Adam Lasnik to explain the site: bug...

or so he says. I E-Mailed him about an update on the site: bug, and here's his reply and then my E-Mail.

Think he'll do it and actually put info in the blog that goes with the sub-title, 'Official news on crawling and indexing sites for the Google index'?? I've noticed Adam gives out much better info than Matt Cutts and GoogleGuy. Matt and GG probably would of never revealed the 'bad data push' info!

Last time I asked Adam Lasnik about it, in a ThreadWatch PM, he gave out this answer...

 

Matt Cutts is Googleguy so its not surprising they give the same information

 

At least Google provides customer service unlike some other companies.

 

No.

I think that was a BS answer. What does 'bad data push' mean? They picked up on spam and ranked it... basically, he fed you back the same thing you were saying, only in different terms. If it weren't for the 302 redirect bug, it would have never happened. (See Graywolf's take on this: http://www.threadwatch.org/node/6999 - blog comments and uniquification are not enough alone.) I am convinced he nor Vanessa Fox knew of the 302 problem before this: http://www.seomoz.org/blogdetail.php?ID=1096...

With Matt, you can at least read between the lines, pick up on what is obviously omitted from discussion, and extrapolate from there.

 

WHAT? Next you'll be telling me that Liberace was gay, I just can't believe it.

Nintendo, Did you post the question on the forum as he suggested?

 

So why is Matt Cutts posting with his real name on WMW.
Using 2 accounts om WMW would be silly, don't you think?

 

Matt Cutts confesses to being Googleguy

 

Which probably means Adam Lasnik, maybe Vanessa Fox, AdsenseAdvisor. Perhaps others...

 

Which question was this? He hasn't ever told me to post a question on a message board. He doesn't even post here, though Matt Cutts is registered here. He spent a day here and then scramed.

 

That seemed like an invitation for you to post the question on Google Webmaster groups. That's what I was trying to say, I probably confused the issue by saying forum instead of groups. But anyway, it kind of sounds like he'd answer it in the public forum, but then again maybe not...

 

The site: operator has gone mad again for me on two sites, its only showing about 10X the actual pages, but when you scroll through the results you really can't access anything beyond the first 50. What a joke. It's like sites going supplimental and cache dates from 2005, all you are going to get is that some changes are getting pushed through and wait, if they acknowledge there is a problem at all.

 

bah...something tells me he didn't even read this part...'Like updates on when you plan to have the site: search results not be messed up.'

Of course I wouldn't be able to give updates on that on the Google groups. That's why I asked HIM for an update!!!!

OK, I posted over there...

http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_thread/thread/368cf9fc4b3e37e6/

I'll be suprised if he answers there!!! Maybe if we keep that thread at the top. *hint*

 

We can keep it up on top till someone notices it.

 

Exactly. I'm hoping having his name in the title will get him to look at it. One post a day'll be enough to keep it on page one.

 

Thanks.
Great story

 

Me thinks - Adam doesn't have a clue, or does but can't answer as it would be admitting that they have a problem.

 

I confessed to being on the grassy knoll, .. didn't do much.

 

Well there ya go, that answers that.

 

So basically reading between the lines link: and site: are stuffed, broken, knackered etc. We all knew link: wasn't terribly reliable for a long time, but site: was useful in finding which pages of your site were indexed - now you have nothing.

inurl: gives you an idea and doesn't show up the supplemental results, that site: is bringing up for all websites now - even Googles. I'm a Google fan, because I like what they have done to the likes of Mapping, etc. but the search engine side is becoming a big joke.

 

Nintendo! datacenter is showing less indexed pages than google.com in case of your site.