Google removes supplemental results from SERPs - GoFuckYourself.com

Meorazhar · 08-01-2007, 06:34 AM

Just recently Google has announced at its official webmaster central blog that they are going to stop tagging some search results as "supplemental".

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogsp...ainstream.html

From the comments on the original post looks like it's more to the bad than to the good though...

Meorazhar · 08-01-2007, 06:39 AM

Wow, the thread is sinking fast.
Bump for the business matter.
Just checked one of my sites and all my supplemental results gone mainstream

who · 08-01-2007, 06:41 AM

You're wrong with the title. They are no longer MARKING THEM AS SUPPLEMENTAL - not removing them from the results.

Meorazhar · 08-01-2007, 06:50 AM

Whatever...
Nobody cares anyway

RawAlex · 08-01-2007, 07:03 AM

Yeah, if anything, if read correctly, it says that Google is confident enough of botting all of the pages that they no longer have to mark something as supplemental because they have the ability to check them in a reasonable amount of time.

So in the end, it isn't a bad thing, but a decent thing.

scottybuzz · 08-01-2007, 07:24 AM

Bump for more discussion.

Kevsh · 08-01-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

The distinction between the main and the supplemental index is therefore continuing to narrow.

I can see arguments for and against the move, but if the above quote from the article is true then I see it overall as a positive. For a few of my sites that are heavily in the Supps I have a chance to get visits on otherwise very rare terms where I'm buried.

Cyndalie · 08-01-2007, 07:30 AM

Hell of a misleading thread title.

StarkReality · 08-01-2007, 07:40 AM

I could be a good thing, although I doubt they'll give pages they marked as unimportant (=supplemental) more importance now...It could just be a dirty trick to move even more results to supplemental (or a "dead part" of the index when it comes to ranking) silently and noone will complain or recognize it.

JD · 08-01-2007, 07:43 AM

fucking eh.....

Theo · 08-01-2007, 09:37 AM

interesting indeed

woj · 08-01-2007, 10:01 AM

thanks for the heads up

NinjaSteve · 08-01-2007, 10:18 AM

What is a supplemental result anyway?

hungry hungry hippy · 08-01-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarkReality

I could be a good thing, although I doubt they'll give pages they marked as unimportant (=supplemental) more importance now...It could just be a dirty trick to move even more results to supplemental (or a "dead part" of the index when it comes to ranking) silently and noone will complain or recognize it.

my thoughts exactly. this will just make it harder to gauge your strategies.

so don't be happy kevsh your supp'd pages won't suddenly fly up the serps

Forkbeard · 08-01-2007, 10:23 AM

The only recent change has been to remove the tag that *shows* that a page is supplemental.

I've been tracking the supplemental pages on one of my blogs *very* closely for a few days to monitor the effect of some navigation changes. The pages that were supplemental are still supplemental -- which is to say, they only appear in searches for site:url, they appear immediately after all the pages that didn't used to be supplemental, and they still don't show up even when you do a targeted search for phrases from those pages.

So, sorry to say it, but Google is lying. They've eliminated the ability to easily see which pages are supplemental, but they haven't changed the functionality of those pages lately.

They may indeed change them later, that's always possible. But today, we still have as many supplemental pages as we had yesterday, Google is just playing hide-the-ball like they did when they stopped updating PageRank in a timely fashion.

mrkrabs · 08-01-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinjaSteve

What is a supplemental result anyway?

bump for this question

Altheon · 08-01-2007, 12:00 PM

I liked being able to see which results were in supplemental since you could easily identify the pages that needed more link love.

sonofsam · 08-01-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinjaSteve

What is a supplemental result anyway?

duplicate content would fall into supplemental

original content does not.

bobby666 · 08-01-2007, 01:38 PM

a bump for the worth, generally

bdld · 08-01-2007, 01:47 PM

thread title is false, at the very least misleading.

SmokeyTheBear · 08-01-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

The only recent change has been to remove the tag that *shows* that a page is supplemental.

I've been tracking the supplemental pages on one of my blogs *very* closely for a few days to monitor the effect of some navigation changes. The pages that were supplemental are still supplemental -- which is to say, they only appear in searches for site:url, they appear immediately after all the pages that didn't used to be supplemental, and they still don't show up even when you do a targeted search for phrases from those pages.

So, sorry to say it, but Google is lying. They've eliminated the ability to easily see which pages are supplemental, but they haven't changed the functionality of those pages lately.

They may indeed change them later, that's always possible. But today, we still have as many supplemental pages as we had yesterday, Google is just playing hide-the-ball like they did when they stopped updating PageRank in a timely fashion.

actually when you do site:domain.com they no longer appear as far as i can tell. well they do and they dont..

when you search site:domain.com it will show 1-100 of XXXX pages

lets say x is 3333 , if you are search 100 results per page and go to the last page of results ( should be 900-1000 ) you will notice a different number.

for example on one of my domains it shows about 2k pages for site:domain.com but when i scroll to the bottom it only shows up to page #3 , when i go to page 3 it says 332 of 332 at the top instead of 332 of 2000

last week it was showing the full amount of pages but the last 700 were listed as supplemental.

so it showed the full 1000 , now those supplemental pages are gone ( kinda )

baddog · 08-01-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdld

thread title is false, at the very least misleading.

