Article - http://www.site-reference.com/articles/ … ploit.html

I was a bit confused to begin with about what was being discussed here, but got it in the end.

I'm interested to know how the address of the copy of your site (on the proxy) differs from the address of your site?????

While at university, the uni 'ISP' had a proxy which cached requests for pages; but the URLs were identical and spiders could not crawl the cache

Sophie White wrote:

the use of publicly accessible Proxy websites. (If you don't know what a Proxy is, it's basically a way of making the web run faster by caching content more local to your internet destination. In principle they are generally a good thing.)

So, Sophie, if you're reading this - could you enlighten me as to how the URLs differ?

I'm also not sure about the cloaking advice; black-hatters pay $1000s for the most up to date spider/bot IP addresses, I'd love to know your publicly accessible sources.

This leads me on to another concept of getting your competition kicked for duplicate content

1 - get a cheap VPS
2 - get a blog pinging script, and a list of black and white hat ping sites
3 - spider your competitor's site
4 - append random GET variables on to the end of each URL
5 - ping these URLs

By adding the random variables, and creating links to these new urls you are creating a mass of URLs that are different but have the same content, eg

domain.com/home.htm
domain.com/home.htm?af=sfgnh
domain.com/home.htm?weg=fgthny

domain2.co.uk/products.php?cat=2&prod_id=34
domain2.co.uk/products.php?cat=2&prod_id=34&sdgh=aerg
domain2.co.uk/products.php?cat=2&prod_id=34&asrg=rgy

To protect yourself against this - your must know what variables to expect and redirect to a 'standardised' version of your url if don't get what you expect

I believe, google will interpret this as a misspelled link and therefore it is useless.
The only way I expect this works is to set links inner the hunted homepage.
and even if it works its just duplicate content. (you should insert some spammy or offense words)

It's something i rigorously protect against, as I do not believe google will see it as a misspelled link

My opinion is, google values the age of the content over the PR. It sounds logic for me.

Northie wrote:

It's something i rigorously protect against, as I do not believe google will see it as a misspelled link

You´re right, the link is wrong and should be redirected; that´s the exact way. (but not for SEO).
However, my programing skills are null so can you help me out and describe how to protect against these links?

nybc wrote:

Northie wrote:

It's something i rigorously protect against, as I do not believe google will see it as a misspelled link

You´re right, the link is wrong and should be redirected; that´s the exact way. (but not for SEO).
However, my programing skills are null so can you help me out and describe how to protect against these links?

The redirect is for SEO purposes, and for no other reason.

Assume I make 5 links to one of your pages, but each link has a different URL - that's 5 pages of duplicate content you don't know about, and if I get the spiders looking at those links they'll think you're the spammer!!!

By doing a 301 redirect to a url format you choose, with only the variables you want, that becomes 5 links to one page with 1 URL - the one you choose to redirect to.

It's very SEO friendly and combats the type of attack I detailed in my first post

Example 1
original url - http://xeneco.co.uk/
spam link - http://xeneco.co.uk/?var1=val1
spam link - http://xeneco.co.uk/?var2=val2
3 urls, the same content

Examle 2 (with redirection in place to 404 page)
original url - http://www.healthfitnessarticlesweb.com … scription/
spam link - http://www.healthfitnessarticlesweb.com … ?var1-val1
spam link - http://www.healthfitnessarticlesweb.com … ?var2-val2
3 urls, only one works, the other two return 404

I could have set up a 301 redirect back to http://www.healthfitnessarticlesweb.com … cription/, and the SEs would see that as a permanent redirect and to not concern them selves with the 'spam links'

Northie,

I've been keeping up with all the duplicate content "debate," as much as my head can wrap around it, mostly by trusting your posts on the subject. I did read Sophie's article, but never did get it. Figured I'd learn more, if she did respond to your question, so went to the URL she promoted in the author's bio, hit "contact us," sent them an e-mail telling about your question, with link. Of course, there has been a weekend in-between, so hopefully, you will get a response (and hopefully, I can even understand it all, by the time it's all over. LOL)

Just wanted to add this for two reasons -- so Sophie knows I'm the one that e-mailed, and we do get to understand it all.

I think there are some valid and worrying points raised in this debate.

I do believe that Google does pay attention to duplicate content made this way, with variable urls made and then indexed.

I know this for a fact from visiting webmaster tools, and finding these urls. I have managed ti get rid of them by placing a redirect code in the header of my pages. After doing this, the questionable urls's have disapeared from Goggle's index.

So, you can defend against this type of attack, and yes I do think it is a concern.

peaforabrain wrote:

So, you can defend against this type of attack, and yes I do think it is a concern.

I want to ask: Did dis harm your ranking?

Did one of the urls drop into the suplemental results? and if so, the original or the inbound-link-url?