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.

Every webmaster needs to know this. Essential stuff. I wonder why Google thinks this is an indication of spam?
Comments13 Comments  

Comments

Avatar
from tomcritchlow 1441 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Looks like the problem might be even more widespread than just .0 - some .1 URLs not working either... Stay tuned to the comments!

Avatar
from g1smd 1441 Days ago #
Votes: 0

See also:           http://sphinn.com/story/52509

Avatar
from tamar 1441 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Thanks Ian.  They’re related stories but this is the one with the Google clarification plus a pretty extensive investigation.

Avatar
from tnash 1441 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Arn’t we all lucky we can all benefit from Rands direct line to Google :)

Avatar
from g1smd 1441 Days ago #
Votes: 1

@tamar:  Sure, just joining the two, so that it still makes sense a year from now...

Avatar
from Rizoh 1441 Days ago #
Votes: 0

I find it curious that .0 urls get penalized while urls ending in other numbers get indexed. Like tomcritchlow, I also wonder where the indication of spam came from.

Avatar
from sem4u 1441 Days ago #
Votes: 0

This is a strange one, but I am sure that Google will address it now that it has been noticed.

Avatar
from clickfire 1441 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Seems .0 pages are still indexed with trailing slash at the end.http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Avatar
from MattCutts 1441 Days ago #
Votes: 3

This conventional wisdom is already outdated after just a few hours. I just did a post to help people understand this issue: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/dont-end-your-urls-with-exe/

Avatar
from LawnchairLarry 1441 Days ago #
Votes: 0

It appears that URLs ending with .zip aren’t indexed either.

Avatar
from jimbeetle 1441 Days ago #
Votes: 1

Glad this situation got cleared up. The only thing I’d like to ask is that we not call it a "penalty" as it is referred to in the SEOmoz post. There’s way too much confusion and obfuscation in that arena as it is. "Indexing behaviour" might be a better term.

Avatar Moderator
from Jill 1432 Days ago #
Votes: 0

@jimbeetle you beat me to it! I was just coming here to say the same thing. (Have been behind on my reading the past few weeks.)It does a disservice to everyone to call this a penalty rather than what it actually is -- a filter.Other than that, great find and thanks to SEOmoz for sharing.

Avatar
from Halfdeck 1432 Days ago #
Votes: 1

"It does a disservice to everyone to call this a penalty rather than what it actually is -- a filter."Jill, I wouldn’t even call it a filter since I think Google does this at the crawl level. When I coded PageRankBot I had to check file extensions (e.g. WMV, jpeg, and a slew of others) to prevent the scraper bot from retrieving files containing large amount of data (for example, WMV files might run up to 300MB or more). By preventing the tool from crawling those files I kept it from "stalling." It’s basically just a method of crawler resource optimization, nothing more.

Upcoming Conferences

Search Marketing ExpoSearch 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:

Upcoming Webcasts

Search Marketing Now Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include: