News Source: http://searchengineland.com
Published: Dec 14, 2007 - 07:07 am
Story Found By: MrThePlague 1626 Days ago
Category: SEO
10 Comments
Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.
News Source: http://searchengineland.com
Published: Dec 14, 2007 - 07:07 am
Story Found By: MrThePlague 1626 Days ago
Category: SEO
10 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
- SMX Advanced Seattle - June 5-6, 2012
- SMX Paris - June 7-8 2012
- SMX Melbourne - Sept. 5-6, 2012
- SMX East - Oct. 2-4, 2012
- SMX Stockholm - Oct. 15-16, 2012
- SMX Social Media Marketing - Dec. 5-6, 2012
- SMX Munich - Apr. 9-10, 2013
- SMX West - March 2013
- SMX Toronto - April 2013
- SMX Sydney - May 2013
Latest News From Marketing Land
- Yahoo Shutters Livestand iPad “Living Magazine”
- Marketing Day: May 25, 2012
- Marketing Biz: Tracking Google’s Dune Strategy
- How Performance Marketing Is Influencing The Next Generation Of Internet Startups
- New Google+ Android App Adds Vivid Imagery & Additional Functionality
- - See more news at Marketing Land -
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
- Search, Social and Mobile: What Travel Marketers Must Know - June 26, 2012
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- Google Releases Penguin Update 1.1
- Microsoft: Yes, We Do Send Takedown Requests To Bing, Too
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, May 25, 2012
- Search In Pics: SEO LEGO, Facebook Cooler & A Happy SEO
- Google Disapproved 134M Ads And Disabled More Than 800K AdWords Accounts In 2011
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
There’s some funny stuff in WebmasterTools.On the main page, you get a message like ""We last successfully accessed your HomePage on October 20th"", but looking at the cache for the root page, it shows a date from just 3 or 4 days ago. That cache date has also changed about once or twice every week, ever since Google originally found the site a few months ago. That date on the WebmasterTools main page has updated perhaps only once in the last 2 or 3 months.Google has only found one page of the site, as shown in the SERPs using the site: searches, but the WebmasterTools Crawl Rate page supposedly shows Google pulling between 1 and 5 pages every day. So, all I can think of is that they are accessing the root page up to 5 times per day. However as noted above, they say elsewhere that they haven’t looked at it for over six weeks. There’s a discrepency in there somewhere.There’s no canonical issue going on with the site. Only www.example.com/ can be directly accessed. All other versions (non-www, named index pages, URLs with parameters, etc), get a 301 redirect back to www.example.com/ and only www.example.com/ has ever been promoted in any incoming external links.I also noticed this today: ""Your site’s domain (.GB) is already associated with the country/region: United Kingdom."". The domain isn’t ".gb", it is ".uk".
That "We last successfully accessed your HomePage on October 20th" is just pathetic. They should remove it if they can’t get on the same page with reality, I’d rather have no information than bad information.But they are adding new features at a pretty good pace.
Thanks for the write-up, Vanessa! Just wanted to clarify that we don’t currently have Googlers monitoring the new Help Groups (Hungarian and Czech), but we’ll keep an eye on the traffic levels and may get some Googlers in there as activity warrants.
Those duplicate title tag and duplicate meta description tag features look remarkably similar to my Website Health Check tool that Google recently blocked. At least they now offer those features, but a thank you / credit / attribution link would have been nice.
Its really funny you say that Aaron - I was thinking the EXACT same thing when I looked at it for the first time. I was actually going to mention something in the description to regards to it, but I didn’t want to start an inner stellar war :P
We regards to the Website Health Check; Its still in Google so its hardly banned.I think these new development are very good the more formats we can proactively get indexed the better; I only wish Yahoo and Live would follow the developments of G but they seem to be stuck in first gear.
Hi AndyBeing banned and having them block your tool are two different things.
Aaron, people have asked us to do checks like this for years. Who did you talk to at a search conference?As far as blocking, we have denial-of-service servers that run completely automatically. They turn off IPs that scrape Google too heavily. Every major search engine does this (e.g. Yahoo sends a "999 status code" when they block people that search/scrape too fast), so I wouldn’t chalk this up to a person at Google doing anything deliberately.
I don’t remember ever visiting your tool Aaron, so I just checked it out, and saw"Warning: The launch of this tool was so successful that Google ended up blocking it, and added its features to Google Webmaster Central. And they didn’t even have the manners or decency to attribute the idea to this site."Uh, okay. Just to re-iterate:1. People have been asking us to add more diagnostic information to the webmaster console for years. Heck, one of the first things I asked the webmaster console team was to add more "self-diagnosis" tools, and that was in November 2005, a full two years before you launched your tool.2. If Google blocked your tool, it’s almost certain that it was our algorithmic denial-of-service servers simply detecting what looked like scraper-like or automatic queries to us.3. To the best of my knowledge, no one on the webmaster tools team had even looked at your "health check" tool.4. Google’s new features do a ton of completely new/different things. Stuff like long and short titles, non-informative titles, long and short meta descriptions, and issues where content couldn’t be indexed.5. The only overlap I saw between your tool and the webmaster console was duplicate/missing titles/descriptions, which seems like a pretty normal thing to check for. I just poked around some, and http://www.webuildpages.com/seo-tools/titlechecker.pl also lets you type in a site and see titles. And according to http://www.seomoz.org/tools they’ve got a tool to "quickly diagnose search engine crawling issues on your website - it examines title tags, http response codes, cache dates and presence in the search engine indexes."Maybe I’m missing something, but why would you assume that the webmaster console folks copied? They came up with a ton of things that your tool doesn’t check for, so why would you assume that missing/duplicate title/descriptions came from your tool? People complained for a long time that duplicate descriptions could affect site: queries, so that’s a very natural thing for the engineers to add, especially because it’s so easy to check for.And if your tools gets blocked by Google, why would you assume that a person did that? Our servers block scraping often enough that we did a blog post about it this summer: http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2007/07/reason-behind-were-sorry-message.html which even mentioned "Overly aggressive SEO ranking tools may trigger this message, too." That is, Google does block a lot of scraping algorithmically. Why not go with Occam’s razor on this one, instead of assuming that Google is working to block you specifically and steal your ideas?
"The launch of this tool was so successful that Google ended up blocking it, and added its features to Google Webmaster Central."Aaron, I don’t understand why you insisnt on jumping to conclusions. You did that before and you were proven wrong. Publishing suspicion as fact just makes you look like a boy who cried wolf.