hi all.  my site verification keeps resetting.  It approves it and
than keeps resetting it a few days later.  I do have multiple accounts
and i own my own servers.  it works for about 2 days or so - than must
re-check it with the robots and gets lost in my PAGE NOT FOUND on my
server.  It says:

"We've detected that your 404 (file not found) error page returns a
status of 200 (Success) in the header."

Any suggestions?  I hate to have my programmers have to alter the
server set up if they do not have to.  Why does google not trust the
1st approval and keep having to check it?

If your server is responding with a 200 Ok message for pages that are
not located on your server, this could be causing the issue you are
seeing with your verification being reset.  This is something I'd
advise correcting. This way when the Google crawler or other search
engine checks for a robots.txt file, they get a 200 response if the
file is found and a 404 response if it is not found. If they get a 200
response for both cases then it is ambiguous if your site has blocked
search engines or not, reducing the likelihood your site will be fully
crawled and indexed.

The other possibility that could be causing this issue is if you are
removing your verification Meta tag or HTML file after you verify.
These should be left in place on the server to enable Google to
reconfirm your verification in the future.

The reason Google continually checks is because if it didn't, once
someone verified, they would effectively "own" the site as far as
Google is concerned and never removed.

For example, let's say you have a web master who you want to have
access to various Google tools so he puts a verification file/meta on
the site.  But, a month later he gets fired but since he initially
verified, he still has all the access to google tools that you might
not want him to have.

It took me a while to figure out why contiually verifying was required
to but eventually it hit me that it is a case of making sure the
condition that existed before, still exists.

For what it's worth.

Craig

On Feb 28, 1:56 am, bindursky wrote: