Can A Competitor Manipulate Your Ranking in Google Search?

[Greenguy]

Not sure if this applies or not, but if you're seeing duplicate results in google due to w & w/out the www. you can set up a google webmaster account & specify which you want (and then the rest just vanish)

[PhoneMistress]

Thanks for the quick replies.

Originally Posted by Greenie

Not sure if this applies or not, but if you're seeing duplicate results in google due to w & w/out the www. you can set up a google webmaster account & specify which you want (and then the rest just vanish)

Right. I did that on the 23rd. Under settings you check the preferred domain which in my case is “www.” Keep in mind you have to add the non-www first.

Originally Posted by walrus

...The latest theory I've heard is that inbound links can only help, not hurt your site as you are not responsible for those that link to you.

But yet I am.

My site is 10 years old. The 301 redirect was set in 2002 or before. Every link on my site is uniform which includes “www”. This canonical issue is not something having to do with my site or server. It has to do entirely with how an unknown site linked to my root. I no longer buy the search engine screed that a competitor can not screw with your rankings. I have had the number one listing for my search term for about 8 years. So maybe that makes me a target. I am satisfied in my research to say (in my case) that if the preferred domain isn’t checked in Webmaster Central, then another site can create enough links to your landing page that will not only confuse “the Google” but also undo all of your hard work.

For 10 years I never had a canonical issue until last week when this Romanian webmaster’s nearly 1K shady links (which are about 30 days old) to my root were picked up.

If you have not set your preferred domain, do it now.

[walrus]

Originally Posted by PhoneMistress

Thanks for the quick replies.
My site is 10 years old. The 301 redirect was set in 2002 or before. Every link on my site is uniform which includes “www”. This canonical issue is not something having to do with my site or server. It has to do entirely with how an unknown site linked to my root. I no longer buy the search engine screed that a competitor can not screw with your rankings. I have had the number one listing for my search term for about 8 years. So maybe that makes me a target. I am satisfied in my research to say (in my case) that if the preferred domain isn’t checked in Webmaster Central, then another site can create enough links to your landing page that will not only confuse “the Google” but also undo all of your hard work.

For 10 years I never had a canonical issue until last week when this Romanian webmaster’s nearly 1K shady links (which are about 30 days old) to my root were picked up.

If you have not set your preferred domain, do it now.

Add the cononical tag to your pages, it also tells Google which you prefer to use. In theory it does exactly what webmaster tools is supposed to do.

But if you've already done the 301 redirect, redirecting the non www urls to the www url and you've done the google webmaster setup AND YOU DO THE CONONICAL TAG, then you've done everything possible and conical url's are not your problem. Any one of those three things should resolve any conical URL issue but the cononical tag is the latest thing added to resolve these types of issues.

800 inbound links from 5 sites is a lot of inbound links, especially from so few of sources. I can easily believe that google would see that as an attempt to spoof the SERPS. Especially since it's an algorithm that only knows certain rules to follow

[PhoneMistress]

Ok, I had to do a little follow-up and send out a few letters documenting my site’s problems.

Matt Cutt’s explanation of the canonical tag is perfect. Around the 5-minute mark he explains things that effect your site and what to do to prevent a canonical situation:

1. Normalize URLs
2. Link consistently on the site
3. Implement 301 redirects
4. Set preferred domain
5. Include standardized URLs in sitemap
6. Include canonical attribute

Before my situation I had done 1,2,3 and 5. I have since completed 4 and 6.