allinurl and inurl

What am I seeing exactly?

[webdude]

Okay,

When I search allinurl:example.com, I am getting 3 links returned, the first 2 are my home page and an indented link to my site map. The third is a directory with /action.php?url=http://example.com in the url. I checked with a header checker and this is a 302 redirect.

When I click on "repeat the search with the omitted results included" I get over 700 returns, all of them from my site except the directory with /action.php?url=http://example.com in the url. Almost half of the returns from my site are truncated urls with no description.

When I do inurl:example.com, I get the exact same results.

A few questions to put my mind at ease please...

Am what I am seeing normal?

Why so many "omitted results?"

Should I have the 302 redirect removed from the directory? I can't even find it on any of my search phrases.

What exactly is the difference between inurl and allinurl?

Thanks for the help.

[edited by: ciml at 5:36 pm (utc) on June 14, 2005]
[edit reason] Examplified [/edit]

[webdude]

bump (sorry)

[nuevojefe]

<quote>The third is a directory with /action.php?url=http://example.com in the url. I checked with a header checker and this is a 302 redirect.</quote>

Try to get that link removed.

<quote>Am what I am seeing normal? </quote>

With all the scrapers out there, and old link directories that never thought of Google screwing up redirects... yea, pretty much.

<quote>Why so many "omitted results?"</quote>

Are your ommited pages unique? Are they indexable? Normally, this is not a good sign.

[webdude]

I must admit that about 50% of the ommited pages are from a forum. A lot of them show up in the regular serps, but not when I do allinurl or inurl. The other 50% of the omitted results are totally unique and written by myself or other authors. The pages do share the same menu, header and footer info though. I never had a problem with this on a bunch of other commercial sites of mine.

I am in the process of getting the 302 link removed. I thought I got them all, but I guess not.

[webdude]

Oaky, I just tried some searches of some of the top sites in my niche. Guess what, Almost all show jus a couple or more pages when doing allinurl. All other links are ommited results.

Decided to do the same for big sites to see what happens.

Yahoo shows 5 links, the rest are ommited.

Even www.WebMaster world shows only one link with one supplimental. The rest ommited and one with a third party.

webmasterworld is the same, one link, one indented, one third party.

Hmmm... Interesting.

allinurl for google.com shows about 65 links, 50 indented, the rest ommited.

allinurl for www.google.com shows about 41 links, 5 or so indented, the rest ommited.

M**soft show 35 - the rest omttted.

Lots and Lots of ommited pages out there.

[steveb]

webdude, sorry if I'm not understanding your post, but allinurl: searches act like normal searches... meaning you should commonly see one result for your domain, then an indented result, then any trashy stuff that has your domain name in the URL.

So, there are a lot of omitted results because 1) your domain has lots of pages with the url in it but only two will be displayed, and 2) the trashy other sites normally will not be that many (under 1000).

allinurl:example.com site:example.com
may be more helpful to you.

[nuevojefe]

Oops, I was thinking site: on my last comment of my last post.

[webdude]

steveb

So I guess what I am seeing is normal. One link with one indented and the rest omitted?

Thanks for the info.

Still trying to get the redirect erased. No luck yet. I hope this isn't a repeat of a few months ago when I lost the site totally.

Does anyone know why these modules that build php directories go with a 302 for tracking? They seem to be a problem and there are a lot of people doing sites that aren't even aware of what they are doing.

[Reid]

allinurl:www.widgets.com

you are searching for "www.widgets.com" text string IN THE URL of the results. That's all - nothing more nothing less.

The 302 link - if the cache is your page that's bad.
If the cache is their page - no harm done.

nocache? Title is yours? description is yours? That's bad.

[webdude]

Reid -

The 302 link - if the cache is your page that's bad.
If the cache is their page - no harm done.

No cache on this page.

nocache? Title is yours? description is yours? That's bad.

No title or description in G. Just one of those trunacted URLs. Good?

[Reid]

if it's url-only then my guess is that there is a noindex/nofollow or something on that page and no harm done.

The bad 302 hijacks used to look like this

YOUR TITLE
your dscription, a snippet taken
directly from your page-...............cache of your page
someone-elses-url.com

[webdude]

Guess maybe I'll leave it for now.

[librarian]

Hi,
I've been following a number of threads relating to 301 and 302 problems. So the topic of this thread caught my interest. In reading what you all have been saying, I decided to try the search on a client's site. Back in Dec. or Jan. his site went missing. We've looked for 302s and think we may have found all of them. Then we discovered pages going blue linked and two versions of the domain. The old www vs no www. We put in place a 301 which has seemed to be working. Google has spidered his site. Most pages are back with the title and description including the home page. The only problem is none of the pages are yet showing any search results.

Then I decided to try the inurl: and allinurl: commands to see if I could find another 302. There is one questionable site, a directory that could be another 302 problem. I've written to them asking to have the site removed.

While doing the two commands above I discovered another potential problem. Two home pages. One has the title and description and the exact same domain URL is blue linked. Both show in each of the search command results. I'm curious if anyone else has seen this problem. Do you think it is a problem?

Thanks,
Librarian