<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How Inaccurate Google&#8217;s SITE: Operator Is and How to Fix&#160;It</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-site-operator-inaccurate/14519/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-site-operator-inaccurate/14519/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:23:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-site-operator-inaccurate/14519/comment-page-1/#comment-1150639</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:17:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=14519#comment-1150639</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s also amazing how different the results are at Yahoo and Bing for the site: operator command.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s also amazing how different the results are at Yahoo and Bing for the site: operator command.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-site-operator-inaccurate/14519/comment-page-1/#comment-1147920</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:12:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=14519#comment-1147920</guid>
		<description>Regular Google: 1,300
Datacenters: 30,100

Wow! What a difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regular Google: 1,300<br />
Datacenters: 30,100</p>
<p>Wow! What a difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-site-operator-inaccurate/14519/comment-page-1/#comment-1146677</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=14519#comment-1146677</guid>
		<description>site:buyandwalk.com

Regular Google: 4,080
All Datacenters: 135,000
Webmaster Tools: 3,945

Huge difference !!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>site:buyandwalk.com</p>
<p>Regular Google: 4,080<br />
All Datacenters: 135,000<br />
Webmaster Tools: 3,945</p>
<p>Huge difference !!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Pike</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-site-operator-inaccurate/14519/comment-page-1/#comment-1142722</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Pike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:52:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=14519#comment-1142722</guid>
		<description>When I do a Site: search I always navigate to the end to see what the &quot;REAL&quot; number is.

It&#039;s so annoying that the first pages of Google might say 163 pages are indexed but when you click on page 17 you redirected to page 14 and REALLY only 143 pages are indexed.

WHY CAN&#039;T GOOGLE JUST FIX THIS?!?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I do a Site: search I always navigate to the end to see what the &#8220;REAL&#8221; number is.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s so annoying that the first pages of Google might say 163 pages are indexed but when you click on page 17 you redirected to page 14 and REALLY only 143 pages are indexed.</p>
<p>WHY CAN&#8217;T GOOGLE JUST FIX THIS?!?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roland</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-site-operator-inaccurate/14519/comment-page-1/#comment-1142540</link>
		<dc:creator>Roland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:08:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=14519#comment-1142540</guid>
		<description>The number shown in Google is just a estimate from Google. Based on the number of indexed pages Google estimates the total number of pages of your site. If you want to see the real number of indexed pages: browse to the last page with search results (and click &#039;repeat the search with the omitted results included&#039; at the bottom of the page if you see this line). You will now see the real number of pages in the index.

This only works for small sites, because for large sites it is not possible to browse all result pages. Google only lets you browse the first 1000 indexed pages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The number shown in Google is just a estimate from Google. Based on the number of indexed pages Google estimates the total number of pages of your site. If you want to see the real number of indexed pages: browse to the last page with search results (and click &#8216;repeat the search with the omitted results included&#8217; at the bottom of the page if you see this line). You will now see the real number of pages in the index.</p>
<p>This only works for small sites, because for large sites it is not possible to browse all result pages. Google only lets you browse the first 1000 indexed pages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tinu</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-site-operator-inaccurate/14519/comment-page-1/#comment-1142381</link>
		<dc:creator>Tinu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:21:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=14519#comment-1142381</guid>
		<description>I always make sure to use: site:thesite.com and site:www. Thesite.com. I also agree with Mike re: fallflurries It&#039;s just that time of year. When you think about what the operator is supposed to be reflecting according to Google it makes sense. Google&#039;s reality is always in flux.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I always make sure to use: site:thesite.com and site:www. Thesite.com. I also agree with Mike re: fallflurries It&#8217;s just that time of year. When you think about what the operator is supposed to be reflecting according to Google it makes sense. Google&#8217;s reality is always in flux.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Derek Clark</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-site-operator-inaccurate/14519/comment-page-1/#comment-1142182</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek Clark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:08:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=14519#comment-1142182</guid>
		<description>&quot;I think the datacenters hold all the data and that data gets filtered down to regular google. &quot; - definitely.

