| 9:30 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If both of your pages would end up on the same page of the SERP (say in position 2 and position 8) they are put together under the higher ranking of the two rather than separately.
| 9:45 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
he, he, that's been my recent challenge. I finally made it - alltough it's still in flux due to the current data changes! ;)
Like mohamed said, you'll need two pages that match the same query and are ranked within the same portion of results. ie if both sites are listed within the first 20 results and your google search prefs are set to display 20 results per page, you'll get a indented listing. However this doesn't automatically mean you'll also get it with a settings of 10 results per page.
It's a kind of fun to modify your pages until they finally get listed both - one indented. It's not only fun but increases your chances to get a click and looks pretty crunchy if both pages are related but not dups.
| 10:02 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
So if I already have a 2nd page listed (indented) that is only an exact copy of the first page - i think it's a frameset showing the same frames as the home page, and I change that completely, will it drop out the listings on the next update?
| 10:20 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"If both of your pages would end up on the same page of the SERP (say in position 2 and position 8) they are put together under the higher ranking of the two rather than separately."
Cool. I never knew this before. Does having #1 and an indented #2 give me any bragging rights? (Obscure search term though).
| 10:36 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Its cool, yes, but the benfit comes only with Google. The Yahoo!s and AOL's of this world don't switch the index around in this fashion.
| 10:56 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am not really sure whether this is a net benefit or not.
On the pro side, it shows (to those who understand) that your site has more than one page on the topic, and is therefore more of an authority. It also stands out visually.
On the con side, your double listing is in one place, and if passed over it is passed over. With the Yahoo!/AOL approach you get a second chance at the surfer with your second listing.
Since I have no choice I do not spend much time debating whether it is a net plus or not :)
| 10:57 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
powdork, actually I believe that the double listings do translate over into AOL, just not Yahoo!
| 12:09 am on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
For one keyword I get the following:
Google -- Indented listings in positions 1 and 2.
AOL -- Same listings, not indented, in poitions 1 and 2.
Yahoo! -- First listing in position 1, second listing nowhere to be found!
| 2:18 am on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Right. AOHell keeps the second listing, but doesn't indent it so at first glance it looks like another site, not a subpage...as usual for them, the worst possible choice.
I wish Google would just drop that second listing. Not really fair for that poor #10 guy who gets shoved to page two!
| 4:28 am on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Wow - good thinking man - you really are the Master of Wack.
| 4:35 am on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>Not really fair for that poor #10 guy who gets shoved to page two!
Puhlease, not really fair to not list my relevant content in order to list that sorry #10 guy's content. Besides, ya get more traffic at #11 than at #10.
Now, what if I could show you how to get 3 listings on the same page...
| 5:02 am on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If you get the indented listing, it will put a link undreneath the second one to see more pages from this site. Then it will not show any more results from your site as they dig deeper into the SERPS. So if Google happens to pick your 2 least interesting pages you might be in trouble.
I find the indenting works the best to catch my eye for sites with branding in their title. If there is not some sort of similarity in the titles, I don't really notice the indenting at all.
(In the cases where I went from a single page in the first SERP in one month to an indent the next month, I have noticed that my traffic more than doubles on that search. If you aren't #1, then indenting is the next best thing.
| 5:02 am on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What's really not fair is when an idiot like me uses subdomains to organize his site and Google lists it 4 times in the top 5 for certain terms.
It's fun to blow it out like that, but I doubt it's smart in the long run. If the climate outside is anything like in WW, I'm getting spam reported daily.
| 6:50 am on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I find the indenting works the best to catch my eye for sites
>with branding in their title. If there is not some sort of similarity
>in the titles, I don't really notice the indenting at all.
hmm... i find it works the best to influence themeing of search results.
Say i have a site about cooking. You have one directory where you list receipts for italian sauces. One page within this directory is a receipt for the yummy pesto genovese. Another directory is a guide about how to make pasta. One page within this directory is about making basil flawored pasta.
Now somebody searches for cooking + basil and since you linked your pages wisely following themes, both above described sites are listed at one result page - one indented. If you have creative titles and descriptions for both sites you'll definetely make the searcher happy and you'll increase your chance to get him as a new fan of your cooking site. I have a lot of such related listings and the ctr is really good. It not just looks professional - it IS - and it perfectly shows your authority.
I don't see why the double (not indented) listing that aol returns is worse than the indented google listing. If one reads through the results and finds two highly related pages of the same site it shows pretty much the same authority - whether it's indented or not.
I don't mind if it's fair to the poor #10 guy. C'mon we allready know that google isn't fair, no!? As i read somewhere Google will fall any time soon (don't remember where i read it though) - me personally, i'll try to suck as much targeted traffic out of it as possible until it's fallen. ;)
| 1:56 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I don't mind if it's fair to the poor #10 guy. C'mon we allready know that google isn't fair, no!? As i read somewhere Google will fall any time soon (don't remember where i read it though) - me personally, i'll try to suck as much targeted traffic out of it as possible until it's fallen. ;) |
Fair enough, from the webmaster's POV.
I'm looking at it more from the user's POV, which *poor ol' Google* keeps trying to do also.
As a user, once you've shown me that site A might have what I'm looking for, I really don't need to see additional page listings from that same site; what am I going to do - click on a link for site A, visit site A, return to Google's page, then click on the second link from site A? Useless. My needs are better served by seeing more links from more sites, served up as succinctly as possible.