Innocent duplicate sites from the UK

Just a few words regarding the cardinal sin of submitting a duplicate site - and to see if editors are aware of the UK situation that has caused me a nightmare (and no doubt many others) and why I submitted a duplicate site to dmoz.

I was in dmoz and at number 1 and number 8 on Google.com for my 2 main phrases.

Then along comes Google.co.uk and I am nowhere - not even indexed.

After some considerable time it turns out that this is because my host (the biggest in the world apparently) has servers based in Germany.

Google then write and tell me to get another domain name with .uk

This I do as they suggest and guess what Im penalised for a duplicate site - and not listed by dmoz for this new domain.

Whist my web skills may be limited my English is quite reasonable I hope.

I did not want another domain name and was quite happy.

However had they said - get another domain name with .uk and make sure it has different content to your other site otherwise it will never be indexed - I could have understood this.

Point is as I see it - many honest people in the UK must have also been put in this situation and have done as they were told, thinking they were doing the right thing only to be penalised.

Comments please.

I can see what you are addressing and I understand what point you are making however what you are highlighting is an issue with Google or other search engines and their algorithms/exclusion policies etc and not an issue for the ODP.

As the ODP serve only the users (not webmasters) we will list the URL that gets our users to that content and whilst that URL remains functional changing it to another one on request does not serve any purpose to us or our users (infact on the contrary - the request causes us extra work and reduces available editor time to perform other vital tasks).

If Google are the problem then they are the ones that should be approached. If it is the hosts then deal with them. I am afraid that we are not even the 'middleman' and we would not entertain requests to ammend listing for the reason of keeping search engines/webmasters happy.

With that said (I don't mean to sound rude) such a topic is better placed in anyone of the many webmaster forums that have a purpose to discuss just this type of subject.

We're not Google.

The fact that Google suggested you get a .co.uk domain for your site doesn't obligate us to list said .co.uk domain. We have no control over what Google does or doesn't tell you and any issues arising for you from what they tell you has no bearing on your submission or listing in the ODP, good or bad.

You are however free to get another domain name, and have the first domain do a 301 redirect to the new one. You then may then request an update of your listing in ODP, and it would be changed to the new URL.

Dear Leer,

A good reply

However Google have been addressed and say that you cannot be indexed.

I have had to spend a lot of money and it has taken nearly a year to get to the bottom of this.

Annoyingly I have to wait again for dmoz to list my second site which now has a different product and different content.

Not expecting any favours - but if this draws attention to a big problem and helps one person then hopefully it will be a useful post.

This same host is still taking massive advertising saying we are the best knowing full well that many of thier customers domains will never be indexed in Google.uk - so expect more duplicates from innocent people who will be told the same as me.

The 301 redirect, and Update URL request combo is already our standard answer, and it's already in your power to implement it.

Seeing that is the case, we're probably not going to succumb to a precipitous-firmament panic.

[offtopic]Crooner, I think I know the host you are talking about here. Adds up to two doesn't it?[/offtopic]

The reason we ask for a redirect is that it proves on your end that the domain name has changed, and that it's not somebody trying to hijack the site. In addition, we've made some recent changes to help process this type of update more quickly.

Don't forget though that these changes take time to be picked up by downstream users of ODP data (e.g. Google, AOL).

Dear Shritwod,

Exellent reply.

And yes it does add up to two.

Shame some peoples attitude seems to be - so what if people are being sent bankrupt through no fault of their own.

Your replies are sufficiently incoherent that I'm not sure whom you are misquoting.

I'm not sure what you're saying about Google. But obviously we have no control whatsoever over what they do and do not list, and it would be irrational to the point of insane for us to worry about it.

Nor can anyone possibly see a problem with the ODP's approach. We haven't penalized anyone, nor have we contributed even indirectly to the penalization of anyone, -- but of course you haven't actually mentioned any penalty (the fact that you don't like the way Google chooses what sites to list where doesn't make anything they do a "penalty.")

And the domain name that a site uses is always completely under the webmaster's control. If the webmaster only has one domain name, that's the one we use. If the webmaster has more than one, we list the "main" one as indicated by various evidence including 301 redirects. So the domain name that the ODP lists is also completely (albeit indirectly) under the webmaster's control. (Not that we care one way or another, but Google also observes 301 redirects.) And the particular policy I think you are talking about is there to protect webmasters. (Again, I'm not sure.)

It sounds like you may be talking about the webmaster going bankrupt -- again you aren't clear. But if that's what you're talking about, this seems like no-brainer blame: if the webmaster is going bankrupt because of something that is completely under his control, then it's obviously always completely his fault.

And the ODP would be remiss in its responsibility to ALL webmasters to break a policy designed to protect ALL webmasters, just to save a class of webmasters whom we know perfectly well could have save themselves if it had mattered in the least.

If you don't like the domain name under which your site is listed in the ODP, then you know what to do about it. And if there is ANY issue you've mentioned that we COULD address even if we ought to (or that you COULDN'T address by yourself), I'm still not seeing it.

crooner, I'm trying to make sense of your post. Do you believe that an editor removed you by identifying a second listing as spam?

Dear luggagebase,

Not sure whether they did or not.

I have submitted another a few days ago.

Point is I am not complaining - but pointing out a fact that people in the UK have been told to buy another domain by Google and as Dmoz supplies Google - they will submit it to you thinking they are doing he right thing.

they will submit it to you thinking they are doing he right thing.

Click to expand...

It is a pity that people spend to much time thinking when instead they could take the time to get it direct from the horses mouth from within the Editorial Guidelines (which submitters agree that they have done at the time of putting forward their suggestion).

