Penalized and Innocent!! Help / advice much appreciated!

[mjb]

Hi all,

A client's site just got hit by a major Google penalty, for having doorway pages according to our GWT notification. Except we run a fully legit site with nothing that should contravene the Webmaster Guidelines.

We suspect the problem has come from a URL re-write we implemented a few months back, to mask dynamic .asp URLs with new static URLs.

The process is fairly convoluted but was taken from John Avis' excellent blog: asp.johnavis-dot-com/blog/default-dot-asp?id=19. Essentially it involves using a script in the custom error page to execute a server transfer so that a visitor can use the new static URL to view content from the original (dynamic URL) page. Basically we are able to display the static, friendly URL in the browser while serving the content from the original dynamic URL.

I guess Google has detected this as a problem and assumed we're up to something shady.

Originally I was concerned about the duplicate content implications of this process, but didn't anticipate this problem. My question is, is a legitimate intention like this still a contravention of the Guidelines? I'm going through the official channels right now, but getting a reply from volunteers on the GWT forum is difficult, let alone attention from a Google employee.

Thanks in advance for any help/thoughts. MJB.

[SteveGerencser]

Link to client's site? You can PM it if you want..

[Oman]

We've used xQASP for years to dynamically rewrite .asp addresses and Google doesn't seem to mind in the least. So before you go and strip out all of your .asp rewrites, you might want to look for other contributing factors.

Jeff

[claybutler]

The process for re-inclusion is pretty straight forward.

1. Fix what they are complaining about
2. Explain what you did and ask to be re-included (you can find that in webmaster tools)

No one at Google will speak to you directly (even through email) or even say that your penalty has been lifted. You'll know when your pages come back.

I've been through this several times and it always works out fine. Sometimes the site in question even goes up in the serps post penalty.

I wouldn't ask for re-inclusion without making some kind of change though. Even if you think you're completely in the right. You got a penalty and now you must atone for your sins. Simple as that.

[SeanJC]

I would suggest that you check what type of redirect you are doing to bring up this new content. Google doesn't like anything that is seen as temporary, so any redirect other than a 301 can be seen as causing problems.

My suggestion is check the redirect type and what the header is being passed as, and make sure you change your code accordingly. The simplest way to make sure doing it write is to do it server site. Either by adding it into your webserver mapping path or by using a different code. Classic asp has a tendancy to do most redirects as 300, unlike asp.net that does it alot better and can return content as 301.

So in short check your header info.

Sean

[deepsand]

I would suggest that you check what type of redirect you are doing to bring up this new content. Google doesn't like anything that is seen as temporary, so any redirect other than a 301 can be seen as causing problems.
Really? What is the basis for this claim?

FWIW, I find that Google has no problems with 302s.

[morestar]

Although this link is old, it indicates Google advises against using rewrite (http://searchengineland.com/google-says-dont-rewrite-dynamic-urls-to-static-urls-14795)s, I'm not sure if the 'policy' has changed over the years - I've never had to worry about it but I guess if it works for you then more power to you...

[alienpest]

This from Aaron Wall might be of some interest: http://www.seobook.com/redefining-doorway-pages

[jhannawin]

I agree with Clay that if you make some changes and ask for re-inclusion you should be OK in the end. Check the direct relevance of the rewrite output to the page content.

It does raise the point about dynamic URLs and rewrites though. Years ago we produced a test product called Rank Booster which was a cloaking system (in my defence, this was early 2000's the phrase 'black hat' was only for de Bono followers). In it's day it was massively effective, but we never fully launched it commercially because that business would have been wholly dependent on Google's algorithm. Shortly after, Google got wise and banned cloaking systems with a vengeance, effectively saying don't have some clever system present us with what you think we want to see, even if we're not doing a good job of indexing your content.

So what is dynamic URL rewriting? Well I'm not suggesting that it is as bad as cloaking, but it is being done just to give Google what you think it wants to see. To avoid the possibility of being hit when Google changes its mind use a methodology or system that doesn't use/minimises dynamic URLs. (That wipes out a large number of very popular systems and might be worth a thread all on its own somewhere on WebProWorld)

[DesignsOnline]

So what is dynamic URL rewriting? Well I'm not suggesting that it is as bad as cloaking, but it is being done just to give Google what you think it wants to see. To avoid the possibility of being hit when Google changes its mind use a methodology or system that doesn't use/minimises dynamic URLs. (That wipes out a large number of very popular systems and might be worth a thread all on its own somewhere on WebProWorld)

Im sorry but I would disagree, it COULD be done for that reason, or it could be sone equally for the benefit of the visitors,
who when reading through the serps will probably not know what a page that looks like this is all about:
www.mysite.com/somedynamic.asp?someCategoryID=1473&SomeProductID=188362

They will not understand the URL as it is not Visitor freindly, so will likely not choose it, However:

www.mysite.com/Productcategory/ProductName.html

This URL IS visitor freindly, it indicates what the page is likely to be all about and helps in their understanding of the website structure.
Some large websites have no choice but to be database driven, take large ecommerce websites for example, so in this case, URL ReWriting is a sensible option, that benefits the visitor as well as the website owner.

[Oman]

Here's a little more information from Google Answers regarding removing query strings from dynamic URL's.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=196839

Jeff

[mjb]

Thanks everyone for all your feedback. I agree with DesignsOnline - there should be nothing illegitimate about rewriting URLs to improve usability. I have submitted reconsideration requests and explained in detail exactly what the client did with the site, I hope that will be sufficient. If not it looks like we'll have to strip out all the hard work and go back to where we started.

It seems crazy that we're forced into this corner for entirely innocent reasons and I'd love to join the people who say "forget about Google and focus on other sources of traffic" but in my experience that's just not realistic - we're talking about a genuine business here, with employees, customers and a brand that has taken years to develop, largely from Google search traffic. This all leaves a very bad taste in the mouth and is very disturbing for us.

[jhannawin]

DesignsOnline, yes it could be done for the human user, but since it is very hard to get human users to read content on the web page itself, I'm not sure how many try to read the url for meaningful information as you suggest.


Some large websites have no choice but to be database driven, take large ecommerce websites for example

I didn't say anything about database driven, I was commenting in the urls used to access the data, and minimising the use of dynamic elements, in the query string for example.