Google samples data when serving results, especially when your query requires additional segmentation (ie, one slice for &quot;keyword&quot;, second slice for &quot;site:site.com&quot;).  I&#039;ve noticed that including different portions of my URL in competing &quot;site&quot; queries is sometimes necessary to shake out a URL I am looking for, even though the other variations I tried should&#039;ve returned it, too.

With clients I always use &quot;estimates&quot; when using Google stats, and &quot;reports&quot; when using Webmaster Tools.

I think it&#039;s also important for Google to protect their data by sprinkling in slight variance in results.  Static data sets could be reverse engineered, in theory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I think the datacenters hold all the data and that data gets filtered down to regular google. &#8221; &#8211; definitely.</p>
<p>Google samples data when serving results, especially when your query requires additional segmentation (ie, one slice for &#8220;keyword&#8221;, second slice for &#8220;site:site.com&#8221;).  I&#8217;ve noticed that including different portions of my URL in competing &#8220;site&#8221; queries is sometimes necessary to shake out a URL I am looking for, even though the other variations I tried should&#8217;ve returned it, too.</p>
<p>With clients I always use &#8220;estimates&#8221; when using Google stats, and &#8220;reports&#8221; when using Webmaster Tools.</p>
<p>I think it&#8217;s also important for Google to protect their data by sprinkling in slight variance in results.  Static data sets could be reverse engineered, in theory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IrishWonder</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-site-operator-inaccurate/14519/comment-page-1/#comment-1142151</link>
		<dc:creator>IrishWonder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:14:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=14519#comment-1142151</guid>
		<description>I guess the data can be more precise for smaller sites. I checked two and got either exact same or very close results:

site:irishwonder.com
Regular Google: 107
Datacenters: all 106

site:dirguide.info
Regular Google: 9
Datacenters: all 9</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess the data can be more precise for smaller sites. I checked two and got either exact same or very close results:</p>
<p>site:irishwonder.com<br />
Regular Google: 107<br />
Datacenters: all 106</p>
<p>site:dirguide.info<br />
Regular Google: 9<br />
Datacenters: all 9</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Martinez</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-site-operator-inaccurate/14519/comment-page-1/#comment-1142096</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Martinez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:29:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=14519#comment-1142096</guid>
		<description>What people are seeing right now appears to be Google&#039;s normal Fall Flurries, where many pages seem to be dumped (temporarily) from the index.  This has happened every fall since at least 2003, if not earlier.

Whether it happens for the same reason each year as in previous years is a matter of speculation.  I suspect the pattern is due more to a collision of random factors and timing of Google production schedules.

The situation usually begins in October and rights itself by mid-December or early January.  I have never seen Google try to explain the phenomenon.  I&#039;m not even sure if they have acknowledged it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What people are seeing right now appears to be Google&#8217;s normal Fall Flurries, where many pages seem to be dumped (temporarily) from the index.  This has happened every fall since at least 2003, if not earlier.</p>
<p>Whether it happens for the same reason each year as in previous years is a matter of speculation.  I suspect the pattern is due more to a collision of random factors and timing of Google production schedules.</p>
<p>The situation usually begins in October and rights itself by mid-December or early January.  I have never seen Google try to explain the phenomenon.  I&#8217;m not even sure if they have acknowledged it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JuiceeLinks</title>
		<link>http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-site-operator-inaccurate/14519/comment-page-1/#comment-1142072</link>
		<dc:creator>JuiceeLinks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:22:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=14519#comment-1142072</guid>
		<description>A customers website had the following:

Regular Google: 169
Webmasters Tools Indexed Pages: 106
Datacenters: 169 to 194</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A customers website had the following:</p>
<p>Regular Google: 169<br />
Webmasters Tools Indexed Pages: 106<br />
Datacenters: 169 to 194</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

