<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><!-- generator="b2evolution/3.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>An SEO &#38; Web Marketing Blog: Scatterings - Latest comments on A Hack for Getting True Google Indexation Numbers?</title>
		<link>http://www.stephanspencer.com/?disp=comments</link>
		<atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.stephanspencer.com/?tempskin=_rss2&#38;disp=comments&#38;p=596" />
		<description></description>
		<language>en-US</language>
		<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
		<admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://b2evolution.net/?v=3.3.1"/>
		<ttl>60</ttl>
				<item>
			<title>Edward [Visitor] in response to: A Hack for Getting True Google Indexation Numbers?</title>
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 05:06:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>Edward [Visitor]</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">c825952@http://www.stephanspencer.com/</guid>
			<description>I see your point. Google only lets you view the first 1000 results. So then why bother doing a headcount if it wastes CPU cycles?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I've noticed some weird things about Google, so I'm not sure if you can trust the cache:xyz. When I first got a website indexed in Google, Google indexed it sporadically. However, I noticed one peculiarity. The cache had a 5 day old version of the site. However, in the description, I saw that it had content that was only 2 days old. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure what happened, but Google is weird. I'm not so sure that using Cache:xyz is very accurate either. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a further note:&lt;br /&gt;
I had a site which I prohibited Google from visiting via robots.txt. However, it still had the site in their index - only with the site URL though. I could search for the site via the site URL (without the .com), and I could see info:mysite.com. However, cache:mysite.com did not work, as expected. As I said, Google is weird.</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I see your point. Google only lets you view the first 1000 results. So then why bother doing a headcount if it wastes CPU cycles?<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I've noticed some weird things about Google, so I'm not sure if you can trust the cache:xyz. When I first got a website indexed in Google, Google indexed it sporadically. However, I noticed one peculiarity. The cache had a 5 day old version of the site. However, in the description, I saw that it had content that was only 2 days old. <br />
<br />
I'm not sure what happened, but Google is weird. I'm not so sure that using Cache:xyz is very accurate either. <br />
<br />
As a further note:<br />
I had a site which I prohibited Google from visiting via robots.txt. However, it still had the site in their index - only with the site URL though. I could search for the site via the site URL (without the .com), and I could see info:mysite.com. However, cache:mysite.com did not work, as expected. As I said, Google is weird.]]></content:encoded>
			<link>http://www.stephanspencer.com/search-engines/a-hack-for-getting-true-google-indexation-numbers#c825952</link>
		</item>
			</channel>
</rss>
