__/ [ www.1-script.com ] on Friday 28 April 2006 20:41 \__
> Hello everyone,
> I was just about to jump into a quick conclusion here but then decided to
> run this by the collective intelligence of this nice group:
> While investigating a major drop off out of Google's index, I've found
> site.com was improperly (302) redirected to www.site.com. My thinking was
> the site felt victim of content duplication filter.
Site have no feelings. They just serve files upon request. *smile*
> Additionally site:site.com returns exactly (give or take 100 out of
> ~10,000) twice the amount of results for site:www.site.com
> This got me further convinced that this is a duplication (in a clear
> mathematical sense this time) error/penalty.
> So, would you guys say this is a good reliable indication of the
> duplication penalty or I'm jumping into too easy - too obvious a
> Any recovery success stories that would be applicable here to cheer my
> depressed self up?
There are sometimes a few traffic 'hiccups'. They sooner or later reach an
end for no obvious reason. Penalties and unmitigated embargos are becoming
ActiveXSS (my made-up term: remote site controls your computer), and even
If this is not the case, it is perhaps time to embrace the proverbial
statement "rivers run dry sometimes". Rather then conversing with oneself,
why not ask Google through a reinclusion request. They may openly state the
cause for change and reverse things. You have nothing to lose, so just make
sure your appeal gets routed to a person.
By the way, what stands behind pages such as:
I just can't make sense of that...
With kind regards,
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 111111 X 111111 = 12345654321
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:40pm up 2 days 0:45, 13 users, load average: 0.77, 0.83, 0.72
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms