OT: Google link?

OT: Google link?



I still think your logic is backwards....

What you want ideally is for the merchant optimzer pages to be the ones
indexed into google... NOT the dynamic ones...
Your goal should be to have all incoming traffic going to a static
page... not a merchant dynamically generated screen.

So you can use an if statement in your insert into header area to
control the no index no follow meta tag appearance.

if merchant optimizer
index, follow

if not merchant optimizer
noindex, nofollow


Having static pages and the sitemap generator are important. I couldn't
imagine building a site map
for hundredes of pages without it. But I use it as a tool, not the
endpoint for my sitemap.
I use the CBS site map tool... to output the site map pages... then I
ftp them down
and use global search and replace to modify the links so they point to
my static pages.
Then I ftp them back up to the server. Then when goolebot gets to the
sitemap... they get
right to the pages with out haveing to go down through several levels of
links.

I beleive a sitemap is imperative to get good rankings for your
legitimate pages.
Google and other search engines do seem to rate how many links away from
the homepage
a page on the site is. So having everything two links away from the home
page. is better than
having a few two links away and hundreds 3 or more links away from the
home page.
And if the pages are too 'deep' on a site.. .the bots often ignore them
entirely.

Kelly



Webmaster - Aquariumpros.com wrote:

>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: Plane Fares to Dallas for MIVA Conference (was: Re: OT:



OKAY, prices are headed in the right direction!

Is it possible that it'll get under $300.00? Should I wait a tad
longer? I noticed that United had a special to Dallas for $214.00 if
one flew between 5/12-5/24 (found it on travelocity.com). Is it
possible to wait and find a special like that when it gets closer to
June 16th?

I hardly ever fly and really am not the best shopper when it comes to
airfares.... any help is appreciated :-)

Julie

Jason Henderson wrote:

> NP. BTW, I checked cheaptickets, and it was only $319
>
> J
>
>

OT: Google link?



> > Depends on whether you have regular links elsewhere to products or
> > categories. If you have zero, than no problem. Might as well do it
just to be sure.

Jason


> ---------------------------
>
> Great!
>
> So we don't need to use a robot.txt file either? I've seen this in some
> other posts on this thread so I just want to be sure. :-)
>
> Thanks!
> Lori
>
> ----------------------------
>
> On 5/16/05 7:41 PM, "Jason Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Depends on whether you have regular links elsewhere to products or
> > categories. If you have zero, than no problem.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >> We're using Search Friendly Links, Meta Tag Generator and Search
Friendly
> >> Store Map all by CBS.
> >>
> >> After reading this thread we're wondering what we need to do...
> >>
> >> According to the SFL manual: "... adding the .htaccess rewrite rule
will
> >> take the ' directory' link and rewrite the request to meet the SFL
style
> >> on-the-fly as requests come in. Search engines will only see the static
> >> link, not the rewritten link as this process is handled within your web
> >> server"
> >>
> >> If this is true than the URLs created by SFL and SF Store Map should be
OK
> >> as Google won't see the Miva dynamic URLs, (along with the SFL and SF
> > Store
> >> Map URLs), and penalize us for duplicate sites... right????????
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Lori
> >>
> >> ------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/16/05 6:44 PM, "Jason Henderson" <[email protected]> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----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?



Dave,

If you have never used the urls and don't link to them on anything that
spiders can find, than you shouldn't have a problem.

