Everything you need to know about SEO, delivered every Thursday.
The “About 260″ Problem: Google Site: Command Glitch
noted yesterday that Search Engine Watch appears to have largely disappeared
from Google, at least when performing a
site: command search.
Today, Marketing Pilgrim
notes a weirdly similar thing happening to another site and points to an
interesting Webmaster World
thread on what
could be called the "About 260" problem that appears to have started early last
month. (NOTE: Google is now commenting on it here).
I’m calling it the About 260 problem because several sites have seen that
figure come up in obvious site: errors that have happened. For example, consider
this search for Search Engine Watch:
It brings up this result:
Only 260 pages from a site with thousands of pages? And all those pages
considered to be the same?
If you "open up" the "omitted results"
like this, all’s fine — you get a healthy 93,000 pages indexed.
I’ve seen a similar error like this happen
before, where only
five pages from our own Search Engine Land site were considered unique. The were seen as
similar to each other.
The culprit in that case was our meta description tag. By accident, it was
set the same for every page in the site after our new design went up (hey, it
happens to the best of us). Google, seeing the same description for each page,
considered all the pages to be the same.
Here’s the key thing. The pages were seen as the same by the Google
"snippets" process, not by the Google search process — not as
duplicate content or alternatively, supplemental results. What I mean by that is
that Google — for display purposes — will try not to show the same pages over
and over. To do this, it looks only at things like meta description information
or the first text on the page, to decide if the pages are the same for DISPLAY
Backend, the pages are NOT seen as duplicates. Despite our "display" problem,
those pages were still pulling in traffic. They were seen as unique for ranking
With Search Engine Watch, it’s a different situation. The pages aren’t being
consolidated because they all have the same meta description tag. They don’t.
But the behavior is similar. The pages seem to be consolidated based on some
display issue, rather than them being see backend by Google as all the same. I
say that because if I do a search like this:
I can see pages from the site ranking just fine (two, in fact, both in the
I’ve got a message out to Google about the issue. I’ll postscript when I hear
Postscript: As noted above, Google Webmaster Central has now done an
official blog post on the issue,
Using the site: command. From the post, confirming the problem, noting it’s
not an impact on ranking and that it will be resolved in the coming weeks:
Historically, Google has avoided showing pages that appear to be duplicate
(e.g., pages with the same title and description) in search results …
However, with a site: command, searchers are likely looking for a full list of
results from that site, so we are making a change to do that. In some cases, a
site: search doesn’t show a full list of results even when the pages are
different, and we are resolving that issue as well.
Note that this is a display issue only and doesn’t in any way affect search
rankings. If you see this behavior, simply click the "repeat the search with
omitted results included" link to see the full list. The pages that initially
don’t display continue to show up for regular queries. The display issue
affects only a site: search with no associated query. In addition, this
display issue is unrelated to supplemental results. Any pages in supplemental
results display "Supplemental Result" beside the URL.
Because this change to show all results for site: queries doesn’t affect
search rankings at all, it will probably happen in the normal course of events
as we merge this change into the next time that we push a new executable for
handling the site: command. As a result, it may be several weeks or so before
you start to see this change, but we’ll keep monitoring it to make sure the
change goes out.
Postscript 2: Elisabeth over at Search Engine Watch now has a
about the issue. As I pointed out above, it was indeed just a display thing,
not something likely hurting the site’s rankings. Elisabeth confirms this:
"Rest assured, at SEW, we do still have a vibrant pulse, and have not
experienced any significant drops in traffic due to this problem. So, it’s too
early to plan a funeral. I am happy to report that traffic is normal at Search