Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 54
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: September 15, 2008 - 12:19 pm
Posted By: mvandemar 80 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com)
Category: Google SEO
9 Comments
Went Hot: September 15, 2008 - 12:19 pm
Posted By: mvandemar 80 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com)
Category: Google SEO
9 Comments
Top 10 Most Sphunn
In What's New
- DeSphinn Topic Suggestions So It's ... (20)
- Google 2009 Holiday Gifts (20)
- Fifteen Marketing Books Every Marke... (19)
- The Pros and Cons of Junky SEO-Only... (17)
- How to Use Twitter as a Twool (16)
- SEO Tops Recession Internet Marketi... (15)
- Interview with Social Media Markete... (15)
- What Can or Should Be Included in a... (14)
- Top 12 Facebook Marketing Hacks (13)
- Mobile Search Ranking Factors (12)
Latest Comments
- >>> "TOO SHORT: Your message must contain at least 50 characters.">>…
- @cathubodua welcome :)…
- >>>I'm not sure, but I would have to guess that even 10K+ human editors is …
- Hmmm... I'd have to think the data is skewed to a certain extent. Top Rank'…
- @davidmihm yes i have her name on me...twice…
- @andrewsho, it would, however, be easy to find the right body part for che@…
- I am reminded of when Angelina Jolie and Billy Bob Thornton tattooed each o…
- Gab, you're also missing that the value of a desphinn is a joke - people kn…
- - read more -
Save the date for:
• SMX West - Feb. 10-12, 2009
• SMX Munich - April 22-23, 2009
• SMX Social Media Marketing - April 29-30
• SMX Advanced - June 2-3, 2009
Learn more about search marketing through free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site Search Marketing Now.
Upcoming Webcasts:
Comments
Does anyone have any more concrete proof of this? I've seen some werid things going on with 302s recently too...
Tom, do you mean more evidence of them showing the source url and the target content? That's easy to find. Or do you mean more evidence of actual hijacked urls?
Unfortunately when I tried digging up more examples, Google kept hitting me with the whole "We're sorry... but your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application." bull, just because I was using the "inurl:" command. They really need to fix that, but from what I can tell it's just something they don't really care all that much about.
I thought we saw this happening again in June?
Tried to leave a comment but PuzzCAPTCHA ate it. Our heuristics almost always go with the destination url, but we do leave some rare cases to show the source url (as does Yahoo). I think I know why this was a corner case, but I reported it to the relevant people at Google anyway.
Matt, thanks. I know you had said before that the cases would be something like less than half of a percent, and up until a few days ago I almost never saw cases of this. What I saw though wasn't a rare instance, which is why I blogged it. Just scroll through these serps to see what I mean:
[inurl:wp-admin intitle:login]
As to PuzzCAPTCHA eating your comment, sorry about that. I tracked it down to what I think is a bug in Chrome, and came up with a workaround (Thanks JohnMu and neyne for helping me test!). It works fine now, and I put in a bug report here. It's working in Chrome now, and while I was at it fixed an issue it was having with Opera as well.
Matt take your own time but fix this forever :)
the problem is widespread and not a rare one...there are many many examples out there....why is it that you prefer the source url even for rarities?
atleast if the 302 is across domains, google should prefer the destination i suppose...
and mvandemar...getting your login or admin pages spidered is dangerous...fix it right away...
There is no danger at all in having Google spider your login page, that's usually open to the public, and my admin pages aren't spidered... it's the admin url, but it's still just the login page they are showing the content of. That was the point actually. :)
I can understand that it is now serving as a good example for this issue...but what i actually meant is it looks like an open invite to someone who stumbles on it via a search engine...forget the wastage of PR juice from an SEO perspective...