OT: Google link?

OT: Google link?



---------------------------

Great!

So we don't need to use a robot.txt file either? I've seen this in some
other posts on this thread so I just want to be sure. :-)

Thanks!
Lori

----------------------------

On 5/16/05 7:41 PM, "Jason Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Depends on whether you have regular links elsewhere to products or
> categories. If you have zero, than no problem.
>
> Jason
>
>
>> We're using Search Friendly Links, Meta Tag Generator and Search Friendly
>> Store Map all by CBS.
>>
>> After reading this thread we're wondering what we need to do...
>>
>> According to the SFL manual: "... adding the .htaccess rewrite rule will
>> take the ' directory' link and rewrite the request to meet the SFL style
>> on-the-fly as requests come in. Search engines will only see the static
>> link, not the rewritten link as this process is handled within your web
>> server"
>>
>> If this is true than the URLs created by SFL and SF Store Map should be OK
>> as Google won't see the Miva dynamic URLs, (along with the SFL and SF
> Store
>> Map URLs), and penalize us for duplicate sites... right????????
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Lori
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>>
>> On 5/16/05 6:44 PM, "Jason Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Same thing. There will be what "appears" to be two different pages with
> the
>>> exact same content. Banning /Merchant2/ directory "should" not affect
>>> rewritten urls via .htaccess such as SFL but don't quote me on that.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>> I tried to follow the entire thread and didn't see this asked. If so,
> I
>>>> apologize. What happens if your site has both SFL and normal links to
> the
>>>> same page? Will this cause issues?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [email protected]
>>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Webmaster -
>>>> Aquariumpros.com
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:20 PM
>>>> To: Annie's Maternity Corner; Miva Merchant Users
>>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uhm, I hope there's nothing wrong with THAT! Yeesh! We have ten domains
>>> with
>>>> nothing on them pointing to aquariumpros.com.
>>>>
>>>> Dave Hauser, President
>>>> Aquarium Professionals Group
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [email protected]
>>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Annie's
>>>> Maternity Corner
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:10 PM
>>>> To: Miva Merchant Users
>>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The other URLs just re-direct to my site -- they don't actually have
> any
>>>> pages of their own....
>>>>
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> Anne Cavicchi
>>>> Annie's
>>>> 106 - 402 Baker ST
>>>> Nelson, BC V1L4H8
>>>> 250-354-2000
>>>> www.maternitycorner.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [email protected]
>>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Webmaster -
>>>> Aquariumpros.com
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:03 AM
>>>> To: Annie's Maternity Corner; Miva Merchant Users
>>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The way I am given to understand it, NO. Not if the content in the
> three
>>>> sites is different, but that would not be mirroring. That would be
>>> linking!
>>>>
>>>> If however all three of those sites sell the same products, have the
> same
>>>> product descriptions and the same categories (are in effect the same
>>> store),
>>>> then yes, according to Google, that could hurt you.
>>>>
>>>> The article posted in this thread also hints that Google has tied into
> DNS
>>>> registration DBs and are looking at who owns sites that appear to have
> the
>>>> same content.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave Hauser, President
>>>> Aquarium Professionals Group
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [email protected]
>>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Annie's
>>>> Maternity Corner
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:39 PM
>>>> To: Miva Merchant Users
>>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, if I have anniesbaby.com and rebelmaternity.com etc pointing to
>>>> maternitycorner.com that's going to hurt me in google???
>>>>
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> Anne Cavicchi
>>>> Annie's
>>>> 106 - 402 Baker ST
>>>> Nelson, BC V1L4H8
>>>> 250-354-2000
>>>> www.maternitycorner.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [email protected]
>>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Aquapro
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:25 AM
>>>> To: Bill Gilligan; Miva Merchant Users
>>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just wanted to post this after FINALLY hearing back from Google.
>>>>
>>>> We had almost 55,000 pages in the Google index from our Search Engine
>>> Killer
>>>> pages, CBS store map pages, plus all the static content pages from the
>>>> informational side of our site.
>>>>
>>>> Now down to 904 and dropping. After quite a few emails to Google, we
>>> finally
>>>> got a response. They are absolutely not indexing ANY form of mirror or
>>> HTML
>>>> equivalent of dynamic pages. If content on pages is identical or even
>>> close,
>>>> forget about it!
>>>>
>>>> It's either the dynamic pages, or ONE series of HTML pages. Have a
> mirror
>>> on
>>>> another domain? Google may not list your site at all unless (like us),
> you
>>>> also have a fair amount of content pages.
>>>>
>>>> They would not get into algorythym specifics, but the bottom line is
> that
>>> we
>>>> had too many copies of our store in their index. Their solution was to
> get
>>>> rid OF ALL pages related to Merchant from our site. They said their
> spider
>>>> will now crawl the site starting at the index and will spider any links
> it
>>>> finds until content starts looking identical, then it will stop. It
> will
>>> be
>>>> at least two to six months after we "clean up our site and remove all
>>> forms
>>>> of mirror html pages before Google will start indexing new html pages
>>>> generated by our new PHP Frame solution (Sebenza Studios). As that
>>> solution
>>>> also prevents the spider from seeing standard mvc product and category
>>>> pages, it will work, but only after we get rid of our SEK pages and CBS
>>>> Store Map.
>>>>
>>>> SEK, CBS store map and any other form of mirrored pages are a thing of
> the
>>>> past when it comes to Google. Either the PHP Frame solution we have or
>>>> Search Friendly links with dynamic Miva pages are the only way to fly.
> Get
>>>> rid of anything else fast!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you
>>>>
>>>> Dave Hauser, President
>>>> Aquarium Professionals Group
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [email protected]
>>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Bill
> Gilligan
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 12:16 PM
>>>> To: Miva Merchant Users
>>>> Subject: [mru] OT: Google link?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Someone recently posted a link to a story about new changes at Google.
>>>>
>>>> I have a client that has found his sales down, and google listing has
>>>> dropped bu thousands. Did they
>>>> drop thousands of pages?
>>>>
>>>> Anyone have that link?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>

OT: Google link?



Jason Henderson wrote:

>>
>>So, the robot cannot read the .htaccess rewrite and realize those pages
>>are really residing in the /miva/ directory?
>
>
> Correct. It will just see /page/ and not /miva/
>



Thanks so much Jason!

Okay, just uploaded my revised robots.txt..... good vibes to the Google
spider still following my directory style links ;-)

OT: Google link?



