Still Broken!!! - Page 3

**FredFredrickson** · November 27th, 2007, 3:56 PM

So uh, I might be stupid in saying this, but from what I could read, you can't get Google Feed Reader to see updates on http://www.lissakay.com/index.php/weblog/rss_2.0

??

I didn't have any trouble...

Am I doing something wrong?

**puckchaser** · November 27th, 2007, 4:01 PM

I hate to jump into the fray here.. but, I think the issue is that UPDATES are not working. Google will publish the initial refreshed database, but if she makes an updated post, Google doesnt capture it.

Other than that, I can offer no solution or advice.. sorry.

**FredFredrickson** · November 27th, 2007, 4:08 PM

Is it possible that it's running off a SLOW google cache? I just subscribed to the feed using google's reader, and it has two posts that were not on the main page when I subscribed - meaning Google's not just slow to ADD updates, but slow to remove updates. Apparently it doesn't just query your feed every time it's added. It knew those updates were there, even though they weren't when I added it- making me guess that It was loading off a cache (a sloooow cache). I dunno about you, but when I use feedburner, there can be a 3 day lag before my posts hit up the RSS feeds.

...

My guess is google doesn't want to accidentally get added to abuse lists, so it won't hit up a feed more than once a day, maybe?

If that's the case, then of course new posts won't show up, where adding a new feed to test it works great. Maybe it's a bit of a lag, and it's possible that Google has deemed your server *boring* due to slow updates, in which case it puts your site on a slow rotation (maybe index only once a week). It happens, unless Google notices you change up alot. No point wasting precious CPU indexing a slow site.

I know that I don't have 99% of the information the support has, but from here, it looks like a caching issue to me.

**LissaKay** · November 27th, 2007, 4:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FredFredrickson

I know that I don't have 99% of the information the support has, but from here, it looks like a caching issue to me.

That was my initial thought too ... Bloglines used to have problems with this, and they would have to clear the cache in order for feeds to continue updating. It's why I stopped using them.

But Google says no, it isn't a caching issue, it is in how the server responds to their Feedfetcher crawler. It is not being blocked, it is being told an incorrect status ... namely 304 - not modified when there is new content. They were also able to see occasional 200 - OK responses, but then no content was sent after the header, in essence an empty body.

My server logs (Recent Visitors, in cPanel) shows Google Feedfetcher hitting my feeds on a regular basis, about once an hour. Those also show the 304 response.

Support has now declared the issue "resolved" and cast the blame on my .htaccess file ...which I find amazing, since
1. It was not changed in any way when this issue first started,
2. I had already tried disabling it before,
3. I am unaware that .htaccess even has this ability to send a different http response code - I thought it either blocked or allowed access, go figure,
4. Google and their Feedfetcher are only specified in the htaccess file as being specifically allowed access, and
5. Google stated that it is not the htaccess file that is causing the problem.

And as for communication, sure I realize that these guys' first language isn't English ... but I sent the information I got from Google to them well over a dozen times! And also reminded them of the mucking about with the ImageMagick, phpsuexec and server error 500 issues (as yet unresolved also!) numerous times, which also occurred at the same time the issue started. But I'm not a bit tetchy that they can't understand me, not at all ... I think it's just swell that these guys can have jobs like this - while I have been unemployed now for 2 months because my job got outsourced to Bangalore and I am realizing the futility of getting a CompSci degree now that I am halfway there! I will be sure to celebrate diversity from the comfort of my box under a bridge next month! We are the world! We are the children!

/snark

But hey, if they want to say it was htaccess while they fix whatever it really is, then fine ... as long as it works!

H · November 27th, 2007, 5:08 PM

.htaccess might do more than you think then. It's far beyond an allow or deny list. Depending on what you're doing, you can force a status code. Theroetically, you could probably capture FeedFetcher and always feed it a 200 status.

**FredFredrickson** · November 27th, 2007, 5:15 PM

Well, glad to see it's working!

My advice I always give, however, it's easier to catch bees with honey than vinegar!

**LissaKay** · November 27th, 2007, 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H

.htaccess might do more than you think then. It's far beyond an allow or deny list. Depending on what you're doing, you can force a status code. Theroetically, you could probably capture FeedFetcher and always feed it a 200 status.

