| 9:25 am on Sep 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Supplimental results are the pages which were once in Google index and no longer exist for google bot. This could be either because they've been removed or Google has left them owing to some penalty associated with the site.
Since the last update it's been observed that goolge reflecting such results in prominence.
| 9:33 am on Sep 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Not wishing to cause alarm, but the prescense of "supplemental results" has indicated a penalty of some kind - based on recent examples i've seen.
What % of your pages do you have this on?
| 3:55 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So do we know anymore about supplemental results? I am finding that 4 out of the 6 pages on my site are coming up as supplemental results.
Does anyone have any idea why this would be happening? I have heard anything from a penalty, to the page having no links inbound, to the pages being on an older server.
Any help would be a great help!
| 4:13 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Take one of your supplemental results pages which contains real, unique, meaningful, useful content.
Create a link to that page within the content of a site which contains real, unique, meaningful, useful content which relates to that topic and which gets crawled by googlebot on a regular basis.
Wait "a while" (2 days to 2 months.)
The page should return to the regular SERPS.
| 9:27 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
To rephrase, I think that supplemental results are pages that no longer have links pointing to them from other pages.
| 10:03 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Or if your site is larger perhaps it has been hijacked.
Search for a unique long phrase, in quotes, from one of your supplemental pages. Hopefully you will not find another website with your content copied.
I have an old page, I use the term orphaned, I have no links to it. I decided to rename it more than a year ago but kept the old page around. It is still in Google's index as a "supplemental result". I don't think there are any backlinks to it either. Google just keeps crawling this orphaned page.
Google seems to love these orphaned pages! Like they're a big secret. It still shows up in search results and it still collects an occaisional visitor that clicks through to the actual page.
For most pages, if Google misses the page just twice, (two crawls) the page is gone completely from the index, but orphaned pages seem to live forever.
If someone has copied your page I suspect that your supplemental result will simply disappear. I hope that's not the case.
| 2:04 am on Oct 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"For most pages, if Google misses the page just twice, (two crawls) the page is gone completely from the index"
When this happens, what does one do to get it back in the index?
| 8:28 am on Oct 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My own view is that pages become "supplemental" when they're not linked into the thick of your website.
| 11:02 am on Oct 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i agree to this. i have same problem with my site 27 pages of my site shows up in "Supplement Result "....
when i chaek those pages out of all some of them were no where linked in my existing website, some were looking duplicate..and some of them were very old pages without any link on existing site....
so i feel this should be the reason for "supplement result"...
| 11:08 am on Oct 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|When this happens, what does one do to get it back in the index? |
Since this seems like a Q & A thread.
Normally one more crawl (could be a month) and you'll be back in the index. At this point the page would always have zero page rank, after another crawl your page will typically be assigned it's page rank. BUT now that Google appears to only update toolbar pagerank quarterly you will typically see PR 0 for up to 3 months after your page has been missed twice in a row by the Google crawl. There may be an "internal to Google" pagerank assigned after the second recovery crawl but you won't see it except in the SERP's.
The other oddity is Google seems to give brand new pages a significant boost in the SERP's (still), then after one more crawl the page drops down to a more reasonable location in the SERP's. The boost would last a day to a month depending upon the crawl schedule and the introduction of the new page. I think this new page boost can be why some questionable pages end up near number 1 in the SERP's. I think Google may penalize pages that seem to come and go in and out of existance. One could try to take advantage of this "new page" boost, that's why I suspect a penalty. This also implies Google remembers pages that are not displayed in any way in the index.
Google certainly remembers supplemental pages; one of mine for more than a year now, with no backlinks, that can be found.
Hope this wasn't too far off topic.
| 8:45 am on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
[edited by: g1smd at 8:54 am (utc) on Oct. 24, 2004]
| 8:53 am on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A page may not be a supplemental result for all keyword searches!
I had a page with a spelling mistake on it, and the word was only used once, so there was no right version on the page, only the wrong version.
Searching for the right spelling, the page did not appear to be indexed, at all; which led me to wonder why... until I spotted the spelling mistake. The page ranked as a normal result for this incorrect spelling.
I corrected the error and the page ranked for the correct spelling within a few days. It was a normal result. The cache is updated daily and when searching using the correct spelling the snippet shows the correct spelling too.
If you search for the incorrect spelling, then the page is still shown in the SERPs, and the snippet shows the content with the WRONG spelling too. That is, the snippet does not reflect either the real page content, nor does it reflect the cached page either! The "wrong spelling" result does have a title and snippet and it has been a supplemental result for at least a month now.
The page is a normal result if you search for anything else to do with that page. It is only a supplemental result for a search using the spelling mistake.