From: [email protected]=20
>=20
=20
> So, my ever so amazing host (dotCOM designers) figured out a=20
> way to give a 301 header on any url containing
> www. ultimatenourishment .com to
> www.ultimate-weight-products.com Meaning if there is a url out there=20
> like www. ultimatenourishment .com /page/UN/CTGY/strainer and someone=20
> clicks on it (or Google's spider follows it), it will give a 301 and=20
> take the visitor to=20
> http://www.ultimate-weight-products..../CTGY/strainer
>=20
> I am unsure exactly how the 301 is written to achieve this, but I am=20
> sure David (your host) knows as well.

That is quite easy actually, just need three lines of text
in a .htaccess file for the site in question:

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.domain.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*) <A HREF ="http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=3D301]">http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=3D301]</A>


That will cause a 301 redirect to www.domain.com for any
incoming request that came in on any domain other than
www.domain.com keeping the rest of the URL the same.

For websites that use shared SSL certificates and need
to avoid having that rewrite break the SSL because of
the name being different, it requires one extra line
which is explained here:

<A HREF ="http://www.hostasaurus.com/helpdesk/faq.php?parent=3D0&cmd=3Dview&id=3D45=">http://www.hostasaurus.com/helpdesk/faq.php?parent=3D0&cmd=3Dview&id=3D45=</A>


David

OT: Google link?



Dave,

If you have never used the urls and don't link to them on anything that
spiders can find, than you shouldn't have a problem.

Jason


> Hi Julie:
>
> Thanks. Sounds like they simply added "redirect permanent" lines to your
> .htaccess file. I'll hit the Google website which explains this I believe,
> but if anyone can confirm that, I'd appreciate it.
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Dave Hauser, President
> Aquarium Professionals Group
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Julie
> Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:11 PM
> To: Aquapro
> Cc: 'Miva Merchant Users'
> Subject: Re: [mru] OT: Google link?
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> No, no content at all at the domain I had pointing via nameservers.
> What happened is, I own www. ultimatenourishment .com (I am breaking up
> the url as I do not want spidering of my 301 domain since these archives
> do get spidered) and had used my host's nameservers to point people who
> may have typed this domain into their browser to resolve to the domain
> with all my content which is www.ultimate-weight-products.com This
> worked great as far as bringing people who typed my business' name in
> the url field. However, Google picked up the www. ultimatenourishment
> .com link as people would use this url in forums, etc. Anyway, Google
> saw the same content on www. ultimatenourishment .com as on
> www.ultimate-weight-products.com, plus since all my links on
> www.ultimate-weight-products.com are relative, when one would arrive at
> my site via the www. ultimatenourishment .com, the www.
> ultimatenourishment .com would still resolve with the
> ultimatenourishment in it.... ie: www. ultimatenourishment
> .com/page/UN/CTGY/strainer. LOL, does this make sense so far?
>
> When I noticed my site literally disappeared from the face of Google, I
> researched, and found that the only acceptable redirect method as far as
> Google's Terms Of Use is a 301 (permanent) redirect. And that anecdotal
> information suggested that sites were getting penalized and even banned
> for using any other redirect method.
>
> So, my ever so amazing host (dotCOM designers) figured out a way to give
> a 301 header on any url containing www. ultimatenourishment .com to
> www.ultimate-weight-products.com Meaning if there is a url out there
> like www. ultimatenourishment .com /page/UN/CTGY/strainer and someone
> clicks on it (or Google's spider follows it), it will give a 301 and
> take the visitor to http://www.ultimate-weight-products..../CTGY/strainer
>
> I am unsure exactly how the 301 is written to achieve this, but I am
> sure David (your host) knows as well.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Julie
>
> Aquapro wrote:
>
> > Hmmm.
> >
> > Julie,
> >
> > Did you have content on those other domains or did you just have your
host
> > pointing those domains to your active domain with content?
> >
> > I'm still confused about this. As I said, I have Hostasaurus pointing
> > several other domains (mostly variations of aquariumpros like
> > aquariumpros.org, aquariumpros.tv, etc.) to our main domain
> > (aquariumpros.com). However, those are not "live" domains with content.
> >
> > Is that what you had and if so, how did you implement the 301 on the
other
> > domains if they weren't live sites with editable content?
> >
> > My understanding from the article that started this whole thread and my
> > coorespondence with Google is their new system does look at DNS info
such
> as
> > ownership of domains as part of their ranking system. So a link or non
301
> > redirect from an active domain to another active domain with both
domains
> > owned by the same party will lower ranking.
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Dave Hauser, President
> > Aquarium Professionals Group
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Julie
> > Thompson
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:45 AM
> > To: Bruce Golub - Phosphormedia.com
> > Cc: 'Miva Merchant Users'
> > Subject: Re: [mru] OT: Google link?
> >
> >
> > Obviously only Google knows for sure and anything else is pure
> > speculation, but will not disregard the possibility as I have read too
> > many anecdotal experiences with Google purging duplicate content
> > *within* the same domain. And my experience, I was using the name
> > servers (DNS pointing) to direct another domain to my main domain. And
> > within few weeks, the steady rankings my site once had were gone from
> > Google. I wasn't banned (the toolbar still showed a PR for my site, and
> > a "site:www.domain.com" did bring up all my pages within Google), BUT
> > any steady rankings I once enjoyed were literally gone. Even a search
> > for my business name, my site was not ranked well after the DNS
> > pointing. Once I implemented a 301 on the other domain rather than a
> > DNS redirect, my rankings returned. Thus, it leads me to never discount
> > what Google defines duplicate content as.
> >
> > To that end, I am glad that Dave brought to our attention that dynamic
> > links and SFL can possibly be construed as duplicate content.
> >
> > Which leads me back to my original question several posts ago; will
> > disallowing robots from spidering /miva/ or /merchant2/ directorys
> > (however the host has it set up) block the spiders from indexing SFL
too?
> >
> > Julie
> >
> > Bruce Golub - Phosphormedia.com wrote:
> >
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >
> >
> >>>So this renders Merchant Optimizer worthless???? And dump
> >>>static "doorway"
> >>>pages? Use just what Miva Merchant generates? Only have
> >>>static informational pages? What a week to head to NYC -
> >>>guess I should be a the conference that is going on next to
> >>>the Streaming Media - Google is one of teh sponsors
> >>>there....didn't see FindWhat listed though.
> >>>
> >>>Leslie <-- is ready to freakin scream.
> >>
> >>
> >>First of all, absolutly not, second of all, absolutely not<G>.
> >>
> >>Also, I think some are confusing "mirror" sites with "mirror" pages. I'm
> >
> > not
> >
> >>certain, but pretty sure that Google, or any search engine for that
> >
> > matter,
> >
> >>does not penelize for duplicate "pages" under the same domain...that
would
> >>just be silly. What they are penalizing are duplicate pages, under
> >
> > different
> >
> >>domains. For example, www.ThisIsTheRealSite.com/rankme.html being
exactly
> >>the same as www.ThisIsAnotherSite.com/rankthis.html.
> >>
> >>The only real reason to block /Merchant2 links when using Optimizer is
to
> >>prevent SE spiders from hammering your store. When crawling a site, they
> >
> > can
> >
> >>be generating anywhere from 10 to 100 requests per second. (I suspect a
> >
> > lot
> >
> >>of those "all of a sudden my site is slow" posts are simply SE spider
> >>visits.)
> >>
> >>Sorry if I fell into the same rabbit hole as others last night, it was
> >
> > late
> >
> >>and a long day.
> >>
> >>-Bruce Golub
> >>PHOSPHOR Media
> >>......................................
> >>Featuring: StoreMan - A smarter way to manage Miva Merchant(tm) Store
> >>Content.
> >>Download a hassle-free demo today
> >><A HREF ="http://www.phosphormedia.com/go.mv?ID=listsm">http://www.phosphormedia.com/go.mv?ID=listsm</A>
> >>......................................
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >

