site: vs allinurl:

i don't get it

[nippi]

site a

site:sitea.com 10,000 pages
allinurl:site1.com 40,000 pages

site:siteb.com 12,000 pages
allinurl:800 pages

Can anyone explain why such large differences in site and allinurl, sometimes one is higher than the other?

[nippi]

mmn, my post is not too clear, but basically stating for two different sites.

(1) One has a high site: and low allinurl:
(2) The other, has the reverse, low site: and high allinurl:

What could cause this?

[tedster]

From the Google information at [google.com...]

Note that [allinurl:] works on words, not url components. In particular, it ignores punctuation. Thus, [allinurl: foo/bar] will restrict the results to page with the words "foo" and "bar" in the url, but won't require that they be separated by a slash within that url, that they be adjacent, or that they be in that particular word order. There is currently no way to enforce these constraints.

So the "." in example.com will be ignored and the number of results will depend on how many total pages on the web (not just your domain) that contain "example" and "com" in the url.

[daveVk]

Supplemental pages seem to be included in counts on more or less random basis. site: claims to include these, but quite often does not. inurl/allinurl does not normally include Supplemental pages, but may well on occassions. Also as tedster explained inurl is wider search than inurl, search terms match anywhere within url.