Our latest blog post describes an alternate verification process that we are considering. This would not replace our current process. It would be a new option for those who can't verify using the existing method.
We'd like your feedback on this. If you can't verify now, would you be able to verify using this process? Do you see any potential problems with this method?
Please read through the post and reply here to let us know. Thanks as always for your input.
This is great news. The issues that we have seen with the verification process is that sometimes it will not recognize the file at all - even though it is there, and then in a few days it picks it up properly. There is no consistency in this, which frustrates this former software tester.
I think this is a solid option for those who don't have the ability to edit filenames on their server. However, it can also be argued that if they don't have the ability to edit a filename on their server, how serious are they?
I would still like to see the ability to use Google Sitemaps and have a custom 404 error page. We used to be able to disable the custom 404 - get our feed validated, and then put it back out there, but now, it won't allow us to do that. Is this planned on being allowed?
Once this is available, we will try the meta tag option to see if we have better luck with it long-term.
Overall, we are THRILLED with this service and we have found a lot of errors on our site that we weren't aware of thanks to you. If it would improve the service and features, we'd be willing to pay a monthly fee to access this information.
"...Some webmasters can't do this (for instance, they can't upload files or they can't choose filenames)."
This would typically be the case with say, a blog on Blogger.com. If you allow the meta tag verification then I could edit my template and verify the site. Simple.
However, I don't really "own" that page on blogger.com, do I? Should I be entitled to "bypass" the admin / owner of blogger.com and get stats for this blog?
Google Employee wrote: > Our latest blog post describes an alternate verification process that > we are considering. This would not replace our current process. It > would be a new option for those who can't verify using the existing > method.
> We'd like your feedback on this. If you can't verify now, would you be > able to verify using this process? Do you see any potential problems > with this method?
> Please read through the post and reply here to let us know. Thanks as > always for your input.
"We would check for this META tag in the first <HEAD> section of the page, before the first <BODY> section. We would do this so that if your home page is editable (for instance, is a wiki-type page or a blog with comments), someone could not add this META tag to the editable section of your page and claim ownership of your site."
So, posting the meta tag in a blog comment, on a wiki, or any other editable page will not be valid.
I think that this is an excellent idea in providing an alternative verification process. Please keep us posted as to whether or not this becomes a reality.
Sounds good, although the verification problems I've had have been on google's end, not on my end. I'm able to upload the verification file, but google can never seem to find it. So, assuming that google can locate the meta tag ok, go for it. Whatever will work.
Google Employee wrote: > Our latest blog post describes an alternate verification process that > we are considering. This would not replace our current process. It > would be a new option for those who can't verify using the existing > method.
> We'd like your feedback on this. If you can't verify now, would you be > able to verify using this process? Do you see any potential problems > with this method?
> Please read through the post and reply here to let us know. Thanks as > always for your input.
