Travolution reports this week that ebookers, a subsidiary of Cendant Corporation, is currently having issues with Google. The reports are correct as the site www.ebookers.co.uk has been dropped from Google search results, with only six “supplemental” pages in the search engine.
The domain also appears to be slowly being removed from MSN and Yahoo and I have come to the conclusion that the removal of the pages must have been due to an error at ebookers, or they have requested the pages to be removed from the search engines through the robots.txt file.
Theory 1.
A supplemental page usually appears when a link to the page has disappeared and the Googlebot can no longer find the page on the domain. On Google you can ask them to remove all or part of your websites content, and they will do this within five days, providing that the necessary pages or folders are included on the robots.txt file
So ebookers could have asked for the co.uk content to be removed from the search engines, and then have done a permanent direct (you only have to look on MSN to see this) from the .co.uk to the .com domain.
Theory 2
I’ve not visited the www.ebookers.co.uk website before, but it looks like that could have removed the content and replaced it with a doorway page into it’s international and the .com domains. If you look at this page in Google, you’ll see that it is a page which enables you to make a decision which ebookers domain you want to visit.
This could be seen by Google as a doorway page and if you read the Google webmaster guidelines it mentions such pages.
Don’t employ cloaking or sneaky redirects.
Don’t send automated queries to Google.
Don’t load pages with irrelevant words.
Don’t create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content.
Don’t create pages that install viruses, trojans, or other badware.
Avoid “doorway” pages created just for search engines, or other “cookie cutter” approaches such as affiliate programs with little or no original content.
When you visit the www.ebookers.co.uk domain it directs you to the .com domain, if this direct wasn’t originally done correctly, i.e. a 302 instead of 301 direct, Google has banned sites for using 302 directs in the past.
Experts are saying that it’s to do with Google ‘Big Daddy’ update – personally, I don’t agree with this theory, as this has happened too far after the implementation of the Big Daddy update earlier this year. Read the comments for an update.
Similar Posts
- Travel consumer search experience
- Help protect yourself against Holiday Scams
- Issue with .travel domain
- Introducing my Travel Guide Map
Want
automatic updates?
Subscribe
to our RSS feed or
receive email updates
Darren Cronian | 10 August, 2006 at 11:11 pm
I wonder if ebookers know about this site;
http://www.holidayzones.com/
A clone of ebookers by the looks of it - makes you wonder how many other people are doing this because of the ebookers affiliate system - could be something that ruins their ranking if the Google algo thinks that its duplicate content.
I could spend all night looking into why this has happened, and looking at it, it could be one of many reasons too.
Rachel | 11 August, 2006 at 6:42 am
Mmm, not sure I understand all of what you are saying, but you seem to know what you are talking about. Whats the difference between a 302 and 301 direct, and why does Google not like 302 directs?
Debbie | 11 August, 2006 at 12:24 pm
I wish I knew more about search engine optimisation, how about writing a guide for bloggers Darren?
Darren Cronian | 11 August, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Rachel,
I’ll try and explain without getting technical 
Basically say you wanted to direct visitors to ebookers.com from ebookers.co.uk you can do this a number of ways - some of these ways are search engine friendly, some aren’t.
A 302 direct is saying to Google and the search engines that you only want to temporarily direct people to the ebookers.com domain. Using this type of direct has seen some websites penalised or banned.
A 301 direct is saying to Google and the search engines that you want to make the direct to ebookers.com permanently. Google prefers this method of directing.
I hope this makes sense.
Debbie, well funny you should mention that, I have started on such a guide, with a few tips for bloggers, that you won’t read on the net, because they are unique ways I have promoted my blog with success. Watch this space
Darren Cronian | 11 August, 2006 at 1:11 pm
It’s imperative that all of your domains are on different ip address ranges, to be honest, this is a basic internet marketing function. The websites I have are all on different IP addresses, and it pays to either configure your server this way, or if your using shared or dedicated hosting, it pays to use different companies or request different IP addresses.