OT: Google link?



> > Depends on whether you have regular links elsewhere to products or
> > categories. If you have zero, than no problem. Might as well do it
just to be sure.

Jason


> ---------------------------
>
> Great!
>
> So we don't need to use a robot.txt file either? I've seen this in some
> other posts on this thread so I just want to be sure. :-)
>
> Thanks!
> Lori
>
> ----------------------------
>
> On 5/16/05 7:41 PM, "Jason Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Depends on whether you have regular links elsewhere to products or
> > categories. If you have zero, than no problem.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >> We're using Search Friendly Links, Meta Tag Generator and Search
Friendly
> >> Store Map all by CBS.
> >>
> >> After reading this thread we're wondering what we need to do...
> >>
> >> According to the SFL manual: "... adding the .htaccess rewrite rule
will
> >> take the ' directory' link and rewrite the request to meet the SFL
style
> >> on-the-fly as requests come in. Search engines will only see the static
> >> link, not the rewritten link as this process is handled within your web
> >> server"
> >>
> >> If this is true than the URLs created by SFL and SF Store Map should be
OK
> >> as Google won't see the Miva dynamic URLs, (along with the SFL and SF
> > Store
> >> Map URLs), and penalize us for duplicate sites... right????????
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Lori
> >>
> >> ------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/16/05 6:44 PM, "Jason Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Same thing. There will be what "appears" to be two different pages
with
> > the
> >>> exact same content. Banning /Merchant2/ directory "should" not affect
> >>> rewritten urls via .htaccess such as SFL but don't quote me on that.
> >>>
> >>> Jason
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I tried to follow the entire thread and didn't see this asked. If
so,
> > I
> >>>> apologize. What happens if your site has both SFL and normal links
to
> > the
> >>>> same page? Will this cause issues?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: [email protected]
> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
Webmaster -
> >>>> Aquariumpros.com
> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:20 PM
> >>>> To: Annie's Maternity Corner; Miva Merchant Users
> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Uhm, I hope there's nothing wrong with THAT! Yeesh! We have ten
domains
> >>> with
> >>>> nothing on them pointing to aquariumpros.com.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dave Hauser, President
> >>>> Aquarium Professionals Group
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: [email protected]
> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Annie's
> >>>> Maternity Corner
> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:10 PM
> >>>> To: Miva Merchant Users
> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The other URLs just re-direct to my site -- they don't actually have
> > any
> >>>> pages of their own....
> >>>>
> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>> Anne Cavicchi
> >>>> Annie's
> >>>> 106 - 402 Baker ST
> >>>> Nelson, BC V1L4H8
> >>>> 250-354-2000
> >>>> www.maternitycorner.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: [email protected]
> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
Webmaster -
> >>>> Aquariumpros.com
> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:03 AM
> >>>> To: Annie's Maternity Corner; Miva Merchant Users
> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The way I am given to understand it, NO. Not if the content in the
> > three
> >>>> sites is different, but that would not be mirroring. That would be
> >>> linking!
> >>>>
> >>>> If however all three of those sites sell the same products, have the
> > same
> >>>> product descriptions and the same categories (are in effect the same
> >>> store),
> >>>> then yes, according to Google, that could hurt you.
> >>>>
> >>>> The article posted in this thread also hints that Google has tied
into
> > DNS
> >>>> registration DBs and are looking at who owns sites that appear to
have
> > the
> >>>> same content.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dave Hauser, President
> >>>> Aquarium Professionals Group
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: [email protected]
> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Annie's
> >>>> Maternity Corner
> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:39 PM
> >>>> To: Miva Merchant Users
> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So, if I have anniesbaby.com and rebelmaternity.com etc pointing to
> >>>> maternitycorner.com that's going to hurt me in google???
> >>>>
> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>> Anne Cavicchi
> >>>> Annie's
> >>>> 106 - 402 Baker ST
> >>>> Nelson, BC V1L4H8
> >>>> 250-354-2000
> >>>> www.maternitycorner.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: [email protected]
> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Aquapro
> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:25 AM
> >>>> To: Bill Gilligan; Miva Merchant Users
> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just wanted to post this after FINALLY hearing back from Google.
> >>>>
> >>>> We had almost 55,000 pages in the Google index from our Search Engine
> >>> Killer
> >>>> pages, CBS store map pages, plus all the static content pages from
the
> >>>> informational side of our site.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now down to 904 and dropping. After quite a few emails to Google, we
> >>> finally
> >>>> got a response. They are absolutely not indexing ANY form of mirror
or
> >>> HTML
> >>>> equivalent of dynamic pages. If content on pages is identical or even
> >>> close,
> >>>> forget about it!
> >>>>
> >>>> It's either the dynamic pages, or ONE series of HTML pages. Have a
> > mirror
> >>> on
> >>>> another domain? Google may not list your site at all unless (like
us),
> > you
> >>>> also have a fair amount of content pages.
> >>>>
> >>>> They would not get into algorythym specifics, but the bottom line is
> > that
> >>> we
> >>>> had too many copies of our store in their index. Their solution was
to
> > get
> >>>> rid OF ALL pages related to Merchant from our site. They said their
> > spider
> >>>> will now crawl the site starting at the index and will spider any
links
> > it
> >>>> finds until content starts looking identical, then it will stop. It
> > will
> >>> be
> >>>> at least two to six months after we "clean up our site and remove all
> >>> forms
> >>>> of mirror html pages before Google will start indexing new html pages
> >>>> generated by our new PHP Frame solution (Sebenza Studios). As that
> >>> solution
> >>>> also prevents the spider from seeing standard mvc product and
category
> >>>> pages, it will work, but only after we get rid of our SEK pages and
CBS
> >>>> Store Map.
> >>>>
> >>>> SEK, CBS store map and any other form of mirrored pages are a thing
of
> > the
> >>>> past when it comes to Google. Either the PHP Frame solution we have
or
> >>>> Search Friendly links with dynamic Miva pages are the only way to
fly.
> > Get
> >>>> rid of anything else fast!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you
> >>>>
> >>>> Dave Hauser, President
> >>>> Aquarium Professionals Group
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: [email protected]
> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Bill
> > Gilligan
> >>>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 12:16 PM
> >>>> To: Miva Merchant Users
> >>>> Subject: [mru] OT: Google link?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Someone recently posted a link to a story about new changes at
Google.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a client that has found his sales down, and google listing has
> >>>> dropped bu thousands. Did they
> >>>> drop thousands of pages?
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyone have that link?
> >>>>
> >>>> Bill
> >>>>
> >>>>