Jason


> Hi Julie:
>
> Thanks. Sounds like they simply added "redirect permanent" lines to your
> .htaccess file. I'll hit the Google website which explains this I believe,
> but if anyone can confirm that, I'd appreciate it.
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Dave Hauser, President
> Aquarium Professionals Group
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Julie
> Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:11 PM
> To: Aquapro
> Cc: 'Miva Merchant Users'
> Subject: Re: [mru] OT: Google link?
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> No, no content at all at the domain I had pointing via nameservers.
> What happened is, I own www. ultimatenourishment .com (I am breaking up
> the url as I do not want spidering of my 301 domain since these archives
> do get spidered) and had used my host's nameservers to point people who
> may have typed this domain into their browser to resolve to the domain
> with all my content which is www.ultimate-weight-products.com This
> worked great as far as bringing people who typed my business' name in
> the url field. However, Google picked up the www. ultimatenourishment
> .com link as people would use this url in forums, etc. Anyway, Google
> saw the same content on www. ultimatenourishment .com as on
> www.ultimate-weight-products.com, plus since all my links on
> www.ultimate-weight-products.com are relative, when one would arrive at
> my site via the www. ultimatenourishment .com, the www.
> ultimatenourishment .com would still resolve with the
> ultimatenourishment in it.... ie: www. ultimatenourishment
> .com/page/UN/CTGY/strainer. LOL, does this make sense so far?
>
> When I noticed my site literally disappeared from the face of Google, I
> researched, and found that the only acceptable redirect method as far as
> Google's Terms Of Use is a 301 (permanent) redirect. And that anecdotal
> information suggested that sites were getting penalized and even banned
> for using any other redirect method.
>
> So, my ever so amazing host (dotCOM designers) figured out a way to give
> a 301 header on any url containing www. ultimatenourishment .com to
> www.ultimate-weight-products.com Meaning if there is a url out there
> like www. ultimatenourishment .com /page/UN/CTGY/strainer and someone
> clicks on it (or Google's spider follows it), it will give a 301 and
> take the visitor to http://www.ultimate-weight-products..../CTGY/strainer
>
> I am unsure exactly how the 301 is written to achieve this, but I am
> sure David (your host) knows as well.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Julie
>
> Aquapro wrote:
>
> > Hmmm.
> >
> > Julie,
> >
> > Did you have content on those other domains or did you just have your
host
> > pointing those domains to your active domain with content?
> >
> > I'm still confused about this. As I said, I have Hostasaurus pointing
> > several other domains (mostly variations of aquariumpros like
> > aquariumpros.org, aquariumpros.tv, etc.) to our main domain
> > (aquariumpros.com). However, those are not "live" domains with content.
> >
> > Is that what you had and if so, how did you implement the 301 on the
other
> > domains if they weren't live sites with editable content?
> >
> > My understanding from the article that started this whole thread and my
> > coorespondence with Google is their new system does look at DNS info
such
> as
> > ownership of domains as part of their ranking system. So a link or non
301
> > redirect from an active domain to another active domain with both
domains
> > owned by the same party will lower ranking.
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Dave Hauser, President
> > Aquarium Professionals Group
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Julie
> > Thompson
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:45 AM
> > To: Bruce Golub - Phosphormedia.com
> > Cc: 'Miva Merchant Users'
> > Subject: Re: [mru] OT: Google link?
> >
> >
> > Obviously only Google knows for sure and anything else is pure
> > speculation, but will not disregard the possibility as I have read too
> > many anecdotal experiences with Google purging duplicate content
> > *within* the same domain. And my experience, I was using the name
> > servers (DNS pointing) to direct another domain to my main domain. And
> > within few weeks, the steady rankings my site once had were gone from
> > Google. I wasn't banned (the toolbar still showed a PR for my site, and
> > a "site:www.domain.com" did bring up all my pages within Google), BUT
> > any steady rankings I once enjoyed were literally gone. Even a search
> > for my business name, my site was not ranked well after the DNS
> > pointing. Once I implemented a 301 on the other domain rather than a
> > DNS redirect, my rankings returned. Thus, it leads me to never discount
> > what Google defines duplicate content as.
> >
> > To that end, I am glad that Dave brought to our attention that dynamic
> > links and SFL can possibly be construed as duplicate content.
> >
> > Which leads me back to my original question several posts ago; will
> > disallowing robots from spidering /miva/ or /merchant2/ directorys
> > (however the host has it set up) block the spiders from indexing SFL
too?
> >
> > Julie
> >
> > Bruce Golub - Phosphormedia.com wrote:
> >
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >
> >
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>
> >>First of all, absolutly not, second of all, absolutely not<G>.
> >>
> >>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.
> >>
> >>The only real reason to block /Merchant2 links when using Optimizer is
to
> >>prevent SE spiders from hammering your store. When crawling a site, they
> >
> > can
> >
> >>be generating anywhere from 10 to 100 requests per second. (I suspect a
> >
> > lot
> >
> >>of those "all of a sudden my site is slow" posts are simply SE spider
> >>visits.)
> >>
> >>Sorry if I fell into the same rabbit hole as others last night, it was
> >
> > late
> >
> >>and a long day.
> >>
> >>-Bruce Golub
> >>PHOSPHOR Media
> >>......................................
> >>Featuring: StoreMan - A smarter way to manage Miva Merchant(tm) Store
> >>Content.
> >>Download a hassle-free demo today
> >><A HREF ="http://www.phosphormedia.com/go.mv?ID=listsm">http://www.phosphormedia.com/go.mv?ID=listsm</A>
> >>......................................
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >

OT: Google link?



