07-20-2010 07:23 PM - last edited on 07-20-2010 08:43 PM by JerryM
Hi. Is there perhaps a bug in your system? Or yo are getting site details from a cache rather than what's currently actually on the site?
I ask becuase I am having exactly the same problem as Vinny had a couple of weeks ago, with our site pandq.com: Despite both setting up the file in the root directory (and verifying it was accessible using
http://pandq.com/nortonsw_17575150-768a-0.html
as instructed) and adding it as a metatag (and verifying it via View Source and correctly seeing:
<meta name="norton-safeweb-site-verification" content="owt8nhx0-sb4gk3ib6dht493kpaehaaktxozl9n0r
(all on one line), I keep getting the message:
Web site ownership verification failed.
Can you do the necessary to fix the problem in our case, and perhaps to investigate the underlying problem.
Thanks!
Donald Q
<<Edit: Subject edited for the moved post to reflect the issue>>
Solved! Go to Solution.
07-20-2010 08:15 PM - last edited on 07-20-2010 08:44 PM by JerryM
Hi Donald Q,
The HTML file appears okay and the Safe Web meta tag appears to be properly formatted and placed on your home page.
I will notify the Safe Web team of your issue. Please allow them a day or two to respond back to you in this thread.
In the mean time, could you double check that the URL you submitted to Safe Web exactly matches your website address, letter for letter?
To be notified by email when a reply is posted, go to My Settings > Preferences and check the box for: "Automatically Subscribe Me to Topics I Participate In".
Norton 360 • Norton Internet Security • Norton Zone | XP SP3 • Windows 7 Professional SP1 x64
• PLEASE, BACKUP or EXPORT your Identity Safe Data on a regular basis •
07-20-2010 09:56 PM
Hi Donald
We have verified ownership & queued up your website 'pandq.com' for analysis, soon new rating will be reflected in safeweb.norton.com.
Cops
07-21-2010 04:08 AM
Thanks for sorting the problem, guys!
I should have said in my original email that I had indeed already checked that the web name submitted was correct , Phil - as your colleague found.
Hopefully someoone will get to the bottom of why this problem recurs - I bet it's a caching issue!
Best regards,
Donald Q
