<?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: Bugs?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/</link>
	<description>neat fun stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:13:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sam B.</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-444533</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam B.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:10:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-444533</guid>
		<description>There is a relatvely new bug when surfing on the iPhone os version of Safari. More specifically when using iPod touch (it may be present on iPhone as well but I use iPod touch). When searching, you cannot click on any of the other search types (e.g. Image seach). Futhermore, if you try to work around this by add &quot;image&quot; to your search term and click on the search result that links to google image search, no images appear. Essentially it is now impossble to search images on iPhone os safari. It was not alway this way but more recently it has. Every time I update iPhone os, the problem persists.

Sam B.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a relatvely new bug when surfing on the iPhone os version of Safari. More specifically when using iPod touch (it may be present on iPhone as well but I use iPod touch). When searching, you cannot click on any of the other search types (e.g. Image seach). Futhermore, if you try to work around this by add &#8220;image&#8221; to your search term and click on the search result that links to google image search, no images appear. Essentially it is now impossble to search images on iPhone os safari. It was not alway this way but more recently it has. Every time I update iPhone os, the problem persists.</p>
<p>Sam B.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-402133</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:32:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-402133</guid>
		<description>This is not a major issue, but I thought I would share it anyway since it appears to be buggy. If a search is performed with inurl:, and then preferences are changed to increase the number of results displayed, a 403 error is presented indicating that the query appears to be an automated request from either a virus or spyware.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is not a major issue, but I thought I would share it anyway since it appears to be buggy. If a search is performed with inurl:, and then preferences are changed to increase the number of results displayed, a 403 error is presented indicating that the query appears to be an automated request from either a virus or spyware.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andreas S.</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-341971</link>
		<dc:creator>Andreas S.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:37:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-341971</guid>
		<description>Google Calculator lg() Bug:

Google uses different notation for interpretation logarithm functions:

Google:
Input=	Output
lg(5)=	2,321928090
ln(5)=	1,609437910
log(5)=	0,698970004
ld(5)=	-

WolframAlpha:
Input=	Output
lg(5)=	0,698970004
ln(5)=	1,609437912
log(5)=	0,698970004
ld(5)=	2,321928095

In my interpretation: WolframAlpha is the correct output, here the standard notation:
ln        log_e   natural logarithm 
lg        log_10 decadic logarithm 
ld        log_2   binary logarithm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google Calculator lg() Bug:</p>
<p>Google uses different notation for interpretation logarithm functions:</p>
<p>Google:<br />
Input=	Output<br />
lg(5)=	2,321928090<br />
ln(5)=	1,609437910<br />
log(5)=	0,698970004<br />
ld(5)=	-</p>
<p>WolframAlpha:<br />
Input=	Output<br />
lg(5)=	0,698970004<br />
ln(5)=	1,609437912<br />
log(5)=	0,698970004<br />
ld(5)=	2,321928095</p>
<p>In my interpretation: WolframAlpha is the correct output, here the standard notation:<br />
ln        log_e   natural logarithm<br />
lg        log_10 decadic logarithm<br />
ld        log_2   binary logarithm</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Panos A</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-270145</link>
		<dc:creator>Panos A</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:22:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-270145</guid>
		<description>This applies to Google Patent Search.  When viewing a single patent, a button appears to &quot;Download to PDF&quot;.  This used to append the .PDF extension to the downloaded files, but as of a few weeks ago the extension is removed.  Now, every time a patent .pdf downloads the user must manually append the .pdf extension to the downloaded file.

Easy to overcome, but a bit of a hassle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This applies to Google Patent Search.  When viewing a single patent, a button appears to &#8220;Download to PDF&#8221;.  This used to append the .PDF extension to the downloaded files, but as of a few weeks ago the extension is removed.  Now, every time a patent .pdf downloads the user must manually append the .pdf extension to the downloaded file.</p>
<p>Easy to overcome, but a bit of a hassle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oxtail</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-232693</link>
		<dc:creator>oxtail</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:22:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-232693</guid>
		<description>This relates to google search, when logged into gmail.

When I log into gmail, and then go to google.com to do a search, for every search listing, there is this warning - &quot;This site may harm your computer&quot;.

If I am not logged in to gmail, this warning disappears.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This relates to google search, when logged into gmail.</p>
<p>When I log into gmail, and then go to google.com to do a search, for every search listing, there is this warning &#8211; &#8220;This site may harm your computer&#8221;.</p>
<p>If I am not logged in to gmail, this warning disappears.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron (Demonz Media)</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-150136</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron (Demonz Media)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:02:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-150136</guid>
		<description>Hello Matt,

I had a good look through mattcutts.com / Google before I decided to report this one (there is one thread describing the problem at Webmaster World).

