Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    ABW Ambassador Steveinid's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    827
    Why is it that my site displays a greybar when typed in in this format: http://www.mysite.com
    And displays a 4/10 ranking when typed in in this format: http://mysite.com

    Thanks much

    "Bueller...? Bueller...?"

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,327
    Same thing is happening with me. Well actually it is the other way around. If you use http://www., it has a PR of 4. Without the www it is PR0

    www.cjshoppingnetwork.com

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    84
    because they are 2 different urls, simple huh

  4. #4
    ABW Ambassador lola's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Winnipeg, Mb
    Posts
    566
    google sees them as 2 different urls, and in some cases I guess they may be. Just checked my pr5 shopping site with www and I get a PR0 too. I wonder if its a penalty for being a copy of http://mysite.com??

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    110
    Technically, http://domain.com is the root domain. Adding www (or any other third level domain, www2 / www3 etc) shouldn't cause any problems, UNLESS you are serving different content with / without 3rd level domains, OR you have some inbound links pointing to www.domain.com, and some to domain.com (this could cause confusion, as Google "sees" domains by their incoming links. This *could* cause a penalty, but dup content penalties are generally of the "drop the dupe" type, not PR0 everything).

    Some server setups can cause problems here. From what you have described, you are using the domain.com form, and thats where your inbounds point to. The greybar is a puzzle though. G should have found www.

    cjshoppingnetwork, check your site in the form domain.com. Are you seeing a custom 404? Lots of hosts use that (or can't set their servers up properly) so domain.com does not return a default document (index.htm or whatever), and any 404 request returns their custom branded 404.htm doc. That CAN cause dupe content problems.

    Does that all make sense?

  6. #6
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,327
    I have a redirect on my 404 to direct traffic to my main index page if the page they were looking for has been deleted. Should I get rid of it?

    I have no problem getting to the default index page when I type in my domain with or without the www.

    www.cjshoppingnetwork.com

    [This message was edited by cjshoppingnetwork on May 20, 2003 at 10:22 AM.]

  7. #7
    ABW Veteran Student Heyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    5,482
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Technically, http://domain.com is the root domain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Well not quite. Technically http://www.domain.com is the root domain and the http://domain.com is an internal redirect. at least on apache servers.

  8. #8
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,916
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heyder:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Technically, http://domain.com is the root domain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Well not quite. Technically http://www.domain.com is the root domain and the http://domain.com is an internal redirect. at least on apache servers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Well not quite. domain.com is the root domain. The apache config is irrelevant, however it can be configured however you would like it to be. Just because your host or apache config has it that way does not mean all do.

    ----
    -JM
    When you're down It's a long way up
    When you're up It's a long way down

  9. #9
    ABW Veteran Student Heyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    5,482
    Well okay sure that's why I said "at least on apache servers" I know all apache default httpd.conf files are set up with www being the default addy on the server level. You have to alter the conf in order to be able to use the rootdomain.com instead of having to type in www.domain.com

  10. #10
    ABW Ambassador Steveinid's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    827
    You would think that Google would treat them both as the exact same address.
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> G should have found www.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I used to have a 4/10 for both type-ins but this last/ongoing update has resulted in this new outcome. I don't understand it. I am just holding on and hoping the boat don't sink.

    "Bueller...? Bueller...?"

  11. #11
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,916
    Why would they? They are different subdomains, different URLs. Should they treat abc.domain.com and xyz.domain.com the same as well?

    If the content is the same, then, it would be nice of them to treat them the same, yes, and it seems that in some cases they do figure it out.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    110
    LOL, war breaks out already! The whole "www" thing is a holdover from the good ole days when Gopher and FTP sites were about as common as web sites (if it helps, just remember "The World Wide Web is *not* the whole Internet"). Think about it from the server administrators point of view.

