5 ms·
I downloaded the file and looked at the second 000 in his file, which refers to wixsite.com. It appears that wixsite.com isn't valid but www.wixsite.com is, an
by smugma 4y ago
I downloaded the file and looked at the second 000 in his file, which refers to wixsite.com.
It appears that wixsite.com isn't valid but www.wixsite.com is, and redirects to wix.com.
It's misleading to say that the sites are dead. As noted elsewhere, his source data is crap (other sites I checked such as wixstatic.com don't appear to be valid) but his methodology is bad, or at least his describing the sites as dead is misleading.
- code123456789 4y agowixsite.com is a domain for free sites built on Wix, so if your username on Wix is smugma, and your site name is mysite, then you'll have a URL like smugma.wixsite.com/mysite for your Home page. That's why this domain is in the top
- smugma 4y agoCorrect, that's why it's in the top. Your example further confirms why the author's methodology is broken.
- zinekeller 4y ago> other sites I checked such as wixstatic.com don't appear to be valid But docs.wixstatic.com is valid.
- quickthrower2 4y agoHe takes this into account by generously considering any returned response code as “not dead”. > there’s a longtail of sites that had a variety of non-200 reponse codes but just to be conservative we’ll assume that they are all valid
- mort96 4y agoThat doesn't take this into account, no. `curl wixsite.com` returns a "Could not resolve host" error; it doesn't return a response code, so the author would consider it invalid, even though `curl www.wixsite.com` does return a response (a 301 redirect to www.wix.com).
- quickthrower2 4y agoOh how does that work then? How does the browser get to the redirect when curl doesn't get any response at all? Is this a DNS thing?
- chrisweekly 4y agoapex domain is different from www cname
- quickthrower2 4y agoI just don't get how the browser gets a response like this (below), and then figures out what to do next. Sister comment said it might just try the common "www." prefix. $ dig wixsite.com ; <<>> DiG 9.16.1-Ubuntu <<>> wixsite.com ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 65168 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 65494 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;wixsite.com. IN A ;; Query time: 3 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.53#53(127.0.0.53) ;; WHEN: Sat Jul 16 09:12:42 AEST 2022 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 40 $ nslookup wixsite.com Server: 127.0.0.53 Address: 127.0.0.53#53 Non-authoritative answer: *** Can't find wixsite.com: No answer Does this mean that the WIX SEO team should really resurrect the record and do a 301, otherwise they are wasting their inbound links?
- smugma 4y agoAs someone hypothesizes above, it’s common for browsers to add www. to domains that don’t resolve.
- userbinator 4y agoI'm not sure if it's because I have my browsers set to generally "do what I say" or because I'm using a filtering proxy, but Firefox doesn't seem to try again if I just put "wixsite.com" in the address bar --- it gets a Host Not Found from the proxy and stops.
- winddude 4y ago100% agree his methodology is broken. Another example like this is googleapis.com. If I remember correctly there a quite a number of domains like this in magestic million. Not to mention a number of his requests may have been blocked.