Not really. Just means that with popular keywords instead of showing up as a supplemental result, you probably won't show up at all.

he-fox · 08-01-2007, 02:08 PM

this sounds like good news to me.

yahoo-xxx-girls.com · 08-01-2007, 02:21 PM

My site is: www.PrismVoD.com however I'm indexing xml and have moved my index.xml to a different directory with my .htaccess pointing to http://www.prismvod.com/lesbian-vod/index.xml ... Is this an example of a supplemental index ?

Google likes rss and atom feeds but does not seem to like straight xml ... does anyone have any comments regarding this issue...

.

squizzel · 08-01-2007, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofsam

duplicate content would fall into supplemental

original content does not.

actually that is wrong. It is more to do with links, domain authority, and link juice pointing at a page. You can get duplicate content to rank very well if you have a domain of authority. Contary to popular belief what your suggesting is old news and hasnt been relevant for over a year. It pays to be clued up.

hungry hungry hippy · 08-01-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squizzel

actually that is wrong. It is more to do with links, domain authority, and link juice pointing at a page. You can get duplicate content to rank very well if you have a domain of authority. Contary to popular belief what your suggesting is old news and hasnt been relevant for over a year. It pays to be clued up.

what he said..

dupe content is a myth created by white hats to (try) to protect their beloved content

08-01-2007, 06:34 AM	#1
Meorazhar Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2005 Location: ICQ: 5262689 Posts: 672	Google removes supplemental results from SERPs Just recently Google has announced at its official webmaster central blog that they are going to stop tagging some search results as "supplemental". http://googlewebmastercentral.blogsp...ainstream.html From the comments on the original post looks like it's more to the bad than to the good though...

08-01-2007, 07:24 AM	#6
scottybuzz Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Location: NY Posts: 14,800	Bump for more discussion. __________________ $$$$$ MAKE HUGE MONEY IN CAMS - CLICK HERE $$$$$

08-01-2007, 07:30 AM	#8
Cyndalie Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Cherry Hill, NJ Posts: 3,615	Hell of a misleading thread title. __________________ Cyndalie Marketing Director StoriesTraffic.com

08-01-2007, 10:01 AM	#12
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	thanks for the heads up __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

08-01-2007, 10:18 AM	#13
NinjaSteve Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 11,089	What is a supplemental result anyway? __________________ ...

08-01-2007, 06:39 AM	#2
Meorazhar Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2005 Location: ICQ: 5262689 Posts: 672	Wow, the thread is sinking fast. Bump for the business matter. Just checked one of my sites and all my supplemental results gone mainstream

08-01-2007, 06:41 AM	#3
who So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ICQ #23642053 Posts: 19,593	You're wrong with the title. They are no longer MARKING THEM AS SUPPLEMENTAL - not removing them from the results.

08-01-2007, 06:50 AM	#4
Meorazhar Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2005 Location: ICQ: 5262689 Posts: 672	Whatever... Nobody cares anyway

08-01-2007, 07:03 AM	#5
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Yeah, if anything, if read correctly, it says that Google is confident enough of botting all of the pages that they no longer have to mark something as supplemental because they have the ability to check them in a reasonable amount of time. So in the end, it isn't a bad thing, but a decent thing.

08-01-2007, 07:40 AM	#9
StarkReality Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Location: 4 8 15 16 23 42 Posts: 4,444	I could be a good thing, although I doubt they'll give pages they marked as unimportant (=supplemental) more importance now...It could just be a dirty trick to move even more results to supplemental (or a "dead part" of the index when it comes to ranking) silently and noone will complain or recognize it.

08-01-2007, 07:43 AM	#10
JD Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 22,651	fucking eh.....

08-01-2007, 09:37 AM	#11
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	interesting indeed

08-01-2007, 10:23 AM	#15
Forkbeard Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I Roam Around Posts: 2,236	The only recent change has been to remove the tag that shows that a page is supplemental. I've been tracking the supplemental pages on one of my blogs very closely for a few days to monitor the effect of some navigation changes. The pages that were supplemental are still supplemental -- which is to say, they only appear in searches for site:url, they appear immediately after all the pages that didn't used to be supplemental, and they still don't show up even when you do a targeted search for phrases from those pages. So, sorry to say it, but Google is lying. They've eliminated the ability to easily see which pages are supplemental, but they haven't changed the functionality of those pages lately. They may indeed change them later, that's always possible. But today, we still have as many supplemental pages as we had yesterday, Google is just playing hide-the-ball like they did when they stopped updating PageRank in a timely fashion. __________________ Offering sponsored blog posts and custom writing services.

08-01-2007, 12:00 PM	#17
Altheon Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 506	I liked being able to see which results were in supplemental since you could easily identify the pages that needed more link love.

08-01-2007, 01:38 PM	#19
bobby666 boots are my religion Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Heart of europe Posts: 21,765	a bump for the worth, generally __________________

08-01-2007, 01:47 PM	#20
bdld $100,000 Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 11,452	thread title is false, at the very least misleading.

08-01-2007, 02:08 PM	#23
he-fox Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Playa del Carmen, Mexico Posts: 2,884	this sounds like good news to me.

08-01-2007, 02:21 PM	#24
yahoo-xxx-girls.com Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 3,143	Tech question for you all... My site is: www.PrismVoD.com however I'm indexing xml and have moved my index.xml to a different directory with my .htaccess pointing to http://www.prismvod.com/lesbian-vod/index.xml ... Is this an example of a supplemental index ? Google likes rss and atom feeds but does not seem to like straight xml ... does anyone have any comments regarding this issue... . __________________ sig too big