Site Command That Shows Zero Supplemental Results

Jul 13, 2007 • 7:34 am | comments (3) by twitter Google+ | Filed Under Google Search Engine Optimization
 

Did you know that if you wanted to ensure that zero supplemental results come up for a site command at Google, you can type your query in the syntax of site:www.example.com/*

I speculated over at Search Engine Land that Google Gearing Up To Drop The Supplemental Result Label. Is this one step towards that?

Tedster, WebmasterWorld administrator, added that "the site: command has been so flakey that I wonder what these many hack-type site: queries I read about actually return." However, he still finds this command fun and useful.

Reseller adds:

The following site: operator "version" shows results without supplemental

site:www.example.*

So is this truly removing the supplemental results or showing a subset of different results?

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

Previous story: Firefox Extension Allows You To See Google Search Results by Country
 

Comments:

Michael Martinez

07/13/2007 03:54 pm

Once again someone has put forth a useless and misleading hack on the SITE: query operator. If you wildcard the top-level domain, you will get results from more than one domain. It would be naive to expect Google to show Supplemental Results Pages in a query that potentially has thousands of non-Supplemental pages to choose from. But now, just as we're starting to get people to shut up about the stupid "***" query that never worked as advertised in the first place, we're going to suffer through another round of people praising and sharing this worthless, useless, meaningless query that doesn't do what the original suggester claimed it would do. People really need to stop and analyze the rules that govern search queries.

Michael Martinez

07/13/2007 04:16 pm

Barry, that diatribe was not directed at you. It's just infuriating to see people in an industry who claim to be "analysts" and "intelligent" always suggesting these dumb little ideas. They rarely seem to bother to look at the specifics of what they are suggesting.

Barry Schwartz

07/13/2007 04:18 pm

Michael, I appreciate your second comment. :)

blog comments powered by Disqus