From: [email protected]=20
>=20
=20
> So, my ever so amazing host (dotCOM designers) figured out a=20
> way to give a 301 header on any url containing
> www. ultimatenourishment .com to
> www.ultimate-weight-products.com Meaning if there is a url out there=20
> like www. ultimatenourishment .com /page/UN/CTGY/strainer and someone=20
> clicks on it (or Google's spider follows it), it will give a 301 and=20
> take the visitor to=20
> http://www.ultimate-weight-products..../CTGY/strainer
>=20
> I am unsure exactly how the 301 is written to achieve this, but I am=20
> sure David (your host) knows as well.

That is quite easy actually, just need three lines of text
in a .htaccess file for the site in question:

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.domain.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*) <A HREF ="http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=3D301]">http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=3D301]</A>


That will cause a 301 redirect to www.domain.com for any
incoming request that came in on any domain other than
www.domain.com keeping the rest of the URL the same.

For websites that use shared SSL certificates and need
to avoid having that rewrite break the SSL because of
the name being different, it requires one extra line
which is explained here:

<A HREF ="http://www.hostasaurus.com/helpdesk/faq.php?parent=3D0&cmd=3Dview&id=3D45=">http://www.hostasaurus.com/helpdesk/faq.php?parent=3D0&cmd=3Dview&id=3D45=</A>


David

OT: Google link?



Jason Henderson wrote:

>>
>>So, the robot cannot read the .htaccess rewrite and realize those pages
>>are really residing in the /miva/ directory?
>
>
> Correct. It will just see /page/ and not /miva/
>



Thanks so much Jason!

Okay, just uploaded my revised robots.txt..... good vibes to the Google
spider still following my directory style links ;-)

OT: Google link?



---------------------------

Great!

So we don't need to use a robot.txt file either? I've seen this in some
other posts on this thread so I just want to be sure. :-)

Thanks!
Lori

----------------------------

On 5/16/05 7:41 PM, "Jason Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Depends on whether you have regular links elsewhere to products or
> categories. If you have zero, than no problem.
>
> Jason
>
>
>> We're using Search Friendly Links, Meta Tag Generator and Search Friendly
>> Store Map all by CBS.
>>
>> After reading this thread we're wondering what we need to do...
>>
>> According to the SFL manual: "... adding the .htaccess rewrite rule will
>> take the ' directory' link and rewrite the request to meet the SFL style
>> on-the-fly as requests come in. Search engines will only see the static
>> link, not the rewritten link as this process is handled within your web
>> server"
>>
>> If this is true than the URLs created by SFL and SF Store Map should be OK
>> as Google won't see the Miva dynamic URLs, (along with the SFL and SF
> Store
>> Map URLs), and penalize us for duplicate sites... right????????
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Lori
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>>
>> On 5/16/05 6:44 PM, "Jason Henderson" <[email protected]> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----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?



> Jason Henderson wrote:
>
> > In my own mind, I was pretty sure it wouldn't be a problem. Didn't want
to
> > say definitely and have it come back and bite me. But I did check, and
> > spiders will see the sfl link and not say "hey, this is really a
> > /Merchant2/merchant.mvc file!!!!"
> >
> >
>
> Thanks so much Jason. Now, bear with me... I am still recovering from
> my missing 'add to basket' buttons...
>
> So, what you are saying is if I enter in my robots.txt file:
>
> User-agent: *
> Disallow: /miva/
>
> This will disallow all robots from spidering my dynamic links BUT any
> SFL directory style link the robot encounters during the indexing
> process will be followed.
>
> So, the robot cannot read the .htaccess rewrite and realize those pages
> are really residing in the /miva/ directory?

Correct. It will just see /page/ and not /miva/

Jason

>
> >
> >
> >>Julie <---- who is waiting for plane ticket prices to come down to
> >>confirm attending the Dallas Conference.... PHX to D/FW is $400!
> >
> >
> > Cool. Glad to hear it.
> >
>
> I really, really want to attend! I just cannot believe that I can fly
> to NY from Phoenix for less than $300 but a hop to Dallas is $400+.
> Here's hoping to airfair wars soon :-)
>
> Julie
>
>

OT: Google link?



> How do you get a "good" SFL link??
>
> Was there an upgrade to SFL or storemap that does better? Why wouldn't
> storemap write "good" ones if they work together?

You need to read the documentation. It does what you tell it to do.

