|
Aug
3
|
|
As it is well known by now, Google decided to remove the supplemental label from pages it adds to its supplemental index. That is unfortunate because pages that are labeled this way need some “link lovin’.” How are we going to give those pages the love they need if we are not able to identify them in the first place?
In this post, I want to take a look at some of the alternatives we have to identify supplemental pages. WebmasterWorld has exposed a new query that displays such results, but nobody knows how long it is going to last. Type this into your Google search box: site:hamletbatista.com/& and you’ll see my supplemental pages. I tested it before and after Google removed the label and I'm getting the same pages.
Popularity: 5% [?]
|
Jul
11
|
|
Do you have pages in Google's supplemental index? Get 'em out of there!
Matt Cutts of Google doesn't think SEOs and website owners should be overly concerned about having pages in the supplemental index. He has some pages in the supplemental index, too.
As a reminder, supplemental results aren’t something to be afraid of; I’ve got pages from my site in the supplemental results, for example. A complete software rewrite of the infrastructure for supplemental results launched in Summer o’ 2005, and the supplemental results continue to get fresher. Having urls in the supplemental results doesn’t mean that you have some sort of penalty at all; the main determinant of whether a url is in our main web index or in the supplemental index is PageRank. If you used to have pages in our main web index and now they’re in the supplemental results, a good hypothesis is that we might not be counting links to your pages with the same weight as we have in the past. The approach I’d recommend in that case is to use solid white-hat SEO to get high-quality links (e.g. editorially given by other sites on the basis of merit).
Google is even considering removing the supplemental result tag. There won't be any way for us to tell if any page is supplemental. Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: 3% [?]
