The following query, site:www.mysite.com, returns 1 mil. results. Some have listed as descriptions and titles, some not.
Google does know about the existence of the page but it have indexed only the link not the pake it self?
There are no cached or similar pages links.
Why G does not read and show the meta tags from the pages that he knows to exist?The pages have no relevant content too be indexed, duplicate content or similar content to other indexed pages? If so why they bother indexing the url?


Does any one have some experience with this problem?

For the long answer, read "When Does Google Really Index a Page? (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=28462#post28462)".

The short answer is G is aware of the link, but hasn't actually crawled/indexed the page contents.

This sometimes happens initially (new page without anything going for it - weak link, new site, or whatever), but if it continues, that usually means something may be wrong (is the page blocked in robots.txt, meta noindex tag or not easily indexed - you see URL only links on Flash pages a lot).

Hope that helps.

martin

This sometimes happens initially (new page without anything going for it - weak link, new site, or whatever), but if it continues, that usually means something may be wrong (is the page blocked in robots.txt, meta noindex tag or not easily indexed - you see URL only links on Flash pages a lot).
martin
For the search site:www.abc.com the page with the text "text on that page" does not appear with the description, but for the search site:www.abc.com "text on that page" it appers with description and title, which tells me that google indexed the page but the first search is not relevant to users.
That's my explanation until today.
I'll read the post right now.

For the search site:www.abc.com the page with the text "text on that page" does not appear with the description, but for the search site:www.abc.com "text on that page" it appers with description and title, which tells me that google indexed the page but the first search is not relevant to users.
That's my explanation until today.
I'll read the post right now.
I don't understand your meaning of the two site: searches. Are you saying that when you search for site:www.abc.com (and nothing else), that shows the URL only link (no snippet, cache link, etc.) and when you search site:www.abc.com +"some words on your page" that shows a regular listing with description and cache, etc.?

I think I have seen that a few times recently, but I'm not sure what it means.

Yes, you undestood exactly.

With the keyword at the end the page is corectly displayed.

I just did some checking on one of my "problem" sites and I can see examples that behave like you describe. I remember now that this started happening around the time that G started to show more results (my index is bigger than your index...).

I have also seen a lot of "problem" pages go into the supplemental index during this period. I have also seen a page show as supplemental for one search and not another. This is really strange. Hopefully someone else will know more or have some other observations to add to this thread.

By problem site, I mean dynamic pages from a blog/cms that tends to generate duplicate or near duplicate pages + the site used to have a session ID problem and Google still has some of those pages listed.

Traian, does your site have any "problems" like mine?

martin

By problem site, I mean dynamic pages from a blog/cms that tends to generate duplicate or near duplicate pages + the site used to have a session ID problem and Google still has some of those pages listed.

Traian, does your site have any "problems" like mine?

martin
Yes Martin,
The sites am I spoking has this problems. I tried to understan where are they coming from.
Indeed, the pages that have this problem are dynamicaly generated, and I think the problem is the content that is much alike for all the pages. I suppose so, but I can tell nothing for sure.
One other problem could be, if you have like me multiples domains with the same dynamicaly generated content. Do you have multiple sites pointing to one "mother site"?

......One other problem could be, if you have like me multiples domains with the same dynamicaly generated content. Do you have multiple sites pointing to one "mother site"?
No multiple domains, just the typical CMS/blog dup page issues. I didn't see this at first and when I started using Google sitemap I saw the duplicate or near duplicate issues and implemented filters and robots.txt exclusion, but not quite fast enough. These duplicate pages didn't appear in the index via site: until the index size increase. Shortly after that a bunch of the pages went Supplemental. :mad: :confused:

martin

These duplicate pages didn't appear in the index via site: until the index size increase. Shortly after that a bunch of the pages went Supplemental. :mad: :confused:

martin

They did not appear at all, or they have no snippets?

Duplicate pages seems to be now indexed, but as supplemental ones, and only the link is showed up on a search that G considered not to be relevant for searchers.

They did not appear at all, or they have no snippets?
The duplicates didn't appear at all until this latest index size increase.

Which tell us that the pages were not indexed and like all the wars, the war between Google and MSN have collateral casualities :)