I must admit I didn’t think of this because it is so basic when working with a large group of websites, and ebookers, won’t be the first large organisation to fall at the hands of the search engines.
In the statement it mentions that this is not the case with MSN and Yahoo - I am afraid it is, and even more MSN, and if you look at ebookers.co.uk on MSN UK you’ll see only a very small number of pages. (this could be to do with the permanent direct though)
Ebookers is currently in the process of separating all its country sites away from a single IP address in the hope that the Google algorithm will automatically rectify the duplication issues affecting its listing process.
All ebookers can do now is make sure that all of their domains are on different Ip ranges, and then complete a reinclusion request (from Matt Cutts, Google Engineer) and pray that Google let’s them back in due to this mistake BUT by making them different Ip ranges, they will have to make sure the content is not duplicated.
Darren Cronian | 11 August, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Yep Kevin, I’ve commented about your news article above. What are your comments on the issues at ebookers?
Kevin May | 11 August, 2006 at 4:43 pm
We’ve added some comment here - http://travolution.blogspot.com/2006/08/ebookers-comes-clean-on-google-issue.html - but essentially the Ebookers situation is very interesting, especially in the wider context of the online travel industry.
The company - under founder Dinesh Dhamija - was one of the success stories of the dot-com boom, and as one the early adopters in online travel.
Some argue that Dhamija did the right thing when the US giants - in the guise of Cendant this time - came laden with dollars.
Since then, however, Ebookers has been saddled with a number of problems, with this week’s search engine optimisation issue just one.
It could be argued that Ebookers has been allowed stagnate since Cendant took over, but, likewise, the speed in which it was created in the late-1990s (and, remember, pretty successfully) has meant that perhaps the old methods of hosting and running websites were a little out of tune with how crucial search engines would become in recent years.
Essentially this boils down to the fact that the suite of Ebookers country sites are hosted on the same IP address, with largely the same content.
This is turn makes the likes of Google very angry - thus its recent spat with Ebookers, which saw it de-list the dot-com version for a few months, and why now it is having problems with gaining anything close to the kind of search listing it should be.
Perhaps the one key thing to remember in all this is how many people actually search for “ebookers”?? Probably not that many - especially as their branding is still a very strong element in their success.
What would be a far bigger worry would be if searches for products/destinations and the like failed to bring in Ebookers results.
Of course, Travel Rants readers are more than welcome to try some examples and let us know.
Kevin May, editor, Travolution
Darren Cronian | 11 August, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Kevin, thanks for your comments.
You are right that very few people will search for ‘ebookers’ and until today, I’d never visited the website, but if you do generic searches, where you would expect them to rank on the 1st page, you can’t find them in Google UK.
i.e, cheap hotels, cheap flights, holiday packages, car hire etc.
This is going to cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds to recover from, not just from lost custom, but also the increase in having to pay for Google Adsense, which is expensive for competitive travel keywords.
The added worry is that people linking to the co.uk domain - could they be affected to? Or worse still people who are being linked to from the ebookers.co.uk will have lost a good link, and this could affect their own rankings in the search engines, due to the lost link(s)
It’ll be interesting if ebookers recover from this, and until they sort out the ip issues, it’ll be a while before Google reinstate them. Everyone makes mistakes, but this is the costliest mistake they could of made, and it shows that they have inexperienced search engine optimisers working for them, as this is a basic SEO mistake - sorry to say.
David Wolledge | 12 August, 2006 at 10:32 am
This a very interesting story on a subject that has affected one of my sites for around 4 months. Ukcoastguide has been up for about a year now - we were slow to be listed but were listed by goolge by March of this year. Then the site went into supplemental index except for the home page - we’re still there!
This seems to be an ongoing problem with the google index since March 2006 (Big Daddy related?) when alot of sites suffered the same thing. I’ve come to believe that it occurred because we did’nt have very many links and they were mostly reciprocal. But there are lots of theories about this fairly widespread problem - (for newish sites). Check out the forums at webproworld for more info.
