Well, the URL works (wildcard DNS + no host header checks on the server – it even works with the IP address) and has links, so it would be something that we could index. It’s shown with &filter=0 to me, so it wouldn’t generally show up in the results next to the other URL.
The proper solution would be for the server to either 301 redirect to the preferred version or just not use wildcard DNS (make this URL invalid).
Shark SEO 1639 days ago
http://sharkseo.comCould it be the way tjoos has it’s mod_rewrite set up? Like this:
http://www.aboutus.org/DavidNaylor.co.uk
Shark SEO 1639 days ago
http://sharkseo.comOh hang about, hadn’t seen the start of the second URL.. That’s, er.. that’s just wrong.
John Mueller 1638 days ago
Well, the URL works (wildcard DNS + no host header checks on the server – it even works with the IP address) and has links, so it would be something that we could index. It’s shown with &filter=0 to me, so it wouldn’t generally show up in the results next to the other URL.
The proper solution would be for the server to either 301 redirect to the preferred version or just not use wildcard DNS (make this URL invalid).
g1smd 1621 days ago
Not so much Google indexing errors, but schoolboy implementation errors by the Server-Admin of the site involved then…