OT: Plane Fares to Dallas for MIVA Conference (was: Re: OT:



OKAY, prices are headed in the right direction!

Is it possible that it'll get under $300.00? Should I wait a tad
longer? I noticed that United had a special to Dallas for $214.00 if
one flew between 5/12-5/24 (found it on travelocity.com). Is it
possible to wait and find a special like that when it gets closer to
June 16th?

I hardly ever fly and really am not the best shopper when it comes to
airfares.... any help is appreciated :-)

Julie

Jason Henderson wrote:

> NP. BTW, I checked cheaptickets, and it was only $319
>
> J
>
>

OT: Google link?



I still think your logic is backwards....

What you want ideally is for the merchant optimzer pages to be the ones
indexed into google... NOT the dynamic ones...
Your goal should be to have all incoming traffic going to a static
page... not a merchant dynamically generated screen.

So you can use an if statement in your insert into header area to
control the no index no follow meta tag appearance.

if merchant optimizer
index, follow

if not merchant optimizer
noindex, nofollow


Having static pages and the sitemap generator are important. I couldn't
imagine building a site map
for hundredes of pages without it. But I use it as a tool, not the
endpoint for my sitemap.
I use the CBS site map tool... to output the site map pages... then I
ftp them down
and use global search and replace to modify the links so they point to
my static pages.
Then I ftp them back up to the server. Then when goolebot gets to the
sitemap... they get
right to the pages with out haveing to go down through several levels of
links.

I beleive a sitemap is imperative to get good rankings for your
legitimate pages.
Google and other search engines do seem to rate how many links away from
the homepage
a page on the site is. So having everything two links away from the home
page. is better than
having a few two links away and hundreds 3 or more links away from the
home page.
And if the pages are too 'deep' on a site.. .the bots often ignore them
entirely.

Kelly



Webmaster - Aquariumpros.com wrote:

>Once again, everything Kelly and Jason are saying (almost) reflects what I
>was saying using different wording (and with a lot more expertise and good
>advice thrown in for good measure).
>
>I misspoke and did not mean to "dis" mirror directories. I should have added
>that IF the mirror is in place, the Googlebot must not see the dynamic pages
>via a robots.txt noindex or htaccess redirect. As Kelly has stated, it must
>be one or the other, not both.
>
>Rather than posting the Google letter here (which mostly contained many
>quotes from their webmaster reference link
><A HREF ="http://www.google.com/webmasters/2.html#A1 along with comments from the">http://www.google.com/webmasters/2.html#A1 along with comments from the</A>
>Google Tech which made me feel about 3 feet high), I will tell all what
>Google saw and what we did wrong.
>
>We technically had FOUR versions of our MM category and product pages in the
>Google index due to:
>
>An SEK static directory which had .shtml extensions AND NO robots noindex or
>htaccess redirect for the Merchant directory. That was a KEY mistake and
>Kelly is absolutely correct.
>
>A CBS Storemap which had CBS SFL links in the ?page= format to the Merchant
>directory so the Googlebot could follow the links and index the .mvc pages.
>
>AND FOR SOME STRANGE REASON: We also had a complete set of prod/cat pages
>in Google with complete Miva links in the old link style AND a complete set
>with the long SFL links style which we once were using, then switched later.
>Those may have been old indices that never got flushed, but it didn't help
>our case when Google decided to clear our pages out.
>
>Unfortunately, module documentation for either SEK or CBS Store Map talks
>about having one or the other. They seem to imply that it's OK to have both
>in place in an almost "the more, the better" fashion. I am not sure about
>Merchant Optimizer, but from what Bruce says, they do advise a noindex in
>robots.txt for the Merchant prod/cat pages with Merchant Optimizer. M.O. is
>a relative newcomer to the scene and has more updated information in their
>docs.
>
>Unfortunately as posts here (and from correspondence from other MM store
>owners) indicate, we are not alone. There are many sites out there that have
>used these modules in an inappropriate fashion and that's why their pages
>are being dumped. No one is getting banned; they simply need to have either
>dynamic pages OR a mirror with a means of preventing Google from indexing
>the dynamic pages.
>
>More links in the Google index doesn't mean squat. Because we weren't paying
>attention to what was happening and were simply overjoyed at the huge number
>of pages listed in Google, we suffered the consequences when they changed
>their rules. Did I finally get it right?
>
>
>
>Thank you
>
>Dave Hauser, President
>Aquarium Professionals Group
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Kelly XR
>Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 4:09 PM
>To: Aquapro
>Cc: Keli E; Miva Merchant Users
>Subject: Re: [mru] OT: Google link?
>
>
>I have to interject. The solution isn't dumping a mirror site and
>staying with dynamic merchant pages.
>
>The solution is making a choice and sticking to it. There are a ton of
>good reasons for using a static mirror
>over the merchant catalog. Speed and Usability for the customers, lower
>cpu overhead, serving more traffic
>including spiders on a lower end server than possible with dynamic
>merchant pages alone....
>The choice to me isn't to dis on static mirror pages... but to keep your
>site clean and use static pages
>OR dynamic pages...
>I use a static mirror. I also use rewrite rules to keep googlebot and
>other spiders in my static mirror.
>I use a robots.txt to keep them out of Merchant2 folder. I help the
>spiders keep their indexes clean.
>so they don't see 3 versions of a page... they only see the same one the
>customers see.
>My dynamic pages are important from a development standpoint. They let
>me see how my static page will look.
>But ... my site map points to my static pages, my menus in my store
>point to my static pages.. My
>categories are static pages... AND I generate them all dynamically when
>I want to in order to keep
>it all up to date... The dynamic part of my store is integral to the
>store... but I don't run my customers
>through it... that way I don't have to go spend tens of thousands of
>dollars on a server...
>
>The choice is clear... use one method or the other... and beleive it...
>you can switch from dynamic
>to static with only a slight bobble for a few weeks in your rankings...
>just be smart about it, plan it
>and tell googlebot via 301 redirects where to find the replacement
>page... googlebot doesn't want
>to be a pain and lose good resources. You just gotta play by their
>rules. And I've found
>conincidentally that their rules... make for a good website... easy to
>use by people.. and that's
>most important to me... all the traffic in the world will only cost me
>money if it doesn't convert.
>
>Kelly
>
>
>Aquapro wrote:
>
>
>
>>So true! Just giving one store owner's true story for any newbie out there.
>>
>>There are many merchants who have purchased and implemented mirror creation
>>Miva modules which are still being sold. This change in Google's strategy
>>makes all of those solutions useless. The ONLY solution now is optimizing
>>existing Merchant pages.
>>
>>We've been online since 1998. Those solutions were put in place originally
>>because Google and many other spiders could not read or properly index
>>dynamically generated pages. The dynamic pages they did index ranked lower.
>>
>>We just weren't paying attention to changes made over the last two years.
>>
>>I would advise anyone with the same problem to contact Google directly. It
>>will take them a while to get back to you but will give you a chance to
>>explain yourself so you don't get banned. In our case, simply deleting the
>>mirrors will be enough as we've been in their index for years.
>>
>>
>>Dave Hauser, President
>>Aquarium Professionals Group
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [email protected]
>>[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Keli E
>>Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:32 PM
>>To: Miva Merchant Users
>>Subject: Re: [mru] OT: Google link?
>>
>>
>>Since time began, ANY time you had to go out of your way to apease the
>>search engines, it has been considered *spam* and banable.
>>
>>--
>>Keli Etscorn, CEO
>>Bear Canyon Consulting, LLC
>>-----------------------------------------------
>>RealEstateAgentHouse.com Realtor Solutions
>>#1 in Google |Albuquerque Web Design
>>KeliE.com |Nationally Featured Design
>>BearCanyonSEO.com |Search Engine Optimization
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Aquapro wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>SEK, CBS store map and any other form of mirrored pages are a thing of the
>>>past when it comes to Google. Either the PHP Frame solution we have or
>>>Search Friendly links with dynamic Miva pages are the only way to fly. Get
>>>rid of anything else fast!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

