Page 2 - SEOmoz.org - In Google's Sandbox - Hilarity Ensues!

SEO Chat Forums Sponsor:

#16

July 19th, 2005, 09:36 AM

longcall911

Contributing User

Join Date: Dec 2004

Location: Northern NJ, USA

Posts: 322

Time spent in forums: 5 Days 14 h 1 m 3 sec
Reputation Power: 6

randfish: Yes, this is a great example.

I'm wondering, roughly what percent of the BLs to socengine.com did you change so that the href element now equals SEOmoz rather than socengine?

Where I'm going is that we know G potentially monitors changes to anchor which I interpret to mean that if large groups of BLs change anchor, it would suggest that someone has direct control of them and therefore, these BLs are likely unnatural.

Is it possible that keeping the anchor the same, but changing the href is also monitored for the same purpose?

/*tom*/

#17

July 19th, 2005, 10:32 AM

roadies

Contributing User

Join Date: Jun 2004

Location: KCMO

Posts: 107

Time spent in forums: 14 h 4 m 33 sec
Reputation Power: 6

randfish - congratulations! Welcome to the world of thinking inside the box.

__________________
<PLUG>

PSP vs. DS
An Alternative to Adsense vs. Text Link Network

</PLUG>

#18

July 19th, 2005, 11:17 AM

randfish

SEO Chat Intermediate (1500 - 1999 posts)

Join Date: Jul 2004

Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 1,877

Time spent in forums: 6 Days 13 h 18 m 26 sec
Reputation Power: 18

Rusty - Around 6/12 was when the site was changed. htaccess was used to make rules so every page pointed to the new page, you can read about it at - seomoz.org/articles/301-redirects.php

Quote:

I'm wondering, roughly what percent of the BLs to socengine.com did you change so that the href element now equals SEOmoz rather than socengine?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I don't really have control over the BLs that point to the site, the individual people who have linked do... Other than changing things like my signature here and at some of the other forums, I haven't changed the BLs. Yahoo! & MSN seem to have done a good job recognizing though

#19

July 19th, 2005, 11:26 AM

swordfish

Contributing User

Join Date: Oct 2004

Location: Davie, FL

Posts: 289

Time spent in forums: 23 h 33 m 22 sec
Reputation Power: 6

Good Info.

__________________
Bass Fishing Reports - Fishing Content Syndication Available

#20

July 19th, 2005, 12:06 PM

Andy1664

Contributing User

Join Date: Jan 2005

Location: UK and Cyprus

Posts: 544

Time spent in forums: 5 Days 2 h 4 m 43 sec
Reputation Power: 7

The trigger points for being sanboxed seem to be getting more and more sensitive maybe as they add new criterea or rules? Seomoz is living proof that anyone can be hit and we need to keep that in the plan if we're making an income from a site that we're about to modify!.

I'm really keen to see how long Google leave you out in the cold for Randfish.

#21

July 19th, 2005, 01:52 PM

GeoffreyF67

Resident Black Hat

Join Date: Aug 2004

Location: Woodstock, GA

Posts: 1,437

Time spent in forums: 5 Days 22 h 36 m 59 sec
Reputation Power: 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddieg

if so, why couldn't i 301 any one of my 'undsandboxed' subfolders to a competitor? seems like i could bowl them right off the map.... at least temporarily.

i feel a new experiment coming on if this is true.

Ooh. That sounds like fun

Once the current google bowling experiment is done maybe I'll try this one!

400,000 pages waiting to get indexed

G-Man

P.S. Rand - I love what you did with your comment to google in the post on your blog

__________________
Black Hat, White Hat and More!

#22

July 19th, 2005, 01:58 PM

berkswelldirect

Contributing User

Join Date: Oct 2004

Location: England

Posts: 110

Time spent in forums: 1 Day 2 h 4 m 39 sec
Reputation Power: 6

Is this some sort of anti-hijacking penalty? A very popular website moving is probably quite unusual, if the site had been hijacked it would stop any hijackers getting any benefit from G and of course it would rapidly start to lose Backlinks as webmasters realised what was happening.

Of course thats not what has happened, but it hasn't been unknown in the past. Keep us posted on what happens.

__________________
A little black dress or a plus size red dress? Try Berkswell Direct - Gowns for Gorgeous Women

#23

July 19th, 2005, 02:32 PM

DanThies

Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 18

Time spent in forums: 1 h 5 m 35 sec
Reputation Power: 0

404'd yourself to death, I'd say

Rand,

I have to admit that I am a little confused. How did you implement this redirect again? It works fine when I use a browser, but when I fetch either http://socengine.com/seo or http://socengine.com/seo/ with WebBug, I get a 404 error:

Quote:

GET /seo/ HTTP/1.0
Accept: */*
User-Agent: WebBug/5.0

Quote:

From your server:
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:32:48 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.51 (Fedora)
Content-Length: 202
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<html><head>
<title>404 Not Found</title>
</head><body>
<h1>Not Found</h1>
<p>The requested URL /seo/ was not found on this server.</p>
</body></html>

#24

July 19th, 2005, 02:39 PM

toddieg

Permanently Banned

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 1,936

Time spent in forums: 2 Weeks 2 Days 6 h 30 m 6 sec
Reputation Power: 14

the header checks out fine with my http viewer. 301 is up.