Show me. What would be the code in my present htaccess file that would cause this? (See #s 4 and 5 above) and how would it have been added without my knowledge a month ago, and how would that code remain invisible to me now?

http://www.lissakay.com/htaccess.txt

I've searched the file for Google, Feedfetcher and the IP address that Google is using, 72.14.199.56 and find nothing other than where Google and Feedfetcher are specifically allowed access.

H · November 27th, 2007, 6:27 PM

There's absolutely nothing in your .htaccess that would be affecting this issue -- at least nothing I saw. There was a lot of crud in the file for hotlink protection. I'd say the problem is not with your .htaccess file, in agreement with Google.

I'm going to do some test cases at home to see what could cause to happen.

**Kayla** · November 27th, 2007, 9:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FredFredrickson

I would assure you that the support guys were trying to help, and may have had a bit of trouble understanding just what the issue was. Sometimes it takes a bit of work just to communicate the issue.

LissaKay is famous now over here.

Everyone has tried to help her. We don't find any of this to be BS either.

I understand this was frustrating but calling us idiots in your blog over your frustration over again, a feed reader issue, is not cooool.

November 27th, 2007, 4:01 PM	#20 (permalink)
puckchaser He shoots.. He scores! Super #1 Joined in Feb 2007 Lives in A room with no windows. Hosted on SH110 1,448 posts Gave thanks: 46 Thanked 140 times	I hate to jump into the fray here.. but, I think the issue is that UPDATES are not working. Google will publish the initial refreshed database, but if she makes an updated post, Google doesnt capture it. Other than that, I can offer no solution or advice.. sorry. __________________ SH110

November 27th, 2007, 4:08 PM	#21 (permalink)
FredFredrickson Senior Member Super #1 Joined in Nov 2003 Lives in New Hampshire 1,260 posts Gave thanks: 3 Thanked 27 times	Is it possible that it's running off a SLOW google cache? I just subscribed to the feed using google's reader, and it has two posts that were not on the main page when I subscribed - meaning Google's not just slow to ADD updates, but slow to remove updates. Apparently it doesn't just query your feed every time it's added. It knew those updates were there, even though they weren't when I added it- making me guess that It was loading off a cache (a sloooow cache). I dunno about you, but when I use feedburner, there can be a 3 day lag before my posts hit up the RSS feeds. ... My guess is google doesn't want to accidentally get added to abuse lists, so it won't hit up a feed more than once a day, maybe? If that's the case, then of course new posts won't show up, where adding a new feed to test it works great. Maybe it's a bit of a lag, and it's possible that Google has deemed your server boring due to slow updates, in which case it puts your site on a slow rotation (maybe index only once a week). It happens, unless Google notices you change up alot. No point wasting precious CPU indexing a slow site. I know that I don't have 99% of the information the support has, but from here, it looks like a caching issue to me. __________________

November 27th, 2007, 5:15 PM	#24 (permalink)
FredFredrickson Senior Member Super #1 Joined in Nov 2003 Lives in New Hampshire 1,260 posts Gave thanks: 3 Thanked 27 times	Well, glad to see it's working! My advice I always give, however, it's easier to catch bees with honey than vinegar! __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

November 27th, 2007, 5:08 PM	#23 (permalink)
H after g, before i Resident. Joined in Jul 2004 Lives in N,BC,CA 8,084 posts Gave thanks: 48 Thanked 131 times	.htaccess might do more than you think then. It's far beyond an allow or deny list. Depending on what you're doing, you can force a status code. Theroetically, you could probably capture FeedFetcher and always feed it a 200 status.

November 27th, 2007, 6:27 PM	#26 (permalink)
H after g, before i Resident. Joined in Jul 2004 Lives in N,BC,CA 8,084 posts Gave thanks: 48 Thanked 131 times	There's absolutely nothing in your .htaccess that would be affecting this issue -- at least nothing I saw. There was a lot of crud in the file for hotlink protection. I'd say the problem is not with your .htaccess file, in agreement with Google. I'm going to do some test cases at home to see what could cause to happen.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)