John Bokma wrote:
> Results 1 - 10 of about 9,880 from johnbokma.com
> I don't have 9,880 pages in Google. My site has about 1,000 pages,
> probably less.
Well, I am aware of the lack of accuracy in the site: operator (let's set
the recent myths about it being broken aside for now). It had never been
showing absolute precise numbers and have gone completely crazy after a
quick war about who's index is bigger broke out last summer between Y!
and G. However, what degree of tolerance can you expect from the function:
One of my 75,000+ pages forum site shows 10 pages and the Google traffic
commensurate: there is none.
Another 500,000+ site went from 1,450,000 pages in the index (I later
found out there was the canonical problem on this site which would have
explained more than doubling the size) went down to 700 pages and Google's
traffic somewhat agreed - went down 10-15 times.
So, with this guy having 108,000,000 pages shown with site: operator,
could you not expect that he really has millions upon millions of pages,
even though not quite 108?
> As has been reported for quite some time: the site: operator doesn't
> work anymore as expected. It's really funny to make up stories based on
> that, but it's not going to help. Thought you had an academic background?
I am also well aware of the fact that Google Sitemaps team (Ha? Is it not
the indexing team's realm? but I digress - it's Google, what else can you
expect?) had announced on their blog that the site:operator is not
showing correct results in two cases: on hyphenated domains and with the
slash "/" at the end. Later on, there was an announcement that the slash
'/' thing got fixed. That leaves only hyphenated domains. None of the
domains in question is hyphenated.
So, with all the assumed inaccuracy, I say these guys have really managed
to pollute Google's index with billions of subdomains which clearly shows
that Google is still prone to subdomain spam - the thing that they knew
about for years! In a matter of seconds I have found a forum page from
2003 where GoogleGuy talks about it.
Venting little further: if they knew that site: operator is broken, why
didn't they disable it? That is, you go to Google, type in
site:johnbokma.com and get a page in return that says: "We are sorry, this
feature is unavailable".
I think the fact of the matter is: the site: operator works, albeit like
always ? inaccurately. It?s the index that?s broken. However, it is much
better for publicity to sacrifice a little obscure operator that only
webmasters use and not cast any shadows on the core of the business ? the
index. And publicity is all they got to back up that $120B capitalization
they?ve gained recently?
--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below
--
+------------------------------------------------+
| Follow alt.internet.search-engines threads |
| with your Firefox Live Bookmarks! Set it up at |
| http://www.1-script.com/forums/ |
+------------------------------------------------+
|
|
