site:url

understanding results

[stu2]

I have a couple of new domains which are parked awaiting development. When I do a site:example.com I get the following...

www.example1.com/
Similar pages - Filter

and the other one shows...

example2.com/
Similar pages - Filter

Is there any difference in these 2 results? Anything to be concerned about canonical issues for the future?

They only show the 1 page, of course. Can I really say that these 2 domains are really in the google index, or is google just spoofing me by putting up a link to the url search?

Would this be any indication of the sandbox being in effect?

[great_9]

In my experience, google is EVIL in many things. A lot of them are justified by "we're testing this, we're testing that, that's our new datacenter...". GoogleGarbageTalk, if you ask me.

One day I'm getting 164,000 results for site:mydomain.com, 162,800 results for site:www.mydomain.com.

Now, I'm getting somewhere near the real 89,000 results, but only 4 inbound links and one is from my site. (Oh yeah, all my insite urls are www.mydomain.com).

Before, when it was on the 164,000 results, it showed near real 800 inbound links, out of which 200 are from www.mydomain.com.

PR6, 1% of traffic I should really get from google, no duplicated content (maybe someone copied me?), other pages from PR1 to PR6. Can anyone explain that?

They are organizing the worlds data? They're holding so much back...

[rainborick]

Getting different results for the "site:" command when you include or omit the "www." subdomain prefix is evidence that Google is indexing the two versions of your URL separately, which usually means you're rankings will be impaired. For reasons that passeth understaning, Google has been stubbornly clinging to this practice for their basic crawling system. Sites in this predicament often show many pages in URL-only state with no <title> or page snippet, especially the root URL, which is a sign of a duplicate content penalty on that page/URL and confirms this diagnosis. Google will eventually run a reconcilliation process that canonicalizes (ie. merges) the two versions of your URL in their index, but until they do you'll likely have problems.

The ranking problems is why you'll often see people recommend that you set up a 301 redirect from one version of your URL to the other. Google will pick up on the 301 redirect far faster than it will remedy the situation on its own, so it only makes sense to install the fix. It doesn't matter if you prefer the version of your URL with the "www" subdomain or without it. The key is to pick one and stick to it. Do your best to locate any links that use the improper version and correct the ones under your control and ask the appropriate webmaster to fix the ones on other websites. Other people seem to feel that adding a <base> tag to your webpages is also a good idea. It certainly seems to help reduce hijacking problems even if it doesn't help with this one, so you can add that to your "to do" list at the same time. Good luck!

[spainly]

i have a 190.000 pages site. from jagger i lost 80% google referers. from jagger site:domain.com returns results in a weird order

1 - domain.com/smallsection/3.html
2 - domain.com/smallsection/6.html
3 - domain.com/smallsection/2.html
4 - domain.com/smallsection/1.html
...
1300 - domain.com/anothersmallsection/4.html
1301 - domain.com/anothersmallsection/2.html
1302 - domain.com/anothersmallsection/3.html

the important big section is returned at the end, and the index page!. i can only guess that the small sections come first because they are new and free of supplementals.

I see this as a supplemental big problems certification. only small sections are getting serps...

anyone seeing this?

[great_9]

So I should put some PHP code which will get the REQUEST field of the visitors browser and then do a header-location-redirect to the www.mydomain.com if the requested url is mydomain.com.
Before sending a redirection header, a 301 header should be sent also?

Did I understood you correctly?