OT: Google link?

OT: Google link?



The point of the thread is you should choose one or the other for Google to
index... having mirror pages like a MM dynamic page and the identical MO
static page apparently removes BOTH pages from the index according to the
original posts. MO pages are MUCH faster than MM pages, so I have everyone
seeing the MO pages instead. With this latest theory, it's better to be
safe then sorry... so I added the disallow in my robots.txt.

If you want Google to spider the MM pages only:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /catalog/ (or whatever you have MO using for a directory)

If you want Google to spider the MO pages only:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /Merchant2/ (or whatever your host uses for a MM directory)

Marc

At 09:07 AM 5/17/2005, you wrote:
>Okay, I would use the robot.txt IF I wanted Google to spider the MO and
>not spider the dynamic stuff? Is it better to have Google spidering MO?
>
>Leslie
>
>
> If using Merchant Optimizer (calling it MO now because it's shorter)...
> > add
> > a line in your robots.txt file:
> >
> > User-agent: *
> > Disallow: /Merchant2/
> >
> > I have a few others in my robots.txt, but that's because the bottom two
> > are
> > nasty... with the last one sucking up resources every time it visits.
> >
> > Then... in your .htaccess file I have it pointing so that the MO
> > directory. In my case www.sausagesource.com/catalog/index.html is the
> > default index instead of the normal
> > www.sausagesource.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc which is commonplace. In my
> > .htaccess it starts off with this:
> >
> > Options -Indexes
> > DirectoryIndex /catalog/index.html
> >
> > Marc
> >
> >
> >
> > At 07:35 AM 5/17/2005, you 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.
> >

OT: Google link?



In my examples at the bottom I stated "If you want Google"... but the *
disallows ALL spiders. If you only want Google to not go in those
directories... you'd replace the * with:

googlebot

Here's a list of search engine spiders, somewhere I have a link for a more
extensive one... but I've been lazy the last few days and can't spare the
time going through my bookmarks.
;) <A HREF ="http://www.searchenginedictionary.com/spider-names.shtml">http://www.searchenginedictionary.com/spider-names.shtml</A>

Marc

At 09:23 AM 5/17/2005, you wrote:
>The point of the thread is you should choose one or the other for Google
>to index... having mirror pages like a MM dynamic page and the identical
>MO static page apparently removes BOTH pages from the index according to
>the original posts. MO pages are MUCH faster than MM pages, so I have
>everyone seeing the MO pages instead. With this latest theory, it's
>better to be safe then sorry... so I added the disallow in my robots.txt.
>
>If you want Google to spider the MM pages only:
>User-agent: *
>Disallow: /catalog/ (or whatever you have MO using for a directory)
>
>If you want Google to spider the MO pages only:
>User-agent: *
>Disallow: /Merchant2/ (or whatever your host uses for a MM directory)

OT: Google link?



I just dumped SEK (it didn't seem to be indexed anymore anyway), but really
don't want to ditch Merchant Optimizer. I guest part of that is just the
investment in that piece of software. (Businesses invest, not spend,
right?) Is there an easy way to keep the spiders in Optimizer and out of
the dynamic pages?

Danny
www.watchforus.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly XR" <[email protected]>
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?





Okay - I'm starting to understand what you are saying, but say for example
I decide to go with the MO pages...what happens when the Google spider
makes it to the dynamic content or will it be stopped by the Disallow:
/Merchant2/

Leslie

> In my examples at the bottom I stated "If you want Google"... but the *
> disallows ALL spiders. If you only want Google to not go in those
> directories... you'd replace the * with:
>
> googlebot
>
> Here's a list of search engine spiders, somewhere I have a link for a more
> extensive one... but I've been lazy the last few days and can't spare the
> time going through my bookmarks.
> ;) <A HREF ="http://www.searchenginedictionary.com/spider-names.shtml">http://www.searchenginedictionary.com/spider-names.shtml</A>
>
> Marc
>
> At 09:23 AM 5/17/2005, you wrote:
>>The point of the thread is you should choose one or the other for Google
>>to index... having mirror pages like a MM dynamic page and the identical
>>MO static page apparently removes BOTH pages from the index according to
>>the original posts. MO pages are MUCH faster than MM pages, so I have
>>everyone seeing the MO pages instead. With this latest theory, it's
>>better to be safe then sorry... so I added the disallow in my robots.txt.
>>
>>If you want Google to spider the MM pages only:
>>User-agent: *
>>Disallow: /catalog/ (or whatever you have MO using for a directory)
>>
>>If you want Google to spider the MO pages only:
>>User-agent: *
>>Disallow: /Merchant2/ (or whatever your host uses for a MM directory)
>

OT: Google link?



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/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=AB-001">http://www.ultimate-weight-products.com/miva/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=AB-001</A>

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?



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?



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?



--=====================_1232078==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

If using Merchant Optimizer (calling it MO now because it's shorter)... add
a line in your robots.txt file:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /Merchant2/

I have a few others in my robots.txt, but that's because the bottom two are
nasty... with the last one sucking up resources every time it visits.