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum80/620.htm

The issue is that some websites using https:// are not showing PageRank in the Google Toolbar when they clearly should. For example the query [CIA] returns the official CIA website as the first result which uses https, but the page doesn&#039;t show any PageRank in the Google Toolbar.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Matt,</p>
<p>I had a good look through mattcutts.com / Google before I decided to report this one (there is one thread describing the problem at Webmaster World).</p>
<p><a href="http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum80/620.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum80/620.htm</a></p>
<p>The issue is that some websites using https:// are not showing PageRank in the Google Toolbar when they clearly should. For example the query [CIA] returns the official CIA website as the first result which uses https, but the page doesn&#8217;t show any PageRank in the Google Toolbar.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-144107</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:24:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-144107</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve had some odd problems with analytics.  For a time, I was only able to look analytics for one page.  I contacted Google and they took it very seriously.  A representative called me a couple of times and the problem was fixed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve had some odd problems with analytics.  For a time, I was only able to look analytics for one page.  I contacted Google and they took it very seriously.  A representative called me a couple of times and the problem was fixed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BBdeath</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-126828</link>
		<dc:creator>BBdeath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 18:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-126828</guid>
		<description>A little bit above (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-108862&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;) one comment was dealing with Google geo-location issues, related to sofa.com.
What you mention that Sofa.com had better ranking in Google.com then in Google.co.uk is not a bug, but a quite natural thing as sofa.com is a .com site, and the name-server and web-server IP is absolutely irrelevant. (Actually currently the ranking is ok for sofa.com in both Google-site:perhaps the simple thing that you wrote the address of the company to the main page was enough).
Normally local Google sites give better rankings for local businesses so You have to make it clear in some kind of text format that where is your exact location.
For example I&#039;ve just started to analyse &lt;a href=&quot;http://sofaclassics.co.uk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sofaclassics.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; site and its rankings for different keywords and as it is normal it ranks far better in google.co.uk for any keyword then in google.com- as it is absolutely clear that it is a local UK based business: address, .uk domain, etc. But if it is not clear whether a .com site covers a local business or not it always will get worse position in local Google rankings. Mainly if you are searching for products.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A little bit above (<a href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-108862" rel="nofollow">here</a>) one comment was dealing with Google geo-location issues, related to sofa.com.<br />
What you mention that Sofa.com had better ranking in Google.com then in Google.co.uk is not a bug, but a quite natural thing as sofa.com is a .com site, and the name-server and web-server IP is absolutely irrelevant. (Actually currently the ranking is ok for sofa.com in both Google-site:perhaps the simple thing that you wrote the address of the company to the main page was enough).<br />
Normally local Google sites give better rankings for local businesses so You have to make it clear in some kind of text format that where is your exact location.<br />
For example I&#8217;ve just started to analyse <a href="http://sofaclassics.co.uk" rel="nofollow">sofaclassics.co.uk</a> site and its rankings for different keywords and as it is normal it ranks far better in google.co.uk for any keyword then in google.com- as it is absolutely clear that it is a local UK based business: address, .uk domain, etc. But if it is not clear whether a .com site covers a local business or not it always will get worse position in local Google rankings. Mainly if you are searching for products.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sthiti</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-122614</link>
		<dc:creator>Sthiti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-122614</guid>
		<description>I am logged onto gmail. I log on to orkut in a new browser window. I log out of orkut -&gt; I am logged out of gmail. Are the authentication mechanism&#039;s linked?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am logged onto gmail. I log on to orkut in a new browser window. I log out of orkut -&gt; I am logged out of gmail. Are the authentication mechanism&#8217;s linked?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Couch</title>
		<link>http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-119232</link>
		<dc:creator>David Couch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:25:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/bugs/#comment-119232</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s an interesting one... 

Looking for the correct syntax in SQL for  &quot;Select Distinct Top 10&quot;

&#039;Select Top 10&#039; promptly directs to &#039;the page cannot be displayed&#039;

This is consistent on at least 3 computers so far. 
Yahoo! has the same result.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s an interesting one&#8230; </p>
<p>Looking for the correct syntax in SQL for  &#8220;Select Distinct Top 10&#8243;</p>
<p>&#8216;Select Top 10&#8242; promptly directs to &#8216;the page cannot be displayed&#8217;</p>
<p>This is consistent on at least 3 computers so far.<br />
Yahoo! has the same result.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