Dear Leer,

Editorial guidelines does NIL to help someone in this scenario unless you are a dmoz editor or SEO expert.

How can it be a duplicate if the original is not there and you are told by Google never will be ?

Dont just look at things with a one size fits all attitude - because it don't.

What has happened is happening and will continue to happen - is the fault of 2 other parties NOT dmoz or its editors.

Thankfully one editor is aware of the despicable practice which is happening and made constuctive comment.

Hopefully more will look at this - and then in to it.

>> How can it be a duplicate if the original is not there and you are told by Google never will be ?

The problem is that we are not Google. We have nothing to do with how Google does it's business and they have nothing to do with what we list or how we list it. So if we're talking about duplicate sites, we're talking about from an ODP perspective, not from a Google perspective as we don't really care about Google's perspective. I'm not doubting that this is an issue that you're seriously concerned about but from our point of view, there's nothing we can do about it because it's not an issue with us, it's an issue with Google and this web host. Being not an issue with us, it's really not something for discussion in this forum. That's really all we're getting at here.

I don't know what Google told you. Your narrative was a lot longer on emotion-laden hype than on actual details. There wouldn't be any need for either exhibiting or attributing "attitude," if everyone will just focus on the facts.

The first fact is, we aren't Google, and we don't care whom they list or don't list.

The second fact is, we really don't care what URL you use -- and even after we list a site, we'll change the URL to maintain a listing, if there is evidence that the old URL isn't correct anymore.

You've made it abundantly clear that you despise the volunteer editors (and apparently Google also). That's fine, but you may not use this forum as a forum for your contempt.

Dear Hutcheson,

You seriously need help !

Making statements that - I despise editors - is slanderous and very sad indeed, particularly when I clearly stated - it is not the fault of dmoz or its editors.

However you did make one legitimate comment - "Im not seeing it".

This may help. In addition to carrying the ODP Directory, Google is also a conventional search engine. In fact, they have moved the Directory to a secondary "More" page to emphasize their search results. Their spider crawls the internet like any other search engine and that part has nothing to do with the directory. The ODP listings are added to the crawl results. When you go to their UK version of Google at: http://www.google.co.uk/ you will see that a user has a choice:

"Search <> the web <> pages from the UK"

The only thing buying the mmmmm.co.uk domain name did for you was to give you pages that would come up for the "Search <> pages from the UK" choice. Your old pages probably were just fine if a user made the "Search <> the web" choice.

When a user chooses "More" and then "Directory" on the UK version of Google, the entire ODP directory is there. If your original mmmmm.com listing in ODP was acceptable, you shouldn't have needed to do anything to have it still work in the UK Google assuming the "Search <> the web" choice was available at the time.

I don't know why your site didn't show up for searches when UK Google was first brought up. What I am describing is what I see there in searching today for sites with which I am familiar. Maybe Google is recognizing me as a U.S. user and you as a U.K. user and responding differently.

<added>
I hadn't noticed that your original post said the mmmmm.co.uk domain name was required because your ISP has servers in Germany. Goodness! I'm not going to try to figure out the international politics of that but now I understand how your URL could have been blocked by UK Google. They may not have been given a choice in the matter either. From what you say, it sounds like moving to a U.K. ISP might have gotten around the restriction too. Was your site actually missing from the real ODP directory http://dmoz.org/ or only from Google's delayed copy of our directory? Is it still there now?
</added>

This is my first post here since activating my ID. In case the header doesn't say so, I am an ODP editor."

Dear Tome2,

Thank you for a thoughtful post.

In answer to your question -

" Was your site actually missing from the real ODP directory http://dmoz.org/ or only from Google's delayed copy of our directory? Is it still there now? "

The site was in the directory no problem - however I have now made 2 separate sites with different product and different content and awaiting listing in the directory for the .org.uk site.


PS - this weeks issue of the biggest computer magazine in the UK has printed several pages recommending you take a site with a web host (their biggest advertiser) which will never be listed in Google unless it has a .uk domain.

Crooner said:

Making statements that - I despise editors - is slanderous and very sad indeed

Click to expand...

I may have misunderstood you. What does "despicable" mean in your language? (I did read it again, though, and it's not clear what the referent is. And the bit about "not blaming ODP editors" was perhaps not as clear as you had hoped it would be. I appreciate the clarification.)

As for the "com" and "uk" addresses, we have our own way of marking UK sites that depends neither on webhost address nor on domain name. So we're indifferent to which domain name you use. Make sure that your site shows the preferred name, make sure the former name is a redirect, and we'll follow your guide.

Request for another point for clarification: is or is not the CURRENT ODP listing showing the UK domain name?

Glad I can help untangle this. What Crooner finds "despicable" is that he has been hurt by an internet fight between the U.K. and Germany. We in ODP are not directly involved in it. For some reason, the U.K Google can not serve sites hosted in Germany unless they are mmmmm.co.uk domains. (Do I have that right?) Crooner wanted to make sure that having two web sites didn't get him banned from ODP.

If the new mmmmm.co.uk site is completely different content from the existing mmmmm.com site, it can be evaluated on its own merits. There is no need to sacrifice the existing listing which, presumably, is still bringing traffic from places other than U.K. Google. It might be questioned if the new listing is the same company name being suggested for the same category as the old one so don't do that. And you may want to avoid cross-linking them in a way that makes them look like affiliates.

The original post simply advised us that other U.K. site owners may show up in the same situation. I don't think there is much we in ODP can do about that.

The World Wide Web will be a lot less world-wide if countries are going to be checking URL-passports at the border.