Comments on: Google Hack: Finding Supplemental Results http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/08/google-hack-finding-supplemental-results/ SEO and Marketing Blog Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:47:36 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Marah Marie http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/08/google-hack-finding-supplemental-results/comment-page-1/#comment-16638 Marah Marie Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:28:25 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/08/google-hack-finding-supplemental-results/#comment-16638 <p>Interestingly, method #3 no longer works, at least not for a straight search with no category title appended to the site name (as in your example, which made no sense to me).</p> <p>I put my site name in the search box with the +/- command exactly as #3 instructs and got all my SERP #1 pages back in results. This is not telling me what pages are supplementally indexed, unless of course my entire site just got tossed from Google's index today and I'm still unaware of it (unlikely, they usually wait a few months before tossing it out again). </p> Interestingly, method #3 no longer works, at least not for a straight search with no category title appended to the site name (as in your example, which made no sense to me).

I put my site name in the search box with the +/- command exactly as #3 instructs and got all my SERP #1 pages back in results. This is not telling me what pages are supplementally indexed, unless of course my entire site just got tossed from Google’s index today and I’m still unaware of it (unlikely, they usually wait a few months before tossing it out again).

]]> By: Susan Esparza http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/08/google-hack-finding-supplemental-results/comment-page-1/#comment-16637 Susan Esparza Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:30:02 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/08/google-hack-finding-supplemental-results/#comment-16637 Mike's response: Simon, It looks like it should still be pretty close. It may be that that's the best we can do now. Regarding the results for the larger site: There's growing evidence these searches aren't reliable there. We typically aren't closely tracking larger site's supplemental pages, as our SEO efforts are better spent elsewhere. -mwt Mike’s response:
Simon,
It looks like it should still be pretty close. It may be that that’s the best we can do now. Regarding the results for the larger site: There’s growing evidence these searches aren’t reliable there. We typically aren’t closely tracking larger site’s supplemental pages, as our SEO efforts are better spent elsewhere.
-mwt

]]> By: m1t0s1snofollowtest http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/08/google-hack-finding-supplemental-results/comment-page-1/#comment-16636 m1t0s1snofollowtest Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:41:38 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/08/google-hack-finding-supplemental-results/#comment-16636 <p>I should of added, compared with <a href="http://www.theycann.com/globalwarming-blog/index.php/getting-search-engines-to-index-their-own-results/" rel="nofollow">my test showing 3.4 million</a></p> <p></p> I should of added, compared with my test showing 3.4 million

]]> By: m1t0s1snofollowtest http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/08/google-hack-finding-supplemental-results/comment-page-1/#comment-16635 m1t0s1snofollowtest Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:08:27 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/08/google-hack-finding-supplemental-results/#comment-16635 This doesn't work, based on <a href="http://www.google.com/search?as_q=site%3Aibm.com%2F%20-site%3Aibm.com%2F*&num=100" rel="nofollow">my old supplemental results from ibm.com</a> This doesn’t work, based on my old supplemental results from ibm.com

]]> By: Simon Heseltine http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/08/google-hack-finding-supplemental-results/comment-page-1/#comment-16634 Simon Heseltine Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:29:08 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/08/google-hack-finding-supplemental-results/#comment-16634 <p>Hmm, it may be that the threshold for showing supplementals in the second command is higher than you anticipated...</p> <p>site:searchenginetigers.com/ = 136</p> <p>site:searchenginetigers.com/* = 24</p> <p>-site:searchenginetigers.com/* +site:searchenginetigers.com/ = 117</p> <p>Interestingly with a large site with over 147k+ in total, and only a few k showing from the primary only query, the combined third query "did not match any documents" </p> Hmm, it may be that the threshold for showing supplementals in the second command is higher than you anticipated…

site:searchenginetigers.com/ = 136

site:searchenginetigers.com/* = 24

-site:searchenginetigers.com/* +site:searchenginetigers.com/ = 117

Interestingly with a large site with over 147k+ in total, and only a few k showing from the primary only query, the combined third query “did not match any documents”

]]>