OT: Google link?



Leslie...
Do it the other way around...MO is worth it!
Use the static pages.. definitely...
On one of my site I even got rid of CBS site map and use oui tokens to
generate a site map...(within a category header)
MO converts it to a static page... and even though if person did manage
to find the dynamic category that holds the site map code... and it
takes 10s for it to load dynamically... as a static page it's
lightening fast... and a human will never find it anyway... they can't
get to it via a search... (it's a category screen) and there are no
links to it that MO hasn't converted to static links to point to the
static pages..


Kelly


Leslie Nord - Webs Your Way wrote:

>So this renders Merchant Optimizer worthless???? And dump static "doorway"
>pages? Use just what Miva Merchant generates? Only have static
>informational pages? What a week to head to NYC - guess I should be a the
>conference that is going on next to the Streaming Media - Google is one of
>teh sponsors there....didn't see FindWhat listed though.
>
>Leslie <-- is ready to freakin scream.
>
>
>
>
>>Just wanted to post this after FINALLY hearing back from Google.
>>
>>We had almost 55,000 pages in the Google index from our Search Engine
>>Killer
>>pages, CBS store map pages, plus all the static content pages from the
>>informational side of our site.
>>
>>Now down to 904 and dropping. After quite a few emails to Google, we
>>finally
>>got a response. They are absolutely not indexing ANY form of mirror or
>>HTML
>>equivalent of dynamic pages. If content on pages is identical or even
>>close,
>>forget about it!
>>
>>It's either the dynamic pages, or ONE series of HTML pages. Have a mirror
>>on
>>another domain? Google may not list your site at all unless (like us), you
>>also have a fair amount of content pages.
>>
>>They would not get into algorythym specifics, but the bottom line is that
>>we
>>had too many copies of our store in their index. Their solution was to get
>>rid OF ALL pages related to Merchant from our site. They said their spider
>>will now crawl the site starting at the index and will spider any links it
>>finds until content starts looking identical, then it will stop. It will
>>be
>>at least two to six months after we "clean up our site and remove all
>>forms
>>of mirror html pages before Google will start indexing new html pages
>>generated by our new PHP Frame solution (Sebenza Studios). As that
>>solution
>>also prevents the spider from seeing standard mvc product and category
>>pages, it will work, but only after we get rid of our SEK pages and CBS
>>Store Map.
>>
>>SEK, CBS store map and any other form of mirrored pages are a thing of the
>>past when it comes to Google. Either the PHP Frame solution we have or
>>Search Friendly links with dynamic Miva pages are the only way to fly. Get
>>rid of anything else fast!
>>
>>
>>Thank you
>>
>>Dave Hauser, President
>>Aquarium Professionals Group
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Someone recently posted a link to a story about new changes at Google.
>>
>>I have a client that has found his sales down, and google listing has
>>dropped bu thousands. Did they
>>drop thousands of pages?
>>
>>Anyone have that link?
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

OT: Google link?



Why don't you also do a rewrite rule to directly anything from /home/ to
your new storefront?
That would update any bots (ones that respect 301s anyway) like
googlebot. And means that links listed that way won't just be thrown
away by the search engine... they'll be updated to the new location.