> So if we have to go in and change all the llnks on the html pages-- should
> the category pages look like this?
>
> <A HREF ="http://www.israeliproducts.com/page=IP/CTGY/Ahava">http://www.israeliproducts.com/page=IP/CTGY/Ahava</A>
>
> instead of:
>
> <A HREF ="http://www.israeliproducts.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?page=IP/CTGY/Ahava">http://www.israeliproducts.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?page=IP/CTGY/Ahava</A>

No. Go back and read my last email
> > A bad sfl link, yes. should be israeliproducts.com/page/IP/PROD/HCR004

> In other words... search and replace:
>
> Merchant2/merchant.mvc?
>
> That's always OK to do?

No. Just block /Merchant2/ as instructed in previous emails about
robots.txt

Jason


> (Then how come merchant isn't programmed that way to begin with? Is that a
> ridiculous question?)
>
>
> Linda Katz
> israeliproducts.com
>
> >> I don't know. here is an example- is that an SFL link?
> >>
> >>
<A HREF ="http://www.israeliproducts.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?page=IP/PROD/HCR004">http://www.israeliproducts.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?page=IP/PROD/HCR004</A>
> >
> > A bad sfl link, yes. should be israeliproducts.com/page/IP/PROD/HCR004
>
>

OT: Google link?



Hi Dave,

No, no content at all at the domain I had pointing via nameservers.
What happened is, I own www. ultimatenourishment .com (I am breaking up
the url as I do not want spidering of my 301 domain since these archives
do get spidered) and had used my host's nameservers to point people who
may have typed this domain into their browser to resolve to the domain
with all my content which is www.ultimate-weight-products.com This
worked great as far as bringing people who typed my business' name in
the url field. However, Google picked up the www. ultimatenourishment
.com link as people would use this url in forums, etc. Anyway, Google
saw the same content on www. ultimatenourishment .com as on
www.ultimate-weight-products.com, plus since all my links on
www.ultimate-weight-products.com are relative, when one would arrive at
my site via the www. ultimatenourishment .com, the www.
ultimatenourishment .com would still resolve with the
ultimatenourishment in it.... ie: www. ultimatenourishment
.com/page/UN/CTGY/strainer. LOL, does this make sense so far?

When I noticed my site literally disappeared from the face of Google, I
researched, and found that the only acceptable redirect method as far as
Google's Terms Of Use is a 301 (permanent) redirect. And that anecdotal
information suggested that sites were getting penalized and even banned
for using any other redirect method.

So, my ever so amazing host (dotCOM designers) figured out a way to give
a 301 header on any url containing www. ultimatenourishment .com to
www.ultimate-weight-products.com Meaning if there is a url out there
like www. ultimatenourishment .com /page/UN/CTGY/strainer and someone
clicks on it (or Google's spider follows it), it will give a 301 and
take the visitor to http://www.ultimate-weight-products..../CTGY/strainer

I am unsure exactly how the 301 is written to achieve this, but I am
sure David (your host) knows as well.

I hope this helps.

Julie

Aquapro wrote:

> Hmmm.
>
> Julie,
>
> Did you have content on those other domains or did you just have your host
> pointing those domains to your active domain with content?
>
> I'm still confused about this. As I said, I have Hostasaurus pointing
> several other domains (mostly variations of aquariumpros like
> aquariumpros.org, aquariumpros.tv, etc.) to our main domain
> (aquariumpros.com). However, those are not "live" domains with content.
>
> Is that what you had and if so, how did you implement the 301 on the other
> domains if they weren't live sites with editable content?
>
> My understanding from the article that started this whole thread and my
> coorespondence with Google is their new system does look at DNS info such as
> ownership of domains as part of their ranking system. So a link or non 301
> redirect from an active domain to another active domain with both domains
> owned by the same party will lower ranking.
>
> Thank you
>
> Dave Hauser, President
> Aquarium Professionals Group
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Julie
> Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:45 AM
> To: Bruce Golub - Phosphormedia.com
> Cc: 'Miva Merchant Users'
> Subject: Re: [mru] OT: Google link?
>
>
> Obviously only Google knows for sure and anything else is pure
> speculation, but will not disregard the possibility as I have read too
> many anecdotal experiences with Google purging duplicate content
> *within* the same domain. And my experience, I was using the name
> servers (DNS pointing) to direct another domain to my main domain. And
> within few weeks, the steady rankings my site once had were gone from
> Google. I wasn't banned (the toolbar still showed a PR for my site, and
> a "site:www.domain.com" did bring up all my pages within Google), BUT
> any steady rankings I once enjoyed were literally gone. Even a search
> for my business name, my site was not ranked well after the DNS
> pointing. Once I implemented a 301 on the other domain rather than a
> DNS redirect, my rankings returned. Thus, it leads me to never discount
> what Google defines duplicate content as.
>
> To that end, I am glad that Dave brought to our attention that dynamic
> links and SFL can possibly be construed as duplicate content.
>
> Which leads me back to my original question several posts ago; will
> disallowing robots from spidering /miva/ or /merchant2/ directorys
> (however the host has it set up) block the spiders from indexing SFL too?
>
> Julie
>
> Bruce Golub - Phosphormedia.com wrote:
>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>>First of all, absolutly not, second of all, absolutely not<G>.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>The only real reason to block /Merchant2 links when using Optimizer is to
>>prevent SE spiders from hammering your store. When crawling a site, they
>
> can
>
>>be generating anywhere from 10 to 100 requests per second. (I suspect a
>
> lot
>
>>of those "all of a sudden my site is slow" posts are simply SE spider
>>visits.)
>>
>>Sorry if I fell into the same rabbit hole as others last night, it was
>
> late
>
>>and a long day.
>>
>>-Bruce Golub
>>PHOSPHOR Media
>>......................................
>>Featuring: StoreMan - A smarter way to manage Miva Merchant(tm) Store
>>Content.
>>Download a hassle-free demo today
>><A HREF ="http://www.phosphormedia.com/go.mv?ID=listsm">http://www.phosphormedia.com/go.mv?ID=listsm</A>
>>......................................
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

