Site: Query Question
-
Hi All,
Question around the site: query you can execute on Google for example. Now I know it has lots of inaccuracies, but I like to keep a high level sight of it over time.
I was using it to also try and get a high level view of how many product pages were indexed vs. the total number of pages.
What is interesting is when I do a site: query for say www.newark.com I get ~748,000 results returned.
When I do a query for www.newark.com "/dp/" I get ~845,000 results returned.
Either I am doing something stupid or these numbers are completely backwards?
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Ben
-
Barry Schwartz posted some great information about this in November of 2010, quoting a couple of different Google sources. In short, more specific queries can cause Google to dig deeper and give more accurate estimates.
-
Yup. get rid of parameter laden urls and its easy enough. If they hang around the index for a few months before disappearing thats no big deal, as long as you have done the right thing it will work out fine
Also your not interested in the chaff, just the bits you want to make sure are indexed. So make sure thise are in sensibly titled sitemaps and its fine (used this on sites with 50 million and 100 million product pages. It gets a bit more complex at that number, but the underlying principle is the same)
-
But then on a big site (talking 4m+ products) its usually the case that you have URL's indexed that wouldn't be generated in a sitemap because they include additional parameters.
Ideally of course you rid the index of parameter filled URL's but its pretty tough to do that.
-
Best bet is to make sure all your urls are in your sitemap and then you get an exact count.
Ive found it handy to use multiple sitempas for each subfolder i.e. /news/ or /profiles/ to be able to quickly see exactly what % of urls are indexed from each section of my site. This is super helpful in finding errors in a specific section or when you are working on indexing of a certain type of page
S
-
What I've found the reason for this comes down to how the Google system works. Case in point, a client site I have with 25,000 actual pages. They have mass duplicate content issues. When I do a generic site: with the domain, Google shows 50-60,000 pages. If I do an inurl: with a specific URL param, I either get 500,000 or over a million.
Though that's not your exact situation, it can help explain what's happening.
Essentially, if you do a normal site: Google will try its best to provide the content within the site that it shows the world based on "most relevant" content. When you do a refined check, it's naturally going to look for the content that really is most relevant - closest match to that actual parameter.
So if you're seeing more results with the refined process, it means that on any given day, at any given time, when someone does a general search, the Google system will filter out a lot of content that isn't seen as highly valuable for that particular search. So all those extra pages that come up in your refined check - many of them are most likely then evaluated as less than highly valuable / high quality or relevant to most searches.
Even if many are great pages, their system has multiple algorithms that have to be run to assign value. What you are seeing is those processes struggling to sort it all out.
-
about 839,000 results.
-
Different data center perhaps - what about if you add in the "dp" query to the string?
-
I actually see 'about 897,000 results' for the search 'site:www.newark.com'.
-
Thanks Adrian,
I understand those areas of inaccuracy, but I didn't expect to see a refined search produce more results than the original search. That just seems a little bizarre to me, which is why I was wondering if there was a clear explanation or if I was executing my query incorrectly.
Ben
-
This is an expected 'oddity' of the site: operator. Here is a video of Matt Cutts explaining the imprecise nature of the site: operator.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Page Speed or Site Speed which one does Google considered a ranking signal
I've read many threads online which proves that website speed is a ranking factor. There's a friend whose website scores 44 (slow metric score) on Google Pagespeed Insights. Despite that his website is slow, he outranks me on Google search results. It confuses me that I optimized my website for speed, but my competitor's slow site outperforms me. On Six9ja.com, I did amazing work by getting my target score which is 100 (fast metric score) on Google Pagespeed Insights. Coming to my Google search console tool, they have shown that some of my pages have average scores, while some have slow scores. Google search console tool proves me wrong that none of my pages are fast. Then where did the fast metrics went? Could it be because I added three Adsense Javascript code to all my blog posts? If so, that means that Adsense code is slowing website speed performance despite having an async tag. I tested my blog post speed and I understand that my page speed reduced by 48 due to the 3 Adsense javascript codes added to it. I got 62 (Average metric score). Now, my site speed is=100, then my page speed=62 Does this mean that Google considers page speed rather than site speed as a ranking factor? Screenshots: https://imgur.com/a/YSxSwOG **Regarding: **https://six9ja.com/
Reporting & Analytics | | Kingsmart1 -
PDF web traffic hitting our site
Hi there, Over the last few months our traffic has spiked due to irrelevant pdf documents sending us crap traffic, our bounce rate is sky high as well as other metrics. I don't want to just filter out this traffic in GA rather try and stop our site from being attacked. Any advice on a way forward would be great. Thanks
Reporting & Analytics | | ICMPmarketing0 -
Do lots of event tracking via tag manager will it slow down my site?
Hi All, For my Ecommerce site I have done lots of tracking total I do have total 45 event tracking but many times one event, track many pages. So if visitors click on url or button then do my site speed affect because of these trackings? Thanks!
Reporting & Analytics | | pragnesh96390 -
How do I find links on my site
I'm looking to find a certain type of link on my site. A link that we're directing out of the site. We have a lot of subdomains though and I was wondering if there was a way to find all the links on each subdomain without screaming frog them all?
