to worry about.

If so, then it will undoubtedly get corrected once we get some real examples of it out in the public. And the fact that GoogleGuy is going to help encourage people to at least provide more private examples is to be applauded. I for one would like to see the situation solved finally one way or another, rather than the months -- literally months -- people have been discussing it.
dannysullivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004   #57
Brad
A Usual Suspect
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 111
Brad is a jewel in the roughBrad is a jewel in the roughBrad is a jewel in the roughBrad is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
I've talked with Google on this subject and have been told they don't see it as a big problem, if much of one at all.
Easy for them to say. They are not running a directory and getting hysterical emails from website owners threatening legal action, DMCA stuff and calling you a crook.

Now I'm just trying to run a little hobby web directory but I'm getting lumped in with people who really do intend to hijack other people's sites. It is not a comfortable position to be in.

I've read through, what was once a 29+ page thread at WmW a few weeks ago and it seems to me that straight answers are darn hard to come by. In the meantime the months go by and we take the heat.
Brad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004   #58
DaveN
 
DaveN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 434
DaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to allDaveN is a name known to all
If Page B's content is different than Page A, Page A should pop back up ....


pffft ... you got to love a cloaked redirect thou don't you.

DaveN
DaveN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004   #59
Mikkel deMib Svendsen
 
Mikkel deMib Svendsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,576
Mikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud of
Sorry, DaveN I have to spread my reps around before I give you more - but you certainly deserve my vote for the above post. We are definately getting closer to the full and true picture of this ...
Mikkel deMib Svendsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004   #60
chrisharris
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11
chrisharris is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Sure, I'll promise that no spam-related action will be taken based on the reports.
Atleast you people are genuine GoogleGuy, We took a site which was dropped from Yahoo index due to redirect issue from couple of our backlinks, For somedays our site was replaced with some site URL and then completely dropped out of yahoo index, This site is pretty clean and didnt have any unethical tactics used,

We mailed yahoo asking to include us back, i got the reply saying "our site was removed from their index since it didnt confront to their quality guidelines"

That was disaster, The site was one of the best in its industry and was pretty clean, The reply from yahoo Lady was really a stunning reply, She referred us to this page,

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/ysearc...etions-05.html

From that day we never send any complaints to search engines, A manual review for any site in search engine people's mind seem to be spam, It is like an Indian Traffic policeman, If you are caught in traffic( without violating any rules) No matter you have everything like RC book, Licence etc you have to bribe him, He will find something wrong in you or your vehicle, It is pretty sick

I do have quite a lot of examples that we have researched regarding this redirect issue, Unfortunately I cannot send you any reports since i dont want any of those sites to be subject to a manual review,

And Googleguy you are doing a great job, We webmasters are very much impressed by finding some answers from the Big G itself,
chrisharris is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off