__________________
It's been fun everyone... Time to leave for good. See this for more details.

#25

July 19th, 2005, 02:42 PM

randfish

Join Date: Jul 2004

Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 1,877

Time spent in forums: 6 Days 13 h 18 m 26 sec
Reputation Power: 18

Dan, It looks fine to me too - clearly Yahoo!, MSN & Google have all caught onto the new URLs and recognize them... What does WebBug do differently than a normal viewer or browser?

Also - great to see you around here. Hope to see you more often!

#26

July 19th, 2005, 02:56 PM

Mano70

<- Solan Gundersen

Join Date: Jun 2004

Location: C:\Norway

Posts: 756

Time spent in forums: 1 Week 3 Days 1 h 42 m 42 sec
Reputation Power: 7

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanThies

If you use HTTP/1.1 WebBug returns a nice 301 (you checked with HTTP/1.0, but the server returns HTTP/1.1).

__________________
Strictly CSS - free directory for CSS designed sites.

#27

July 19th, 2005, 02:58 PM

randfish

Join Date: Jul 2004

Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 1,877

Time spent in forums: 6 Days 13 h 18 m 26 sec
Reputation Power: 18

Yep - I saw that too after downloading WebBug - neat little program, actually, thanks for the recommendation, Dan.

The HTTP 1.1 is returning fine, and we tested with the old Lynx browser too, just to be sure - everything appears to be cool. Let me know if you see any other issues, Dan (or anyone). This looks just like common sandboxing to me - reminiscient of dozens of other sites I've reviewed for folks.

#28

July 19th, 2005, 03:00 PM

75c

Contriving Muser

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: $1,500 per sq m

Posts: 1,119

Time spent in forums: 1 Week 3 Days 20 h 40 m 26 sec
Reputation Power: 11

Sorry Rand but none of this is news, none of this is new. Your site, like ours, gets sandboxed.

You'll just have to wait, but in the meantime, might I suggest that you work on your back links and add quality original content?

;-)

MCS
x

Last edited by randfish : July 19th, 2005 at 04:18 PM. Reason: Removed Original Post - No need to repeat it.

#29

July 19th, 2005, 03:07 PM

DanThies

Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 18

Time spent in forums: 1 h 5 m 35 sec
Reputation Power: 0

Rand,

When I use the Live HTTP Headers extension on Firefox, I get a 301 redirect. When I use WebBug, I get a 404 error.

I would note that /seo and /seo/ are not the same URL, but both give the same error with WebBug. With Firefox, http://socengine.com/seo 301's to /seo/, then /seo/ 301's to http://www.seomoz.org

The difference between WebBug and Firefox is that Firefox uses HTTP/1.1, and WebBug defaults to HTTP/1.0; if I use HTTP/1.1 in WebBug I get the 301 redirect chain just like I get with Firefox.

I don't think that'd cause Googlebot to get a 404, since Googlebot uses HTTP/1.1 AFAIK. But I'd definitely try to rule out implementation issues.

Is there a reason why you didn't put the trailing slash on the URL in the Location: header, like http://www.seomoz.org/, is it just a style thing?

#30

July 19th, 2005, 03:14 PM

75c

Contriving Muser

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: $1,500 per sq m

Posts: 1,119

Time spent in forums: 1 Week 3 Days 20 h 40 m 26 sec
Reputation Power: 11

Maybe it's not the sandbox (although it really is, I know it) maybe it's a duplicate content filter.

MCS
x

Page 2 of 4

Viewing: SEO Chat Forums > Google > Google Optimization > SEOmoz.org - In Google's Sandbox - Hilarity Ensues!

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

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

View Your Warnings | New Posts | Latest News | Latest Threads | Shoutbox

Forum Jump

Free IT White Papers!

Create the Optimal Architecture for your Critical Applications
Warburton's the largest independently owned bakery in the UK faced a number of difficult challenges in providing the most robust yet efficient IT infrastructure for their organization's success. IBM's services combined with their xSeries servers created the perfect platform for their SAP environment with sufficient flexibility, and did so in very time effective fashion.
Request Your Free Technology Downloads!

Five Best Practices for Deploying a Successful Service-Oriented Architecture
This white paper describes the benefits you can expect with SOA, and how IBM can help take your business there.
Request Your Free Technology Downloads!

Gartner Magic Quadrant for Application Delivery Controllers
Gartner summarizes its view on Application Delivery Controllers, evaluates strengths and weaknesses of solutions, and provides Magic Quadrant reporting for a quick comparison across all vendors. Learn from Gartner how you can benefit from an all-in-one device like Citrix NetScaler that delivers the highest levels of availability, performance and security.
Request Your Free Technology Downloads!

Knowledge is Power
What you don't know can hurt you, and is likely costing you money and increasing your security risks during an era of scarce resources. This white paper proposes six key strategies that enterprise security managers can use to improve their network defense posture.
Request Your Free Technology Downloads!

Rationalizing the Multi-Tool Environment
The rationalized multi-tool approach is flexible, scalable and cost effective. It provides the necessary input to the IT service management business processes. It preserves prior investments in monitoring tools, empowers technologists to select the best tools with which to do their jobs, and enhances effective response to incidents.
Request Your Free Technology Downloads!

More Free IT White Papers!