Reporting & Analytics | | mattdinbrooklyn0 -
Question on regular expression for filters on GA
Hi guys, I am creating profiles on some of the countries sites in my network, and have managed to establish the filter for tracking certain url patterns, for example: ^/japan-english- is tracking all my urls in the Japan site that start by japan-english great! however, it is not tracking the japanese instance of the urls. The pattern for the latter is : www.mysite.org/jp/japan-english I could then modify the filter to track the jp subfolder like this: ^/jp/japan-english- but it will then only track the urls on the /jp/ subfolder does anyone know the regex command for tracking the two url patters as follows: /jp/japan-english- & /japan-english- thanks in advance david
Reporting & Analytics | | BritishCouncil0 -
Ways to analyze a 1M rows dataset of search queries
Hi, I have this large dataset, about 1 million search queries with visits, bounce rate and a few other metrics. I'm trying to explore this data to find keyword "buckets" (such as include product name, location name, transactional objective, informational, etc.), as well as explore the density of certain keywords (keywords as in instances of a single word amongst all queries) My idea was to use Excel and a macro to split all queries in separate words (also clearing punctuation and uppercase/lowercase), then storing this word in a new worksheet, adding to another column the visit counts from the row where the word was extracted (as to give a sense of weight). Before adding the word to the new worksheet, the script will look if the word already existed, if so it would just add the current value of visits to the existing visit counts etc. In the end it will create sort of a "dictionary" of all the keywords in all search queries ranked by weight (= visits from search query including this keyword) This would help me get started I believe, because I can't segment and analyze 1M raw search queries... My issue is: this VBA has been running on my (fast) PC for the last 24hr and it doesn't seem to get to an end. Obviously excel+VBA is not the best way to do text mining and manipulation in such a large dataset (although it's just a 30mb file) What would you do if you had this dataset and would like to mine the text/semantic as I am doing? Any idea of tools? process? I'm considering dumping this data into a MySQL db and doing the processing through PHP (the only backend language I'm versed in), and getting the "summified" data stored into another table, which I'll then be able to export to a Excel for analysis. But I'm afraid that I'll be facing memory limit issues and such... In the meantime, I'm definitely interested into knowing what you guys would do if you had this data and wanted to simply start exploring its constituencies Thanks!
Reporting & Analytics | | briacg0 -
Why did I loose all my product page rankings (e-commerce site)
This friday I noticed that I'd lost pretty much all my product pages in the SERP and also their rankings for the product names. These are products I both have introduced to the market (sweden) and also some that I've been the only one selling. I've analyzed a couple of different ranking-faults. Examples: **"super mario väggdekaler" should rank **http://www.roligaprylar.se/Super-Mario-Vaeggdekaler.html as #1 and has done for several years. Instead this search in my internal search engine ranks #10-#15 with no relevance. www.roligaprylar.se/?q=mario%20v%E4g "jedi morgonrock" should rank www.roligaprylar.se/Jedi-Morgonrock.html as #1 or #2 but instead this url ranks as #12 www.roligaprylar.se/product_detail.php?pid=Jedi-Morgonrock "Charlie sheen bobblehead" (in the swedish serp this should be the most simple term to rank on. previously #1) my internal search engine ranks for #8 with this url <cite>www.roligaprylar.se/?q=Charlie%20Sheen%20Bobblehead</cite>J So I've drawn these conclusions and actions Products that don't rank well longer but still ranks with their alternative non-rewritten url has gotten deep links from affilliates (i track affilliate ids and stuff via this link) and have replaced the original url which is rewritten. Action: Canonical urls for these non-rewritten products to the rewritten version. For example on this product page www.roligaprylar.se/product_detail.php?pid=Jedi-Morgonrock I've placed a canonical for this url www.roligaprylar.se/Jedi-morgonrock.html With the products not ranking at all or when searches in my search engine shows up I suspect some kind of dup content punishment where Google thinks the search result is more important than the product page. Action: All search-pages are now noindex,follow I also increased product name density in terms of keywords on the product page. But I'm still owned and losing tons of money during the holidays (buying adwords at obscene amounts instead hehe). So just wanted to hear with you guys. Are my conclusions and actions correct? What have I missed, what more could I do to reverse this? Thanks Dan
Reporting & Analytics | | nuttinalle0 -
Will Google start trimming 'stale' sites rank?
With the recent focus on Google to reduce rank of farms and low value sites, I am interested to get SEO view on if you think Google will start devaluing stale sites. I do find it a bit frustrating that in the top 5 for my main key phrase, there is one site that has NO content just an error and another blog that has not updated content in 2 years. How can blogs that do not blog be considered high enough value by Google to rank in the top 5? How can sites that just return 404 or 500 for ALL their pages be even considered a site let alone rank 2nd. I am interested so see others experiences and thoughts on 'user experience' clean ups by Google and why these types of sites get missed?
Reporting & Analytics | | oznappies0