    He/she has a bunch of domains on the server, of the form domain.com. Some of these have FTP sites, some are Gopher sites, and some are nasty-grey-background-optimised-for-Mosaic WWW sites, or more likely a mixture. To define which bit is which, they open a series of folders, /ftp, /www etc in each domain, and map a canonical name (domain CNAME record) to the relevant folder (this does matter, because f'rinstance, when you request www.yahoo.com, as you can see, that request is actually for a folder. WWW servers are set to serve one of a number default documents where a folder level request is made, or occasionally to list the contents of the folder. The standards are index.htm, index.html, default.asp etc, etc. If you can get into the server config you can change this if you wish, maybe you want index2.htm, whatever). Apache ships treating www.domain.com as the default domain because its a found standard, not because it conforms to any RFC. Thats not a bad thing, IMO, but it helps if you know its doing that, y'know?

    Hmmm, there was a question too wasn't there?

    &gt;&gt; I have a redirect on my 404 to direct traffic to my main index page if the page they were looking for has been deleted. Should I get rid of it?

    Maybe. If your 404 goes to index.htm, then it matters not whether someone arrives at domain.com or www.domain.com, because the same document will be served, one by default, one by redirect. BUT (there had to be a "but", didn't there?), spiders also note the HTTP error code that is returned, 200 for a successful request, 404 for a failed request. Googlebot sees the same page in each case. That could look like spam, especially if the same "dupe" content, ie your home page, turns up for EVERY 404 request (and unless you have been very tidy in your site construction, you will have plenty muchly 404s). The custom 404s got slapped a while ago, part of the September '02 fiasco IIRC. To be safe, I would be inclined to use server side 301/302 redirection, rather than a custom 404 doc (BTW, how are you actually performing the redirect? JS or meta refresh redirects are a bit of a no-no anyway)

  13. #13
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    29
    TallTroll,

    Can you elaborate on how the "custom 404" technique got slapped as part of the Sept '02 algorithm change?

    I use the custom 404 feature to send people to a "Not Found" page and I was negatively affected by the Sept '02 changes.

    What is the alternative?

    Thanks,
    Freecloud

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    110
    &gt;&gt; I was negatively affected by the Sept '02 changes.

    Not necessarily directly because of your custom 404 (but it would be a prime suspect, I reckon). I would instead consider implementing HTTP redirect. Quote from the relevant W3C RFC, found in it totality here

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>10.3.2 301 Moved Permanently

    The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs. Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link references to the Request-URI to one or more of the new references returned by the server, where possible. This response is cacheable unless indicated otherwise.

    The new permanent URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s).

    If the 301 status code is received in response to a request other than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which the request was issued.

    Note: When automatically redirecting a POST request after
    receiving a 301 status code, some existing HTTP/1.0 user agents
    will erroneously change it into a GET request.


    10.3.3 302 Found

    The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI. Since the redirection might be altered on occasion, the client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future requests. This response is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or Expires header field.

    The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s).

    If the 302 status code is received in response to a request other than GET or HEAD, the user agent MUST NOT automatically redirect the request unless it can be confirmed by the user, since this might change the conditions under which the request was issued.

    Note: RFC 1945 and RFC 2068 specify that the client is not allowed
    to change the method on the redirected request. However, most
    existing user agent implementations treat 302 as if it were a 303
    response, performing a GET on the Location field-value regardless
    of the original request method. The status codes 303 and 307 have
    been added for servers that wish to make unambiguously clear which
    kind of reaction is expected of the client. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The translation of this is that if its a page you have junked, use a 301. If its a wierd page request (mistype etc), use a 302. If you don't know how, talk to your hosting company. If they don't know how, get a new hosting company

  15. #15
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,327
    I have just created a .htaccess file and uploaded it onto my server. I used http://www.clickz.com/ebiz/small_biz/article.php/826161 for information.
    It redirects if an error is encountered.
    Is this an acceptable way of redirecting? Is it better than a custome 404? Will having a custom 404 page result in lower ranking on search engines?
    As the search engines look for a robots.txt file, and if one doesn't exist, then they will get the custom 404 won't they? I got rid of mine

    www.cjshoppingnetwork.com

  16. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Quick question
    By AdrianWinston in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 16th, 2010, 01:43 PM
  2. One really quick question
    By andyparks16 in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 12th, 2010, 11:28 PM
  3. quick question
    By pyxlb0mb in forum Newbie Affiliate FAQs & Helpful Articles
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 28th, 2007, 11:52 AM
  4. Quick Question...$$$$$$$$$
    By melty in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: September 5th, 2006, 01:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •