Comments on: Out of the Supplemental Index and into the Fire http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/ Advanced Search Engine Marketing Tips to Succeed Online Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:03:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Google Not Showing Supplemental Tag » SiteLogic Web Development http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-659 Google Not Showing Supplemental Tag » SiteLogic Web Development Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:00:26 +0000 http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-659 [...] couple of weeks ago, Hamlet Batista wrote a post on getting out of the supplemental index and made reference to the fact that Google were considering removing the supplemental result [...] [...] couple of weeks ago, Hamlet Batista wrote a post on getting out of the supplemental index and made reference to the fact that Google were considering removing the supplemental result [...]

]]> By: Hamlet Batista http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-309 Hamlet Batista Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:13:49 +0000 http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-309 Mutiny, "geographic spam pages" is an interesting concept. First time I read about it. <blockquote> This leads me to believe that Google may use their duplicate content filter in deciding whether a page should be in the supplemental index. </blockquote> In order to explain why duplicate pages might end up in the supplemental index, let me quote Matt Cutts: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-friday-supplementary-my-dear-watson#jtc24821 <blockquote>duplicate content doesn't make you more likely to have pages in the supplemental index in my experience. It could be a symptom but not a cause, e.g. lots of duplicate content implies lots of pages, and potentially less PageRank for each of those pages. So trying to surface an entire large catalog of pages would mean less PageRank for each page, which could lead to those pages being less likely to be included in our main web index.</blockquote> The problem with a lot of duplicate content is that the pages' PageRank get affected. Duplicate content is a symptom, not a cause. According to Matt, pages end up in the supplemental index based on low PageRank values. You might not agree with this, but I personally prefer to trust the source. <blockquote> I will be making a recommendation that this site remove their geographic spam pages and will post the results if I can remember to. </blockquote> I'd do the same. Please report your results Mutiny,

“geographic spam pages” is an interesting concept. First time I read about it.

This leads me to believe that Google may use their duplicate content filter in deciding whether a page should be in the supplemental index.

In order to explain why duplicate pages might end up in the supplemental index, let me quote Matt Cutts:

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-friday-supplementary-my-dear-watson#jtc24821

duplicate content doesn’t make you more likely to have pages in the supplemental index in my experience. It could be a symptom but not a cause, e.g. lots of duplicate content implies lots of pages, and potentially less PageRank for each of those pages. So trying to surface an entire large catalog of pages would mean less PageRank for each page, which could lead to those pages being less likely to be included in our main web index.

The problem with a lot of duplicate content is that the pages’ PageRank get affected. Duplicate content is a symptom, not a cause. According to Matt, pages end up in the supplemental index based on low PageRank values. You might not agree with this, but I personally prefer to trust the source.

I will be making a recommendation that this site remove their geographic spam pages and will post the results if I can remember to.

I’d do the same. Please report your results

]]> By: Jez http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-300 Jez Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:45:06 +0000 http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-300 Hi Hamlet, My question was prompted by your use of a Wordpress SEO plugin that is specifically designed to remove duplicate content (such as comment pages) from the supplemental index.... Are there any benefits to doing this other than general maintenance? Hi Hamlet,

My question was prompted by your use of a Wordpress SEO plugin that is specifically designed to remove duplicate content (such as comment pages) from the supplemental index….
Are there any benefits to doing this other than general maintenance?

]]> By: Mutiny Design http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-295 Mutiny Design Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:11:37 +0000 http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-295 Just as a note. A while back I worked on a site that was sandboxed. Despite having a few dozen good incoming links and fair title tags and page content it didn’t rank in the top 100 pages for a term which was largely uncompetitive. The site had what I call geographic spam pages - pages that have almost exactly the same content but are targeted to a geographic area, e.g. flowers Shrewsbury. Also, if you tried to Google the 'geographic spam pages' even if there was no competition the page would only come up on about page 25. At the insistence of the company, we launched a new site, which again had geographic spam pages, although considerably less. Without getting any more incoming links, they shot up to page five for their search term at the next index. After getting about 100 or so industry links into their site, they ranked at the top of page one for their search term. Additionally, a lot of the geographic spam pages were coming up on page one, even for places which I wouldn't have expected them to. At this point none of the geographic spam pages were in the supplemental index. Now, about three months latter, most of the geographic spam pages are in the supplemental index and the main page of the site has dropped in the rankings. This leads me to believe that Google may use their duplicate content filter in deciding whether a page should be in the supplemental index. I will be making a recommendation that this site remove their geographic spam pages and will post the results if I can remember to. Adding more weight to this, I worked on another site - a business directory that has about 700,000 pages. The site has very little variation. Its mainly pages listing businesses and pages with a businesses address. The site has about 250 decent incoming links. Initially, Google didn't take much interest in the site, but Yahoo was ploughing though it. Now, Yahoo has next to no index but Google has a full index. By the time Google had spidered the site it had about 500,000 pages not in the supplemental index. Over six months it has decreased and now only about 100,000 pages are in the supplemental index. To make it even worse they have put almost exactly the same site on another domain. Just as a note. A while back I worked on a site that was sandboxed. Despite having a few dozen good incoming links and fair title tags and page content it didn’t rank in the top 100 pages for a term which was largely uncompetitive. The site had what I call geographic spam pages - pages that have almost exactly the same content but are targeted to a geographic area, e.g. flowers Shrewsbury. Also, if you tried to Google the ‘geographic spam pages’ even if there was no competition the page would only come up on about page 25.