Then... in your .htaccess file I have it pointing so that the MO
directory. In my case www.sausagesource.com/catalog/index.html is the
default index instead of the normal
www.sausagesource.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc which is commonplace. In my
.htaccess it starts off with this:

Options -Indexes
DirectoryIndex /catalog/index.html

Marc



At 07:35 AM 5/17/2005, you 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.

--=====================_1232078==.ALT--

OT: Google link?



Okay, I would use the robot.txt IF I wanted Google to spider the MO and
not spider the dynamic stuff? Is it better to have Google spidering MO?

Leslie


If using Merchant Optimizer (calling it MO now because it's shorter)...
> add
> a line in your robots.txt file:
>
> User-agent: *
> Disallow: /Merchant2/
>
> I have a few others in my robots.txt, but that's because the bottom two
> are
> nasty... with the last one sucking up resources every time it visits.
>
> Then... in your .htaccess file I have it pointing so that the MO
> directory. In my case www.sausagesource.com/catalog/index.html is the
> default index instead of the normal
> www.sausagesource.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc which is commonplace. In my
> .htaccess it starts off with this:
>
> Options -Indexes
> DirectoryIndex /catalog/index.html
>
> Marc
>
>
>
> At 07:35 AM 5/17/2005, you 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.
>

OT: Google link?



The point of the thread is you should choose one or the other for Google to
index... having mirror pages like a MM dynamic page and the identical MO
static page apparently removes BOTH pages from the index according to the
original posts. MO pages are MUCH faster than MM pages, so I have everyone
seeing the MO pages instead. With this latest theory, it's better to be
safe then sorry... so I added the disallow in my robots.txt.

If you want Google to spider the MM pages only:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /catalog/ (or whatever you have MO using for a directory)

If you want Google to spider the MO pages only:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /Merchant2/ (or whatever your host uses for a MM directory)

Marc

At 09:07 AM 5/17/2005, you wrote:
>Okay, I would use the robot.txt IF I wanted Google to spider the MO and
>not spider the dynamic stuff? Is it better to have Google spidering MO?
>
>Leslie
>
>
> If using Merchant Optimizer (calling it MO now because it's shorter)...
> > add
> > a line in your robots.txt file:
> >
> > User-agent: *
> > Disallow: /Merchant2/
> >
> > I have a few others in my robots.txt, but that's because the bottom two
> > are
> > nasty... with the last one sucking up resources every time it visits.
> >
> > Then... in your .htaccess file I have it pointing so that the MO
> > directory. In my case www.sausagesource.com/catalog/index.html is the
> > default index instead of the normal
> > www.sausagesource.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc which is commonplace. In my
> > .htaccess it starts off with this:
> >
> > Options -Indexes
> > DirectoryIndex /catalog/index.html
> >
> > Marc
> >
> >
> >
> > At 07:35 AM 5/17/2005, you 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.
> >

OT: Google link? / correction



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? / correction



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? / correction



It'll be stopped. Few robots ignore the robots.txt file. Google, yahoo,
MSN, etc all adhere exactingly.

Marc

At 09:32 AM 5/17/2005, Leslie Nord - Webs Your Way wrote:


>Okay - I'm starting to understand what you are saying, but say for example
>I decide to go with the MO pages...what happens when the Google spider
>makes it to the dynamic content or will it be stopped by the Disallow:
>/Merchant2/

OT: Google link?



blah blah blah, blah blah, blah.

On 5/17/05, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> X-Archive-Reply: id41746
> X-Archive-Mail: Maz <[email protected]>
>=20
> blah blah
>=20
> Maslanik, John R. [email protected] Wrote:
> >
> >------_=3D_NextPart_001_01C54B35.A432658C
> >Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset=3D"us-ascii"
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> >test
> >=3D20
> >
> >------_=3D_NextPart_001_01C54B35.A432658C--
>=20
> --
> From: Maz <[email protected]>
>=20

OT: Google link?



Well, the easiest thing to do is actually have relative links within your
site -- don't use the <A HREF ="http://www.yoursite/com or https://www.yoursite.com at">http://www.yoursite/com or https://www.yoursite.com at</A>
all.

for example, on my main page the image there is linked to
/miva/graphics/00000001/jellybean_carrier.jpg only (this is a relative
URL -- an absolute URL means it has the entire address) even though if you
look at the properties if looks like
<A HREF ="http://www.maternitycorner.com/miva/graphics/00000001/jellybean_carrier.jpg ">http://www.maternitycorner.com/miva/...an_carrier.jpg </A>
-- if you came from a secure part of the site it would look like
https://www.maternitycorner.com/miva...an_carrier.jpg
-- and you wouldn't get the error message about some items being insecure
etc.

Gosh, did that make any sense? LOL


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 Keith A.
Gillan
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 4:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [mru] ssl, bad images and no navigation bar


I have seen this question already but am not real sure how to fix it. you
all talk about relative and absolute urls. How do i change these so they
work? Please help novice here.

My host said to change all the pics to https not even sure how to do this

http://bestdamngear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc

https://bestdamngear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc

Thanks for the help.

Keith Gillan
[email protected]
www.bestdamngear.com