The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. August 22, 2019, 02:54:25 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: site: parameter & two different google indexes?  (Read 2567 times)
svakanda
Expert
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 131



View Profile
« on: September 03, 2009, 11:19:03 AM »

I just posted this on my blog, so please excuse the plug...but wtf...I found 'hidden' indexes or 'second' indexes of my site in google?  Was wondering if anyone has seen this before, and if they have anything to add?  i mean 283 and 983 is a pretty big fishing difference ?

http://sitevana.com/2009/i-noticed-something-strange-about-googles-index/
« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 01:07:07 PM by svakanda » Logged

a ship is safe in the harbor, but that's not what it's for.
nutballs
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5627


Back in my day we had 9 planets


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2009, 11:23:49 AM »

interesting.

I have never noticed that, because for a very long time I dont have parameterized URLs.
That would be strange, but yet, not out of character for google. They seem to be completely fucked up for a while now.

Thats why I now use bing. lol
Logged

I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and shit a better argument than that.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2009, 11:29:55 AM »

I ran inurl on one of mine but everything looked ok, no significant differences in count.
Logged
svakanda
Expert
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 131



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2009, 01:06:39 PM »

I ran inurl on one of mine but everything looked ok, no significant differences in count.

Was it a combined site: and inurl:

Do you use any dynamic parameters?

Did you run the inurl: on a parameter?

Logged

a ship is safe in the harbor, but that's not what it's for.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2009, 01:31:25 PM »

>Was it a combined site: and inurl:
yes

>Do you use any dynamic parameters?
yeah, somewhere. you're going to make me go see if i can find one, aren't you? crap. ok. ...grumble,grumble...

>Did you run the inurl: on a parameter?
ran inurl, but not on a parameter. i used different file extensions for inurl

Logged
svakanda
Expert
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 131



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2009, 01:35:39 PM »

i'd be interested in seeing if it soaks parameters differently then the base request URI.  If anyone else wants to check their stuff =)
Logged

a ship is safe in the harbor, but that's not what it's for.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2009, 01:45:53 PM »

ok, i found one that G shows 2800 with or without inurl:parameter
Logged
deregular
Expert
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 172


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2009, 09:57:01 PM »

Worked on one of my domains...

I did both

site:domain.com

and

site:domain.com inurl:domain.com

Different results.

202 for the first 630 for the second.

Will take a look later to see if i can work out whats causing it.
Logged
NYDAz
Expert
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 212

The Night Stalker


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2009, 02:25:14 AM »

did you try to go the last page and see there the numbers ?
Logged

what's up?
svakanda
Expert
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 131



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2009, 07:22:29 AM »

Yes Nydaz, it affects those numbers definitely.
Logged

a ship is safe in the harbor, but that's not what it's for.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Perkiset's Place Home   Best of The Cache   phpMyIDE: MySQL Stored Procedures, Functions & Triggers
Politics @ Perkiset's   Pinkhat's Perspective   
cache
mart
coder
programmers
ajax
php
javascript
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!