Google Ranking Drop Because Of Duplicate Content

Sunday, October 12th, 2008

This is a follow up post to my previous posts about my friend’s ranking drop. As you may remember, his Google ranking was restored a few weeks after he blocked the from copying his entire and submitted a reinclusion . As you may have guessed, he was quite thrilled to see his SERP ranking shoot up again.

Well, as luck would have it, I received a phone call last night from my friend telling me that his was bombing again. I Googled his favorite and they seemed to rank fine over at my end, but he explained that he from was flat. They nosedived a day or two ago. I chalked up the results I was getting to adjusting the results.

This new twist got me thinking. What in the world could be making this ’s ranking bounce around like this? Looking back, the may not have been 100% at fault. There has to be something else.

I began doing a little research and learned about few things about . The reason I looked at that particular area is because there is absolutely nothing else I can find wrong with this . seems to be a rather popular culprit.

I came across a pretty well laid out called “Google Rankings Diagnostics” that describes a whole heck of a lot of issues you might be having with your . This validated what I pretty much already knew…that if you have multiple (on a domain) with the same exact , has trouble figuring out which page is the original and may throw all of them out.

I took a very close look at my friend’s . Again, I took a unique line of text from his and searched for it in (inside quotes). A funny thing happened. I saw the result, but there were a few extra results as well, all on his domain. There were about 5 extra pages in total.

Now, some of these extra results have been there for years, so I don’t attribute the issue to those pages being . What struck me was one of the extra pages.

A few months ago, my friend moved one of his pages. He put a 301 redirect in his ., which was the correct thing to do. So now, the old directory where the page was held forwarded to a new page. It looked something like this:

Redirect 301 /olddirectory/ ://.hiswebsite.com/newpage.

The redirect worked fine, but here is what that extra page in the results looked like:

://.hiswebsite.com/newpage.phpoldpage.

Guess what page was showing at that …yup, the . The dynamic nature of his sends unknown page results like this to the . This was a fluke. My friend forgot that there were pages inside the old directory he redirected to the new page. Every old page in that old directory was tacked on to the new page, like you see above. To make matters worse, there were a bunch of links from other pointing to the old pages in the old directory.

I am not sure if this would cause the ranking drops that he is experiencing, but the timing certainly lines up with when the issue began. It is also certainly considered .

So, here is what I did to deal with the issue this time. I deleted the redirects in the . and blocked the of all those extra results in the robots.txt . Hopefully, this will tell to not spider or index those pages and it will also tell that those links into the site are dead.

Now, we have to wait. I am not going to submit another reinclusion to because I want to see if the ranking returns naturally. If it does, this was the problem for sure.

Related posts

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Duplicate Content - Mysite.com/ vs. Mysite.com/index.html

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

As I wrote in a prvious post, on your own can come in the form of “.mysite.com/” vs. “.mysite.com/index..” The see this same page as two different ones, but with identical . As I also mentioned, most are smart enough to figure out that these two pages are the same one, but still, they do share .

What to do? That’s easy too. Just open up your . again and type in the following :

On
%{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /index\.\ /
^index\.$ ://.mysite.com/ [R=301,L]

You can do this with other pages that have the same problem as well.

Related posts

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How To Check Your Web Page HTTP Headers & Response Codes

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

There may be cases when you would like to see what your HTTP headers look like. Why? Well, because they are kind of important. As Wikipedia states, the define what the returned looks like.

Still you ask, “Why in the world do I care about that?” Ok, I’ll keep going. The main reason I look at the is to find out what the HTTP status code is. The reason the is important to me is because this is the the use for a multitude of things.

Let me give you a little example, and this related to my previous post regarding the sudden drop in Google rankings. As I was doing research into what the problem may be for this particular , I came across an issue where someone had recently put “404 Not Found” error pages up on some of their . Everyone knows that “404 Not Found” error pages are cool, but what some people don’t know is that if those pages show a “200 OK” (successful requests) , the site may be in big trouble, . The reason for this is because there are going to be many “404 Not Found” error pages on a dynamic . If you have your “404 Not Found” error page showing a “200 OK” response , the will think that all the instances of this page are . You know as well as I do, that spells trouble.

