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 09-18-2004   #1
JohnW
 
JohnW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Virginia Beach, VA.
Posts: 976
JohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud of
MIA in Google? Google bug allows 3rd party hijacking…

There have been a few threads here at SEW about mysterious disappearances from Google. This thread at WMW that shows an interesting and believable perspective on how home pages, PR and backlinks are being hijacked by 3rd party sites.

This is a very long thread that goes down a few rabbit trails but well worth reading all the way through.


http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/25638-1-10.htm
JohnW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2004   #2
bethabernathy
Looking forward to Summer
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lake Tahoe, California
Posts: 419
bethabernathy has a spectacular aura aboutbethabernathy has a spectacular aura aboutbethabernathy has a spectacular aura about
Here's a summary from Pandia:

http://www.pandia.com/sw-2004/40-hijack.html
bethabernathy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004   #3
Nacho
 
Nacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 1,382
Nacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to beholdNacho is a splendid one to behold
I saw that thread and find it amazing. I just wonder how long Google will takin into account the meta refresh tag now that it knows it is being abused since it makes Google not look very good in the SE world.
Nacho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004   #4
JohnW
 
JohnW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Virginia Beach, VA.
Posts: 976
JohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud of
Yep.
Since I first read about it, I have found many other examples of this being done. At least Google seems like they will react to complaint emails pretty quickly if the copyright issue is mentioned, so all in all this may be less of a problem than some other things that are totally un-fixable.

Also, in addition to the meta-refresh we have seen this being done with CGI and java script as well.

Last edited by JohnW : 09-22-2004 at 05:04 PM. Reason: added para #2
JohnW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004   #5
I, Brian
Whitehat on...Whitehat off...Whitehat on...Whitehat off...
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 940
I, Brian is a glorious beacon of lightI, Brian is a glorious beacon of lightI, Brian is a glorious beacon of lightI, Brian is a glorious beacon of lightI, Brian is a glorious beacon of light
Hasn't anyone tried meta-refreshing the search engines and major internet hubs?

Surely if it's that easy to take down innocent sites then it would be therefore just as easy to destroy all relevancy in Google, by taking out the biggest and most important content sites using meta-refresh?

Or does Google have a list of major hubs set up to be free of automated blacklisting?

EDIT: My bad - the WMW thread suggests you need higher PR than the pages being targeted.

Last edited by I, Brian : 09-22-2004 at 06:10 PM.
I, Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2004   #6
JohnW
 
JohnW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Virginia Beach, VA.
Posts: 976
JohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud ofJohnW has much to be proud of
Negative. The thread, as well as some examples I found, indicate that an evil page can still hijack a another page even if the victim page has a higher PR.
JohnW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2004   #7
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
Yep a lower PR site can kill a high PR site ( but only if certain factors are there)

most common abuse was the 301 that some directories used for exit tracking, again like the meta refresh=0 this confuses Gbot and the indexing of the two sites gets all mixed up, But this is not new and being around for years.... the problem is that anything that goes main stream, People that don't have a clue what they are doing jump on board and abuse the system.

Sometimes things are better just kept quite and used on rainy days...

many many years ago we developed a script to crawl the web and find guestbook’s, we indexed these guestbook’s by keywords then automatically signed them on theme, once this got out guestbook spamming became main stream and people would just sign has many as they could.... bit like bloggs today

There are so many holes to abuse in the system and so few engineers fixing them that making the holes public only encourages people to spam spam and spam again
DaveN 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