That is good advice. rewrite rules are you're friend.
Jason
> 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
> >>
> >
> >