What’s worse is if you set your as your “404 Not Found” page. Your is going to return a response of “200 OK.” That’s not good, because now you have multiple instances of your …all .

It’s my opinion that the are smart enough to figure this out. The page (such as your ) with the highest will prevail. Still, I have some that I am working on that have multiple instances of the and they all have , which isn’t good, because the duplicates are taking the from the real page. Now, again, that’s my opinion.

Here are two tips:

- How to check your - visit this website or just check”

- How to set a particular page as your “404 Not Found” error page in your . - Just place this in the : “ 404 /404.” without the quotes. The 404. is the actual error page in this case.

Related posts

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sudden Google Ranking Drop - Proxy Hijack

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

Do you remember my article from yesterday about the sudden drop in Google search ranking for my friend’s ? Well, I just can’t stop thinking about it.

From what I have been reading, it seems as though my conclusion may be correct. At least I am hoping it is. If I ever conclude anything semi-concrete while thinking about , it’s a good day for me.

Ok, I found this very helpful and thorough website that pretty much described the exact problem my friend is having. It’s titled “Google Proxy Hijacking” and tells the whole story.

Here is what struck me as I think about this some more.

- My friend’s has been live since 2004.
- The site seemed to be in the Google sandbox for the entire 4 years.
- For his most competitive , he was ranking past page 20 on .
- About two months ago, he made some changes to the copy as well as an overhaul.
- About a month after that, the site ranked number 3 for his most competitive .
- The site ranked on page 1 of for about a month.
- The site now sits at page 25 for its most competitive .

Here is my theory. I think the has been hijacked for a number of years. This is what caused the poor rankings for such a long time. When the text and changes were made about 2 months ago, visited the site and found it unique. ranked the site well, due to this new unique . During the month, noticed the was now a of my friend’s once again and dropped the ’s ranking.

Does that make sense? From what I read on the I linked to, it does.

Here are the similarities with what we are experiencing and what the author wrote on the other :

- My friend’s has never been banned.
- We did a quoted for supposedly unique on my friend’s and a showed in the results.
- The looked like this: .com/cgi-bin/pxy/nph-pxy.pl/000010A//.friendssite.com/
- The site was an exact of my friend’s .

Now, I am not sure if this is what caused my friends ranking to drop, but all the factors are there. The we are talking about are very competitive, but the fact that his site showed so well in the results for a month shows me that the potential is there.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Related posts

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Avoiding Duplicate Content On Your Own Website

Monday, September 15th, 2008

Today has been an interesting day. We have been taking a look at our and searching for using Copyscape. After today’s findings, we might just go with ’s premium service.

Now, let me just tell you that is everywhere. Actually, someone has probably written this sentence a million times. What we were searching for today was blatant and far reaching theft. We found a few instances of one of our homepages and general idea taken for someone else’s use as well as many instances of interior pages taken. Needless to say, we made screen copies of these cases and sent them to our attorney’s office. These are serious and can’t be ignored.

I would like to talk about two things you can do to help out a more subtle form of , on your own .

The first form of on your own is in the form of vs. non-. If you go to your and type in “.mysite.com” and then type in “mysite.com,” you may see the same page appear. In the ’s eyes, these are two copies of the same page. How do you fix this? It’s easy. Just open up your . and type in the following :

On
%{HTTP_HOST} !^\.mysite\.com
^(.*)$ ://.mysite.com/$1 [R=permanent,L]

When someone types in “mysite.com” to visit your , they will automatically be forwarded to “.mysite.com.” The will be forwarded as well.

Another form of on your own comes in the form of “.mysite.com/” vs. “.mysite.com/index..” The see this same page as two different ones. What to do? That’s easy too. Just open up your . again and type in the following :

On
%{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /index\.\ /
^index\.$ ://.mysite.com/ [R=301,L]

When someone either types in “.mysite.com/index.” or follows a like that to your , they will be automatically be forwarded to “.mysite.com.”

Now, here is the disclaimer. I used this on my setup and it worked. Please check with your own hosting company to see if something similar will work for your too.

Related posts

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,