Local Search Expert
- Jun 28, 2012
Link: <a href="https://plus.google.com/wm/www.gif.ly-sucks-off-sam-breed/+ImpressionsDentalChandler/about">https://plus.google.com/wm/www.gif.ly-sucks-off-sam-breed/+ImpressionsDentalChandler</a>
The URL hack you see above appears to be pretty widespread and has been around for some time.
I just learned of it today.
Here is the Google Business Community Post: <a href="https://www.en.advertisercommunity.com/t5/Spam-Policy/Interesting-URL/m-p/492156#M346">Interesting URL</a>. Local Consultant Kyle G was doing an audit for an attorney client and found a duplicate page with the offending URL.
You'll see that Helmut said it's a known issue and points to a thread from back in August about it. I assume he and others have escalated and if not, I will.
There are thousands more listings like one above. Here's another Dentist example:
But if you search Google+ for it, the correct URL shows up: https://plus.google.com/u/0/107865825745486505186/about.
So is that considered a duplicate page or just another version of the URL?
And how the heck did they do it???
Here are searches for just 2 industries that show thousands of Google Local hacked pages with that "gif.ly sucks off" URL injection. Plug these queries into Google and see tons more.
site:plus.google.com "gif.ly" "dental
site:plus.google.com "gif.ly" "attorney"
Just replace with different local keywords like plumber and you'll see tons more.
So you might want to search for your client's name like this to see if they are affected:
site:plus.google.com "gif.ly" "business name"
Oh SHOOT: Just took my own advice and Googled my business page "Catalyst eMarketing" it's not affected but my new Local Search Community that has 104,000 members is!
Check out the URL to <a href="https://plus.google.com/wm/www.gif.ly-sucks-off-sam-breed/communities/100733314294792518208">Local Search Dynamics</a>
Oh and FYI it's happening on G+ brand pages as well, I only highlighted Google Local because that's our primary focus.
The GOOD NEWS! I don't think customers would ever see this. And I suspect it's not a problem. Initially I was concerned because Kyle said it was a duplicate page. But in thinking more about it, I think it's just a different version of the URL and I think you only see it if you specifically search like I did with the query strings above.
Welcome to the wild wild web. Hackers suck!