It will be interesting to see what reaction google has - will they respond because it is a large, well known company or not. My experience is that they respond with a standard email - saying look at the webmaster guidelines but won’t go into details. Intersting!
Darren Cronian | 12 August, 2006 at 11:16 am
Hi David,
Is countrysideguide.co.uk, strategicassets.co.uk, also your domain aswell?
All 3 of these sites look similar in design - if you have interlinked the sites, are both of them are on different IP addresses? It’s looking like they are all on the same IP address.
Could it be an issue with duplicate content?
When Google looks at duplicate content is looks at the code, not just the actual content. It appears to me that you have interlinked 3 websites, got a few forum links, and wiki links, and no other real sites linking to you.
The Big Daddy update would have worked its way through and corrected your site now if it had got it wrong, so Im thinking you should split up the 3 sites and get them hosted by 3 different companies, or ask your current hosting company to assign the 3 sites to different ip ranges.
Then work like mad to increase the links to your site, and in time these pages will disppear from supplimental to proper searchable pages.
Darren
Darren Cronian | 12 August, 2006 at 11:20 am
.. to add it looks like to me that ebookers don’t have the people with knowledge or atleast people with the “finger on the pulse” because why would you want the DMOZ title to remain on the Google listing, when you can fix this by adding the meta tag so that the actual title tag appears in Google.
Seems to be a number of errors that have caused these problems, and for a company which relies on the internet for it’s custom. If your new to search engine optimisation, the ebookers network of sites is an example of how not to market your websites on the internet search engines.
Darren Cronian | 12 August, 2006 at 11:42 am
Is Octopus travel next? the Octopus travel sites I have used before, and they are also interlinking to these sites, and it is starting to show supplimental results in Google.
portal-012 » Ebookers dumped from Google | 12 August, 2006 at 12:47 pm
[...] Reports this week that ebookers, a subsidiary of Cendant Corporation, is currently having issues with Google. The reports are correct as the site http://www.ebookers.co.uk has been dropped from Google search results, with only six âsupplementalâ pages in the search engine. Reports this week that ebookers, a subsidiary of Cendant Corporation, is currently having issues with Google. The reports are correct as the site http://www.ebookers.co.uk has been dropped from Google search results, with only six âsupplementalâ pages in the search engine. Ebookers dumped from Google [...]
David Wolledge | 12 August, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Hi Darren
Thanks for comments which I appreciate. I don’t think its a dupicate content problem as we went to supplemental index before I linked to these sites which are mine. I only linked to ukcoastguide in an effort to increase links. The countrysideguide is relevant but strategicassets is not relevant - just trying it!!
No the real problem seems to be lack of good links - we’re working on it but its slow work. But there are many sites with the same thing - mostly supplemental results. Webproword had pages of comments during early summer - many sites are still in SI. It has been suggested by some that these are unintended results - assocatied with the change to the Big Daddy data centres but onebody really seems to know. I’ll watch this carefully - if ebookers stay in the supplementals it could be devasating for thier business!
regards
Darren Cronian | 12 August, 2006 at 2:44 pm
No problem, but are all three websites, on the same IP address?
I only noticed the three websites, after posting my initial comments, so edited the comment, but didn’t really explain that if all 3 sites are on the same ip address then this could be the reason for the supplimental pages.
Your right about ebookers though - lessons learnt for everyone I think.
Darren | 22 August, 2006 at 10:52 am
The problems continue for ebookers - it appears that the .com version of their domain has also been dropped from Google results aswell.
ebookers´ Probleme mit Google « elmexercises | 13 December, 2006 at 11:02 am
[...] ebookers hatte massive Probleme mit Google - und war zeitweilig aus dem organischen Index der populären Suchmaschine komplett hinausgeflogen. [...]
subscribe to travel rants
blog navigation
-
-
best of travel rants
travel guides
blogroll
bookmarking
-
18 responses to “ebookers banned by Google”