When looking at the cache, when clicked from the spelling mistake search, the cache shows the very latest page content; but it says about the keywords "these terms only appear in pages linking to this page". Well, that is not true (unless you want to bend the truth a little). The spelling mistake only appeared on that page in the past, and is not there now. The spelling mistake is not on any page that links to the page in question (unless you count the Google search as being a page that links to it!).
The only way to get to that place is via: http://www.google.com/search?q=keywordspeltwrong
| 8:56 am on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 2:17 pm on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
all my Supplemental Results, which were gone (old pages-no longer exist) are now back. These pages had an underscore not a dash. All my newer pages (with a dash) are not in Supplemental Results.
using and old data base maybe?
| 5:29 pm on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Very interstesing observation g1smd.
|A page may not be a supplemental result for all keyword searches! |
I played around in Google to get a search with a supplemental result. Then I tried:
What I found was the page was listed as a supplemental result.
g1smd, I am curious as to what the results would be if you tried that same test with the page in question.
| 5:54 pm on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Page in question is at: www.domain.com/folder/filename.html
I searched for site:www.domain.com filename on Google like you suggested (omitting the folder name and the .html part).
This result shows the page as a NORMAL result, with a 22 Oct 2004 fresh date, and a cache date of 23 Oct 2004 01:44 UTC.
The title is correct, and the snippet shows only the first three words of the page (which is a bit short, but whatever).
| 6:32 pm on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i have a query related to this supplementry pages also
Earlier i was hosting my 20 page website on geocities and google has all those 20 pages file names as supplementary results
now i am thinking to replace all those pages with pages pointing to our new domain.
for example:if my eariler page at geocities was car.htm,i would delete the contents of car.htm anf write there "Please visit newdomain.com"
this i am thinking to do for all pages
I wanted to know what u think that google will penalize our new website as we would e having 20 new links poiting to our website as all the suplementary pagesa have been already indexed.
Wont you think google would consider it as spamming
Please comment on this
| 6:49 pm on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I did something like that last year and it worked a treat.
I put <meta name="robots" content="NOindex,follow"> on all pages of the old site. This would get it delisted from search engines.
I left all the old content on the old site, but I changed all the "internal" navigation of the old site to point to the new pages on the new site.
If you go to any page of the old site, then click any link, you get taken to the new site. I changed the links on each page like this:
/index.html --> www.newsite.com/
/aboutus.html --> www.newsite.com/aboutus.html
/events.html --> www.newsite.com/events.html
/news.html --> www.newsite.com/news.html
/findus.html --> www.newsite.com/findus.html
/contact.html --> www.newsite.com/contact.html
You cannot browse the old site. You CAN get to any page if you know the URL, or have it in a Bookmark, or find it in a search result, or arrive from any other site. However, any link you click on any page of the old site will transport you directly to that page, but on the NEW site.
Google delisted the old site several weeks after I made those changes; and Google listed the new site in its place about a day after it had delisted the old site. A side benefit was that the old site had been at about #80 in the SERPs and the new one went in at #1 (and is still there over a year later).
Warning! Do NOT use a META REFRESH tag in any of this. That will totally screw up your results.
| 1:14 pm on Oct 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hi I have found supplemental results showing for a page of a site which has been very stable - but very low pr for several years. There are several links from within the site pointing to the page, so it has not become detached, there are also pages linked from that page which are also in the results but do not get supplemental results on any listings.
| 3:14 pm on Oct 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Meranda, I think that may be because if a low-pr site drops a little lower, Google might decide to index fewer of the pages. Then the pages that it decides not to index, it dumps into the supplemental index along with other pages that it won't be revisiting.
| 3:26 pm on Oct 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That makes sense, I shall get more PR and move the site on.
| 3:27 pm on Oct 31, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That makes sense, I shall get more PR and move the site on.
| 2:57 am on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i moved all the content from my old domain and sold it. it now contains a framed page that google does not index. the domain i sold is pr4
i then put the content into a pr3 domain and boom! My new domain shows nowhere. The old domain shows up for all my keywords with all the old files in the index, with the words supplemental result beside the listings ..click on them and you get a 404...guess google thinks i jacked my own site..
| 3:46 am on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|...guess google thinks i jacked my own site. |
Well, you did, didn't you? (LOL)
| 4:37 am on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
in my case the supps are the ones from domain.com/pages since I used rewrite to move everything to www.domain.com/pages automatically. Here's the weird part, the supps ones rank higher, but when I click on the "more from this site" the new ones rank higher.
I guess it will take G a couple of updates to really update...unless it's showing as dupe or they penalized the www.domain.com and not domain.com. Who knows.