At the insistence of the company, we launched a new site, which again had geographic spam pages, although considerably less. Without getting any more incoming links, they shot up to page five for their search term at the next index. After getting about 100 or so industry links into their site, they ranked at the top of page one for their search term. Additionally, a lot of the geographic spam pages were coming up on page one, even for places which I wouldn’t have expected them to. At this point none of the geographic spam pages were in the supplemental index.

Now, about three months latter, most of the geographic spam pages are in the supplemental index and the main page of the site has dropped in the rankings.

This leads me to believe that Google may use their duplicate content filter in deciding whether a page should be in the supplemental index.

I will be making a recommendation that this site remove their geographic spam pages and will post the results if I can remember to.

Adding more weight to this, I worked on another site - a business directory that has about 700,000 pages. The site has very little variation. Its mainly pages listing businesses and pages with a businesses address. The site has about 250 decent incoming links. Initially, Google didn’t take much interest in the site, but Yahoo was ploughing though it. Now, Yahoo has next to no index but Google has a full index. By the time Google had spidered the site it had about 500,000 pages not in the supplemental index. Over six months it has decreased and now only about 100,000 pages are in the supplemental index. To make it even worse they have put almost exactly the same site on another domain.

]]> By: Hamlet Batista http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-294 Hamlet Batista Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:58:50 +0000 http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-294 Nice set of tools, Bart Nice set of tools, Bart

]]> By: Hamlet Batista http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-293 Hamlet Batista Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:55:44 +0000 http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-293 Jez, Pages end up in the supplemental index based on their PageRank. Being a duplicate is not the main reason to end up there. Please read Matt Cutts make this clear <a href="http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-friday-supplementary-my-dear-watson#jtc24821" rel="nofollow">here</a> Having many duplicate pages might cause those pages to have low PageRank values Jez,

Pages end up in the supplemental index based on their PageRank. Being a duplicate is not the main reason to end up there. Please read Matt Cutts make this clear here

Having many duplicate pages might cause those pages to have low PageRank values

]]> By: Florchakh http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-291 Florchakh Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:10:57 +0000 http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-291 Supplemental index has been one of my favorite Google playthings. Works like a nice reminder for keeping pretty optimization on your sites, also it have been showing "value" of your SEO competitors. Now it looks like like situation is getting worse, on some of my sites there are very different results on respective Data Centers. Maybe folks from Google have taken it off? Just take a look on current results of supplemental query for your blog :/ http://oy-oy.eu/google/supplemental/?url=http://hamletbatista.com Supplemental index has been one of my favorite Google playthings. Works like a nice reminder for keeping pretty optimization on your sites, also it have been showing “value” of your SEO competitors.

Now it looks like like situation is getting worse, on some of my sites there are very different results on respective Data Centers. Maybe folks from Google have taken it off? Just take a look on current results of supplemental query for your blog :/

http://oy-oy.eu/google/supplemental/?url=http://hamletbatista.com

]]> By: Jez http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-286 Jez Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:41:36 +0000 http://hamletbatista.com/2007/07/11/out-of-the-supplemental-index-and-into-the-fire/#comment-286 Hi Hamlet, In the case of a Wordpress blog, pages are supplemental as they duplicate the content, through the comments page, archives etc. In this instance, your content would still be indexed under the main post page, so, are you really losing anything when this happens? Jez Hi Hamlet,

In the case of a Wordpress blog, pages are supplemental as they duplicate the content, through the comments page, archives etc.
In this instance, your content would still be indexed under the main post page, so, are you really losing anything when this happens?

Jez

]]>