<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The &#8220;About 260&#8243; Problem: Google Site: Command Glitch</title>
	<atom:link href="http://searchengineland.com/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://searchengineland.com/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651</link>
	<description>Search Engine Land: Must Read News About Search Marketing &#38; Search Engines</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:39:12 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: erdogduemlak</title>
		<link>http://searchengineland.com/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651/comment-page-1#comment-1395</link>
		<dc:creator>erdogduemlak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:23:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchengineland.com/beta/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651.php#comment-1395</guid>
		<description>Anyway, Google Reader is very nifty. I like being able to save news searches which you can refer to later.


</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anyway, Google Reader is very nifty. I like being able to save news searches which you can refer to later.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elisabeth Osmeloski</title>
		<link>http://searchengineland.com/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651/comment-page-1#comment-1394</link>
		<dc:creator>Elisabeth Osmeloski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchengineland.com/beta/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651.php#comment-1394</guid>
		<description>thanks danny for noting that. also, as I just posted on DaveN&#039;s blog-we&#039;re actually up in traffic since January 1... Which I must attribute to our news editor Kevin Newcomb and the bloggers who have come on since then, all are doing a great job. maybe I will do a traffic sharing report at some point soon (a la your style).
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanks danny for noting that. also, as I just posted on DaveN&#8217;s blog-we&#8217;re actually up in traffic since January 1&#8230; Which I must attribute to our news editor Kevin Newcomb and the bloggers who have come on since then, all are doing a great job. maybe I will do a traffic sharing report at some point soon (a la your style).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sante</title>
		<link>http://searchengineland.com/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651/comment-page-1#comment-1393</link>
		<dc:creator>Sante</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:25:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchengineland.com/beta/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651.php#comment-1393</guid>
		<description>Hi Danny,
I had actually stumbled upon this problem in reviewing some web sites for proposals. Was baffled at first. I did find some kind of pattern in the sites I reviewed. One site had duplicate content: they had statically mapped dynamic content that was already indexed, hence pages were indeed duplicate, BUT they differed in titles and descriptions.

Another site was suffering from bad template architecture: the content was less than menus, page headers and footers but the titles and descriptions were unique.

More information at:

&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.achille.name/2007/02/27/how-should-we-interpret-the-supplemental-results-in-google/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://blog.achille.name/2007/02/27/how-should-we-interpret-the-supplemental-results-in-google/&lt;/a&gt;

Cheers,

Sante
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Danny,<br />
I had actually stumbled upon this problem in reviewing some web sites for proposals. Was baffled at first. I did find some kind of pattern in the sites I reviewed. One site had duplicate content: they had statically mapped dynamic content that was already indexed, hence pages were indeed duplicate, BUT they differed in titles and descriptions.</p>
<p>Another site was suffering from bad template architecture: the content was less than menus, page headers and footers but the titles and descriptions were unique.</p>
<p>More information at:</p>
<p><a href="http://blog.achille.name/2007/02/27/how-should-we-interpret-the-supplemental-results-in-google/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.achille.name/2007/02/27/how-should-we-interpret-the-supplemental-results-in-google/</a></p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Sante</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Halfdeck</title>
		<link>http://searchengineland.com/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651/comment-page-1#comment-1392</link>
		<dc:creator>Halfdeck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:22:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchengineland.com/beta/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651.php#comment-1392</guid>
		<description>&quot;I haven&#039;t been able to find anyone else that is having the duplicate identical url issue I found.&quot;

Jeez, that&#039;s twice in a row Marketingpilgrim pulled my leg this week. First I hear Adam Lasnik &quot;says I wish nofollow didn&#039;t exist&quot;, which turned out to be a lie, and now I hear about this so-called &quot;duplicate url&quot; site bug which doesn&#039;t exist.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I haven&#8217;t been able to find anyone else that is having the duplicate identical url issue I found.&#8221;</p>
<p>Jeez, that&#8217;s twice in a row Marketingpilgrim pulled my leg this week. First I hear Adam Lasnik &#8220;says I wish nofollow didn&#8217;t exist&#8221;, which turned out to be a lie, and now I hear about this so-called &#8220;duplicate url&#8221; site bug which doesn&#8217;t exist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xuru</title>
		<link>http://searchengineland.com/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651/comment-page-1#comment-1391</link>
		<dc:creator>Xuru</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:45:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchengineland.com/beta/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651.php#comment-1391</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m don&#039;t know if the two issues I mentioned in the MarketingPilgrim blog post are related, but I can almost guarantee they are bugs as I am dealing with the 1-2 of 260 issues on multiple sites. None have meta tag issues either.

I haven&#039;t been able to find anyone else that is having the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/03/google-listing-duplicate-urls-in-site-search.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;duplicate identical url issue&lt;/a&gt; I found.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m don&#8217;t know if the two issues I mentioned in the MarketingPilgrim blog post are related, but I can almost guarantee they are bugs as I am dealing with the 1-2 of 260 issues on multiple sites. None have meta tag issues either.</p>
<p>I haven&#8217;t been able to find anyone else that is having the <a href="http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/03/google-listing-duplicate-urls-in-site-search.html" rel="nofollow">duplicate identical url issue</a> I found.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elisabeth Osmeloski</title>
		<link>http://searchengineland.com/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651/comment-page-1#comment-1390</link>
		<dc:creator>Elisabeth Osmeloski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:17:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchengineland.com/beta/the-about-260-problem-google-site-command-glitch-10651.php#comment-1390</guid>
		<description>Nice Danny- wish we had gone into this a bit futher on IM earlier today;)

We&#039;ve also been working Google on the issue to determine the underlying cause, since we too, identified several other sites with similar results.

It&#039;s definitely been confirmed as a glitch in the site command function, and noted that the sites/URLs in questions are not actually in the Supplemental Index.

More to come on SEW...

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice Danny- wish we had gone into this a bit futher on IM earlier today;)</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve also been working Google on the issue to determine the underlying cause, since we too, identified several other sites with similar results.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s definitely been confirmed as a glitch in the site command function, and noted that the sites/URLs in questions are not actually in the Supplemental Index.</p>
<p>More to come on SEW&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