RewriteRule ^/home/$ http://yourdomain/ [NC,R=301,L]

Maybe even send them to your sitemap! If it's a spider... that would
help it index your new pages.
RewriteRule ^/home/$ http://yourdomain/sitemap.html [NC,R=301,L]

FYI
NC means no case (upper lower case of the url doesn't matter)
R=301 means permanently redirect this link to the new one I'm giving you.
L means stop right here... quit htaccess... don't do anything else.
If you need more stuff done to the url you just rewrote.. then leave off
the L


Kelly


Barrett wrote:

> Ok folks after digesting this thread best I can and applying to our
> situation
> the first step I've taken to head off trouble (omg I hope I'm not
> breaking the if it works don't fix it rule !!!)
>
> Added to the robots.txt
>
> User-agent: googlebot
> Disallow: /home/
>
> this directory was to our old sek based site
>
> I did a queery at google and that showed 6,000 plus from that old
> site and I was thinking oh gosh this is scary, but then
> queried for url string to indicate the real site now with SFL
> directory styles
> that returned 24,600 results
>
> For probably a couple years now we had not linked from the dynamic
> site to /home/ in any manner
> The old /home/ was only there to not give a 404 to people hitting
> links still indexed with the engines and most of those pages were
> hacked up and had a great big proceed to the new site link on them.
>
> Our site map only includes SFL links.
> Afaik all cats and prods for the site are all SFL directory style.
> .htaccess at the root has the SFL rewrite strings
> domain root pulls index.mvc and loads the SFNT with all prods and
> cats as SFL
>
> How does this sound so far ?
>
> Thanks,
> -Barrett
> http://handmade-paper.us
> Hosted by Hostasaurus.com (MM v4.20 OUI)
> ShipWorks by Interapptive.com
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2005, at 10:10 AM, Julie Thompson wrote:
>
>> Jason, I know you mentioned you were unsure if blocking the
>> /Merchant2/ folder (or in my case, the /miva/ folder) would or
>> wouldn't effect SFL's, but do you know where I (and I am sure many
>> others reading this thread) can find out for sure? I don't want to
>> open a $99.00 support ticket for this with MIVA ;-) And nor do I
>> willy-nilly want to block the /miva/ folder only to find that all my
>> SFL were blocked too.
>>
>> What I am wondering is if all the links in my store are just like
>> this one:
>>
>> <A HREF ="http://www.ultimate-weight-products.com/page/UN/PROD/AN/AB-001">http://www.ultimate-weight-products.com/page/UN/PROD/AN/AB-001</A>
>>
>> Would blocking the /miva/ folder block the dynamic ones, like this
>> one below, but not the SFL above (even though technically the SFL
>> above is located in the /miva/ folder)?
>>
>> <A HREF ="http://www.ultimate-weight-products.com/miva/ ">http://www.ultimate-weight-products.com/miva/ </A>
>> merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=AB-001
>>
>> Julie <---- who is waiting for plane ticket prices to come down to
>> confirm attending the Dallas Conference.... PHX to D/FW is $400!
>>
>> Jason Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> Same thing. There will be what "appears" to be two different pages
>>> with the
>>> exact same content. Banning /Merchant2/ directory "should" not affect
>>> rewritten urls via .htaccess such as SFL but don't quote me on that.
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>> I tried to follow the entire thread and didn't see this asked. If
>>>> so, I
>>>> apologize. What happens if your site has both SFL and normal
>>>> links to the
>>>> same page? Will this cause issues?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

OT: Google link?



I will vouch for that! True on my sites.

Kelly


Bruce Golub - Phosphormedia.com wrote:

>>
>
>Because when a crawler hits, you will have a server load<G>. Also, MO page,
>even though they are the exact duplicates, still place higher in SE such as
>google...not much, but still higher.
>
>-Bruce
>
>
>

OT: Google link?



Bruce,

I think it's a good idea to head off trouble. But can I suggest you
rewrite those urls instead of banning them via the robots file.
You've got the urls in the serch engine... just to notify the bot to
dump them ... not allow them... seems like wasting gold being handed to you.
Instead 'correct' those sek results and permanently redirect them to the
ones you want listed in teh search engine.
That way also anyone who has those old links to you (that get followed
by the spiders) will still be of value for inbound links (and will help
the spiders update their search engines at the same time).

I feel that just blocking those older urls... is like cutting off your
nose in spite of your face... we fight for rankings and work so hard to
get them..
any inbound link to our sites is a treasure... a potentential revenue
source... use them to improve your rankings instead. Tell the bots what
they should have instead.

rewrite rules can be really confusing and a pain in the butt to figure
out... but they really are our friends in situations like this.


Kelly



Barrett wrote:

> I did some testing today and found some of our results containing the
> sek url as the indented item, but then just as I did figured that
> would be consistent; the SFL styles can in as indented. Continuing my
> not so scientific analysis it looks as though some of our results that
> I'm pretty sure that used have indented sek urls are now single SFL
> results.
> Today I disallowd on the sek directory since our SFL links out number
> the SEk results by 4 to 1 - hope I am heading off trouble and not in
> to it.
> Should be ok I think as it is in keeping with what google is really
> trying to do.
>
> For now we'll just live with the slow down when the spider feeds.
> I'm not about to completely change horses in midstream at this point.
>
> Thanks,
> -Barrett
> http://handmade-paper.us
> Hosted by Hostasaurus.com (MM v4.20 OUI)
> ShipWorks by Interapptive.com
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2005, at 02:26 PM, mivalist wrote:
>
>> I'm far from an expert on Google so I'm just making an educated guess
>> here
>> but I know that when I do a Google search I'll sometimes see a
>> listing from
>> one domain followed by an indention and then a second listing from
>> the same
>> domain. I don't know under what circumstances Google chooses to do
>> that but
>> I would have to guess it's due to their algorithm deciding that two
>> pages
>> from the same domain qualify for the same ranking (based on the search
>> terms) and would therefore get the #1 & 2 (9&10, 10063 & 10064, etc.)
>> position but it adds the indention to shows that both listings are
>> from the
>> same domain.
>>
>> If we assume that to be the logic, pages on the same domain with
>> duplicate
>> content would naturally have the same ranking and would always
>> display that
>> way giving such stores an advantage over their competition.
>>
>> Again, I don't know if any of this is the case but it's the only
>> thing I can
>> think of that makes Google's new policy make any sense.
>>
>> Dan
>> Impulse Creations
>>
>> For low priced back issue comics and the very best in service visit
>> us at
>> www.impulsecreations.net and be sure to look for information on our
>> discounted subscription service with free bags and free shipping!
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Bruce Golub -
>> Phosphormedia.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 1:05 PM
>> To: 'Miva Merchant Users'
>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email protected]
>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>>> Jason Henderson
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:58 AM
>>> To: Bruce Golub - Phosphormedia.com
>>> Cc: 'Miva Merchant Users'
>>> Subject: Re: [mru] OT: Google link?
>>>
>>>> Also, I think some are confusing "mirror" sites with
>>>
>>> "mirror" pages.
>>>
>>>> I'm
>>>
>>> not
>>>
>>>> certain, but pretty sure that Google, or any search engine for that
>>>
>>> matter,
>>>
>>>> does not penelize for duplicate "pages" under the same
>>>
>>> domain...that
>>>
>>>> would just be silly. What they are penalizing are duplicate pages,
>>>> under
>>>
>>> different
>>>
>>>> domains. For example, www.ThisIsTheRealSite.com/rankme.html being
>>>> exactly the same as www.ThisIsAnotherSite.com/rankthis.html.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruce,
>>>
>>> Did you miss Dave's post yesterday? Google indeed is now
>>> penalizing for duplicate content on the same domain.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>
>>
>> I didn't have time to read the article, however, if they are doing this,
>> then I'm selling my shares in Google, cause it shows they are just being
>> stupid. There is no benefit from having duplicate content under the same
>> domain, so why invoke a penelty.
>>
>> -Bruce
>>
>
>

OT: Google link?



