<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Site Operator: an Ode to Thee</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.brianwhite.org/2007/04/27/google-site-operator-an-ode-to-thee/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.brianwhite.org/2007/04/27/google-site-operator-an-ode-to-thee/</link>
	<description>Webspam, Google, Et Cetera</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:47:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://www.brianwhite.org/2007/04/27/google-site-operator-an-ode-to-thee/#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2007 20:11:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brianwhite.org/2007/04/27/google-site-operator-an-ode-to-thee/#comment-21</guid>
		<description>John,

My site is very small right now, so the 33 estimated pages is right on the money :)  But I have seen the same as you.  I can't speculate on when we might do better at estimated results.

Also, good point on the space between the colon and the domain name (or TLD, or domain name + subdirectory etc.).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John,</p>
<p>My site is very small right now, so the 33 estimated pages is right on the money <img src='http://www.brianwhite.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  But I have seen the same as you.  I can&#8217;t speculate on when we might do better at estimated results.</p>
<p>Also, good point on the space between the colon and the domain name (or TLD, or domain name + subdirectory etc.).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JohnMu</title>
		<link>http://www.brianwhite.org/2007/04/27/google-site-operator-an-ode-to-thee/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>JohnMu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2007 11:24:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brianwhite.org/2007/04/27/google-site-operator-an-ode-to-thee/#comment-18</guid>
		<description>Perhaps I'm jumping ahead, but I would love your insiders take on the "about" number, especially with regards to the site:-operator. Where does it come from, what does it mean, should we care or should we just look at the first 10 results and accept that there might be more (or maybe not)?

I like to go to the last visible page of results ("&#38;start=990") and check the numbers, I've seen such gems as (numbers above 10 are made up, but the order of magnitude is correct):
"500-507 of about 0" (a lot of these lately)
"500-507 of about 300"
"500-507 of about 507" (would be optimal)
"500-507 of about 900"
"500-507 of about 500'000'000" (I love those)
(these are with the extended results activated ("&#38;filter=0"))

Website owners love numbers. They love to see that their content is being treated with respect by Google :-) so they would really love to see "how many pages are currently indexed". They're also afraid of the supplemental index - they'd love to see "how many pages are only in the supplemental index".

Ah, and while you're with the site:-operator, just like the link:-operator people need to remember that a "space" between the ":" (colon) and the domain name breaks the operator. I can't mention it enough - http://webmastershelp.iblogget.com/2007/03/09/where-did-my-links-go/ . A lot of newer webmasters make that mistake. It would be great if Google could put an info-box up there when people do this kind of query "did you mean 'site:domain.com' to show the indexed pages?".</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps I&#8217;m jumping ahead, but I would love your insiders take on the &#8220;about&#8221; number, especially with regards to the site:-operator. Where does it come from, what does it mean, should we care or should we just look at the first 10 results and accept that there might be more (or maybe not)?</p>
<p>I like to go to the last visible page of results (&#8221;&amp;start=990&#8243;) and check the numbers, I&#8217;ve seen such gems as (numbers above 10 are made up, but the order of magnitude is correct):<br />
&#8220;500-507 of about 0&#8243; (a lot of these lately)<br />
&#8220;500-507 of about 300&#8243;<br />
&#8220;500-507 of about 507&#8243; (would be optimal)<br />
&#8220;500-507 of about 900&#8243;<br />
&#8220;500-507 of about 500&#8242;000&#8242;000&#8243; (I love those)<br />
(these are with the extended results activated (&#8221;&amp;filter=0&#8243;))</p>
<p>Website owners love numbers. They love to see that their content is being treated with respect by Google <img src='http://www.brianwhite.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> so they would really love to see &#8220;how many pages are currently indexed&#8221;. They&#8217;re also afraid of the supplemental index - they&#8217;d love to see &#8220;how many pages are only in the supplemental index&#8221;.</p>
<p>Ah, and while you&#8217;re with the site:-operator, just like the link:-operator people need to remember that a &#8220;space&#8221; between the &#8220;:&#8221; (colon) and the domain name breaks the operator. I can&#8217;t mention it enough - <a href="http://webmastershelp.iblogget.com/2007/03/09/where-did-my-links-go/" rel="nofollow">http://webmastershelp.iblogget.com/2007/03/09/where-did-my-links-go/</a> . A lot of newer webmasters make that mistake. It would be great if Google could put an info-box up there when people do this kind of query &#8220;did you mean &#8217;site:domain.com&#8217; to show the indexed pages?&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