OT: Google link?



> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> > Jason Henderson
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:15 AM
> > To: Leslie Nord - Webs Your Way
> > Cc: Miva Users Group
> > Subject: Re: [mru] 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
> >
> > It all depends on your situation. If you can optimize
> > merchant pages and don't have a server load issue, why not
> > use merchant pages?
>
> Because when a crawler hits, you will have a server load<G>.
> -Bruce

Of course you will have a server load but whether it is an issue will vary.

Jason

OT: Google link?



I don't know. here is an example- is that an SFL link?

<A HREF ="http://www.israeliproducts.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?page=IP/PROD/HCR004">http://www.israeliproducts.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?page=IP/PROD/HCR004</A>

I have SFL set to "short link". I didn't see an answer to Lori yet-- if
having both SFL and non-SFL is a problem... is this even an issue? I can't
see why SFL and storemap- bought together- wouldn't be made to work
together..?

Linda Katz
www.israeliproducts.com


>> Jason says it's OK to "keep the store map pages but change the links". If
> I
>> have SFL- do I need to change any links? If so -- how?
>
> depends. Are the links on the sitemap pages SFL links? As I said before,
> download them and search and replace.
>
> Jason

OT: Google link?



> > 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

That is very debateable on the merchant's end but a moot point at this
juncture. But we do agree that it is silly and stupid on Google's part. No
matter how many "duplicate" or similar pages of one product there are, only
1 or 2 listings with the second one being indented and right under the 1st
shown in the results. Its logical to see why mirror domains would piss them
off. Maybe I missed this part in dave's post, it might be a google resource
thing where they don't want to spider different versions of the same content
when spidering a site.

Jason

OT: Google link?



> In trying to follow this scary death of SEK thread- I'm stuck with a
couple
> of questions:
>
> I have CBS Storemap and had a Static Category mirror which I hadn't been
> using. If I want to delete it now- is all I do remove the 0000001 Category
> folder? I also don''t have a clear understanding of what was done when I
> upgraded years ago from 4.13 to 4.16 compiled- and I still have the
dormant
> 4.13 files, including the static catalog, sitting there. Not smart I'm
sure-
> but in the interest of not breaking anything that works... will those
> dormant files be any danger to Google's bot if nothing on the store links
to
> them anymore?

if bots can't get to them, then no problemo.

> Jason says it's OK to "keep the store map pages but change the links". If
I
> have SFL- do I need to change any links? If so -- how?

depends. Are the links on the sitemap pages SFL links? As I said before,
download them and search and replace.

Jason

> Seems like there's no such thing as a long term investment in technology
> anymore...
> THANKS for keeping us current, guys.
>
> Linda Katz
> www.israeliproducts.com
>
>
>
>
>

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>

In my own mind, I was pretty sure it wouldn't be a problem. Didn't want to
say definitely and have it come back and bite me. But I did check, and
spiders will see the sfl link and not say "hey, this is really a
/Merchant2/merchant.mvc file!!!!"

> 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>

Those are not good. directory style only.

> Julie <---- who is waiting for plane ticket prices to come down to
> confirm attending the Dallas Conference.... PHX to D/FW is $400!

Cool. Glad to hear it.

Jason

> 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
>
>