One thing to add... you might not want the L
If a rule with an L on the end gets completed, the L makes your server
stop and jump out of .htaccess
for example writing .mv to .mvc...

L is good most of the time... but just be aware there might be instances
where you don't want it.

Kelly

David Hubbard wrote:

>From: [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>>So, my ever so amazing host (dotCOM designers) figured out a
>>way to give a 301 header on any url containing
>>www. ultimatenourishment .com to
>>www.ultimate-weight-products.com Meaning if there is a url out there
>>like www. ultimatenourishment .com /page/UN/CTGY/strainer and someone
>>clicks on it (or Google's spider follows it), it will give a 301 and
>>take the visitor to
>>http://www.ultimate-weight-products..../CTGY/strainer
>>
>>I am unsure exactly how the 301 is written to achieve this, but I am
>>sure David (your host) knows as well.
>>
>>
>
>That is quite easy actually, just need three lines of text
>in a .htaccess file for the site in question:
>
>RewriteEngine On
>RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.domain.com$ [NC]
>RewriteRule ^(.*) <A HREF ="http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=301]">http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=301]</A>
>
>
>That will cause a 301 redirect to www.domain.com for any
>incoming request that came in on any domain other than
>www.domain.com keeping the rest of the URL the same.
>
>For websites that use shared SSL certificates and need
>to avoid having that rewrite break the SSL because of
>the name being different, it requires one extra line
>which is explained here:
>
><A HREF ="http://www.hostasaurus.com/helpdesk/faq.php?parent=0&cmd=view&id=45">http://www.hostasaurus.com/helpdesk/faq.php?parent=0&cmd=view&id=45</A>
>
>David
>
>

OT: Google link?



For example.. you have some kind of promotion that you put on your
category tree or right columns.
Like a buy two of this product now link. You could do it by putting in a
long link with all the name value pairs in it.
Which is what I used to do... OR you can do it with a form and a text
submit link instead of a submit button.
I've found Merchant Optimizer doesn't try to alter form POST actions
urls. BUT it does alter regular links.

Probably most stores won't be affected at all. I do some weird stuff to
make Merchant behave how I Want it to.
Kelly



Bruce Golub - Phosphormedia.com wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [email protected]
>>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kelly XR
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 2:39 PM
>>I also found that if there is an oddity... say you put a link to
>>somethign that really must stay dynamic, but MO seems to
>>fudge it up. You can often fix it by using a form with action=post to
>>get around the problem.
>>
>>
>
>Not sure what you mean by "must stay" dynamic. Optimizer is only rewriting
>category product and storefront links...however, if you want optimizer to
>ignore any content, just wrap it in IF(Optimizer) and then include
>Optimizer=1 in the page call settings. Thus, when optimizer calls the page,
>it will contain the variable Optimizer and a value of 1.
>
>-Bruce
>
>
>

OT: Google link?



Man this becomes even more confusing...but if all the links are SFL style
they are okay? But having duplicate content from MO is not good?

Leslie


> You need to stick with one linking style and get rid of the rest and block
> google, etc. from hitting other types of links from the one you are using.
> It was never the way to do it. Just a part of the process.
>
> Jason
>
>
>> Can someone "nutshell" this for me? I'm out of town, find these posts,
>> have a project I desperately trying to finish that uses, static pages,
>> Merchant Optimizer and the CBS SFL Suite. Bottom line, am I screwed? The
>> site has tons on links to products within the site. I thought this used
>> to
>> be the way to do this? Have the rules just changed again?
>>
>> FWIW - I have suggested more than once that the client use Jason's
> services.
>>
>> Leslie
>>
>>
>> >> > Depends on whether you have regular links elsewhere to products or
>> >> > categories. If you have zero, than no problem. Might as well do
>> it
>> > just to be sure.
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >
>> >
>> >> ---------------------------
>> >>
>> >> Great!
>> >>
>> >> So we don't need to use a robot.txt file either? I've seen this in
>> some
>> >> other posts on this thread so I just want to be sure. :-)
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >> Lori
>> >>
>> >> ----------------------------
>> >>
>> >> On 5/16/05 7:41 PM, "Jason Henderson" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Depends on whether you have regular links elsewhere to products or
>> >> > categories. If you have zero, than no problem.
>> >> >
>> >> > Jason
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> We're using Search Friendly Links, Meta Tag Generator and Search
>> > Friendly
>> >> >> Store Map all by CBS.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> After reading this thread we're wondering what we need to do...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> According to the SFL manual: "... adding the .htaccess rewrite
>> rule
>> > will
>> >> >> take the ' directory' link and rewrite the request to meet the SFL
>> > style
>> >> >> on-the-fly as requests come in. Search engines will only see the
>> >> static
>> >> >> link, not the rewritten link as this process is handled within
>> your
>> >> web
>> >> >> server"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If this is true than the URLs created by SFL and SF Store Map
>> should
>> >> be
>> > OK
>> >> >> as Google won't see the Miva dynamic URLs, (along with the SFL and
> SF
>> >> > Store
>> >> >> Map URLs), and penalize us for duplicate sites... right????????
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks!
>> >> >> Lori
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ------------------
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 5/16/05 6:44 PM, "Jason Henderson" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Same thing. There will be what "appears" to be two different
>> pages
>> > with
>> >> > the
>> >> >>> exact same content. Banning /Merchant2/ directory "should" not
>> >> affect
>> >> >>> rewritten urls via .htaccess such as SFL but don't quote me on
> that.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Jason
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> I tried to follow the entire thread and didn't see this asked.
>> If
>> > so,
>> >> > I
>> >> >>>> apologize. What happens if your site has both SFL and normal
> links
>> > to
>> >> > the
>> >> >>>> same page? Will this cause issues?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Paul
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>> From: [email protected]
>> >> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>> > Webmaster -
>> >> >>>> Aquariumpros.com
>> >> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:20 PM
>> >> >>>> To: Annie's Maternity Corner; Miva Merchant Users
>> >> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Uhm, I hope there's nothing wrong with THAT! Yeesh! We have ten
>> > domains
>> >> >>> with
>> >> >>>> nothing on them pointing to aquariumpros.com.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Dave Hauser, President
>> >> >>>> Aquarium Professionals Group
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>> From: [email protected]
>> >> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>> Annie's
>> >> >>>> Maternity Corner
>> >> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:10 PM
>> >> >>>> To: Miva Merchant Users
>> >> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The other URLs just re-direct to my site -- they don't actually
>> >> have
>> >> > any
>> >> >>>> pages of their own....
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >> >>>> Anne Cavicchi
>> >> >>>> Annie's
>> >> >>>> 106 - 402 Baker ST
>> >> >>>> Nelson, BC V1L4H8
>> >> >>>> 250-354-2000
>> >> >>>> www.maternitycorner.com
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>> From: [email protected]
>> >> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>> > Webmaster -
>> >> >>>> Aquariumpros.com
>> >> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:03 AM
>> >> >>>> To: Annie's Maternity Corner; Miva Merchant Users
>> >> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The way I am given to understand it, NO. Not if the content in
>> the
>> >> > three
>> >> >>>> sites is different, but that would not be mirroring. That would
>> be
>> >> >>> linking!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> If however all three of those sites sell the same products, have
>> >> the
>> >> > same
>> >> >>>> product descriptions and the same categories (are in effect the
>> >> same
>> >> >>> store),
>> >> >>>> then yes, according to Google, that could hurt you.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The article posted in this thread also hints that Google has
>> tied
>> > into
>> >> > DNS
>> >> >>>> registration DBs and are looking at who owns sites that appear
>> to
>> > have
>> >> > the
>> >> >>>> same content.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Dave Hauser, President
>> >> >>>> Aquarium Professionals Group
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>> From: [email protected]
>> >> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>> Annie's
>> >> >>>> Maternity Corner
>> >> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:39 PM
>> >> >>>> To: Miva Merchant Users
>> >> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> So, if I have anniesbaby.com and rebelmaternity.com etc pointing
> to
>> >> >>>> maternitycorner.com that's going to hurt me in google???
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >> >>>> Anne Cavicchi
>> >> >>>> Annie's
>> >> >>>> 106 - 402 Baker ST
>> >> >>>> Nelson, BC V1L4H8
>> >> >>>> 250-354-2000
>> >> >>>> www.maternitycorner.com
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>> From: [email protected]
>> >> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>> Aquapro
>> >> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:25 AM
>> >> >>>> To: Bill Gilligan; Miva Merchant Users
>> >> >>>> Subject: RE: [mru] OT: Google link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Just wanted to post this after FINALLY hearing back from Google.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> We had almost 55,000 pages in the Google index from our Search
>> >> Engine
>> >> >>> Killer
>> >> >>>> pages, CBS store map pages, plus all the static content pages
>> from
>> > the
>> >> >>>> informational side of our site.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Now down to 904 and dropping. After quite a few emails to
>> Google,
>> >> we
>> >> >>> finally
>> >> >>>> got a response. They are absolutely not indexing ANY form of
> mirror
>> > or
>> >> >>> HTML
>> >> >>>> equivalent of dynamic pages. If content on pages is identical or
>> >> even
>> >> >>> close,
>> >> >>>> forget about it!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> It's either the dynamic pages, or ONE series of HTML pages. Have
>> a
>> >> > mirror
>> >> >>> on
>> >> >>>> another domain? Google may not list your site at all unless
>> (like
>> > us),
>> >> > you
>> >> >>>> also have a fair amount of content pages.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> They would not get into algorythym specifics, but the bottom
>> line
>> >> is
>> >> > that
>> >> >>> we
>> >> >>>> had too many copies of our store in their index. Their solution
> was
>> > to
>> >> > get
>> >> >>>> rid OF ALL pages related to Merchant from our site. They said
> their
>> >> > spider
>> >> >>>> will now crawl the site starting at the index and will spider
>> any
>> > links
>> >> > it
>> >> >>>> finds until content starts looking identical, then it will stop.
> It
>> >> > will
>> >> >>> be
>> >> >>>> at least two to six months after we "clean up our site and
>> remove
>> >> all
>> >> >>> forms
>> >> >>>> of mirror html pages before Google will start indexing new html
>> >> pages
>> >> >>>> generated by our new PHP Frame solution (Sebenza Studios). As
>> that
>> >> >>> solution
>> >> >>>> also prevents the spider from seeing standard mvc product and
>> > category
>> >> >>>> pages, it will work, but only after we get rid of our SEK pages
> and
>> > CBS
>> >> >>>> Store Map.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> SEK, CBS store map and any other form of mirrored pages are a
> thing
>> > of
>> >> > the
>> >> >>>> past when it comes to Google. Either the PHP Frame solution we
> have
>> > or
>> >> >>>> Search Friendly links with dynamic Miva pages are the only way
>> to
>> > fly.
>> >> > Get
>> >> >>>> rid of anything else fast!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Thank you
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Dave Hauser, President
>> >> >>>> Aquarium Professionals Group
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>> From: [email protected]
>> >> >>>> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Bill
>> >> > Gilligan
>> >> >>>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 12:16 PM
>> >> >>>> To: Miva Merchant Users
>> >> >>>> Subject: [mru] OT: Google link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Someone recently posted a link to a story about new changes at
>> > Google.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I have a client that has found his sales down, and google
>> listing
>> >> has
>> >> >>>> dropped bu thousands. Did they
>> >> >>>> drop thousands of pages?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Anyone have that link?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Bill
>> >> >>>>

OT: Google link?



Point of clarification - you are saying dump the door way pages in favor
of the Miva Merchant generated pages?

Leslie

>> So this renders Merchant Optimizer worthless?
>
> No. If you have a server load from regular traffic or spider traffic,
> keep
> it.
>
>>And dump static "doorway"
>> pages? Use just what Miva Merchant generates? Only have static
>> informational pages? What a week to head to NYC - guess I should be a
>> the
>> conference that is going on next to the Streaming Media - Google is one
>> of
>> teh sponsors there....didn't see FindWhat listed though.
>
> Use one or the other.
>
> Jason
>
>
>>
>> Leslie <-- is ready to freakin scream.
>>
>>
>