homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 49 message thread spans 2 pages: 49 ( [1] 2 > >     
Loads of Supplemental and the titles are all corrupt
Seems to be ignoring the </title> tag

 2:18 am on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have had loads of new pages indexed this evening however. Yes they are all supplemental ( No surprises there)

BUT the titles are all wrong instead of stopping at the </title> tag the results are showing some of the text from the page in the title of the result.

Anyone else seeing this on their newly added supplementals?



 4:38 am on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes, seeing same thing. But not doing it consistantly, for example.

site:www.example.com "widget" returns odd sup. results say including red widget.

site:www.example.com "red widget" shows no sups.

Some of these odd sups erronously has "red widget" text appended to end of title display.

Title tag coded correctly now, perhaps html errors in past such as missing </title>?


 6:58 am on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have noticed the same after I checked my site for site:mydomain.com -inurl www. I saw hundred plus suplemental listings, out of thousand pages, and all have the title issue.

And also for my site search google shows 9645 pages, but the fact is I dont have anything more than 900 plus pages on my site, can any one explain why and how can i fix it? My site has a pr of 6. Thanks.


 7:08 am on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

mine is a new website just 2 months or so.
initally there was just 3 pages indexed (luckly in the main index) but when i checked some 4 days back (site:www.domain.com) i found that G had indexed some 1700+ pages but leaving our the 3 old pages all where in supplemental index. Why is this? Does this happen to all new websites? I am confused? Comment please.


 7:28 am on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am not sure if this happens only to a new site, but mine is two years old and it lost traffic by six times during this march. Possibly for a dupe content issue, someone has copied our whole site and published on a different domain(about three years old). We are just waiting to regain our rankings.


 2:42 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

All my pages have recently returned to the index however they all have this Title issue also.


 2:47 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

And also for my site search google shows 9645 pages, but the fact is I dont have anything more than 900 plus pages on my site, can any one explain why and how can i fix it? My site has a pr of 6. Thanks.

It is an html site. Can anyone update me on this?


 3:05 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am seeing the same thing with the titles; also seems to be totally ignoring the description.


 4:36 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm seeing this, but the title is the page title plus the home page title.


 5:14 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I see this on several sites as well, and noticed that if the body text that got added to the SERPs title is always the same on all pages, it seems to throw those pages into the supplemental index.

This is a real problem for the site if the top body text on all pages is a standard 'page header.'



 7:01 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I got a kick out of what you said JD because I normally think duplicate when I see supplemental. From what I am seeing since yesterday, Google is apparently seeing the “previous-next page” at the top of some of my pages as duplicate content. Google adds that to my meta title. That is apparently how they ended up in supplemental.

Geez, it like I’ve always said. Google just creates way too much work and worry for webmasters. Somebody ought to explain to those geniuses at Google that spam is more related to quantity than anything. Spam isn’t a few pages within a domain using similar type navigation or excerpts. But in dealing with many Phd’s absolutely none can admit they can make a mistake.


 10:29 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have supplemental results in which google listings have "Google Web www" added to several titles; or maybe this plus site name, or just site name added to actual page title.


 10:48 pm on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google's duplicate content filter is broken. There's no reason why identical META descriptions should automatically dump you in the supplimental index. But that's what I see happen with too many domains.


 12:04 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

yeah I just noticed that all my pages are supplemental and have the exact text that is in my list style horizontal menu on top of every page.


 1:12 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

And also for my site search google shows 9645 pages, but the fact is I dont have anything more than 900 plus pages on my site

[webmasterworld.com...] Possibly relates to this, thought changes to site: may have resolved this issue


 1:45 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have a new client who has always been supplemental, best as I can tell (only managed to get their home page reliably out of supps so far, darn it) and the other day, yep, their supplementally listed pages had the title replaced with the first row of content, a nav bar.
Ahhhhhh! I worked hard on those titles!

Any suggestions on what is causing Google to do this and what we can do to get it to stop?
Its gotta be a bug that they will fix, surely?

{clicks heals together and says the magic words} Adam Lasnik, are you out there? This is too weird for words!


 1:56 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Not that this thread needs another 'me too' comment but me too. Example for those who haven't seen it...

<title>My Page Title</title>
Page Content
InternalLink1 InternalLink2 InternalLink3

In the SERPs for a "site:www.mysite.com" search it brings up "My Page Title InternalLink1 InternalLink2 InternalLink3" as the title of the page when it should be just "My Page Title".

I haven't found anything at all to connect the dots as to why it's happened with some pages but not others. It's most certainly a bug even if it's by design. There's simply no reason to list page titles in that manner.


 3:15 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

The "internallink1" might partly explain what I see. But adding "Google Web www" seems odd.

Looks like my cms site's heavily penalised for having identical meta descriptions. I'd gotten lazy with these: seemed they were from the past, and my pages were being indexed fine w google taking snippets to put in descriptions - so when adding content, rarely bothered with descriptions, which meant that used default for the site.

Now, even pages with considerable content are in supplememtals; to human eye would be clearly different to other pages on site, but no longer to google, after great step(s) backwards. While, of course, SERPS include pages with nothing novel bar the search terms.

Google now seems limited to using meta description for the site.

Supplementals for my site include way too many "pages", many of which should not be indexed by any search engine: some from during creation of forum threads, even with "pages" as enter new posts.

Why should google bother keeping supplementals anyway? If judged not good, surely could remove to free up space for supposedly ok content.
Pages that now have no links would then disappear from index (like many of my supplementals, which return "page not found" errors should google care to someday check).
Pages with links may make it into index should google deem them worthy in future.
[Are there notions in Google that they're cataloguing the web, even keeping parts for posterity as web pages and sites disappear?
Seems more like someone who just keeps every scrap of everything, maybe in the attic; to what extent accidentally here, who will say.]

To me, the supplemental hell problem recalls my sometimes clumsiness with cms - do the wrong thing (even minor change), make it live, and can have problems site-wide.
But in this case, the goof-ups have gone global.
I'm afraid I only really noticed w my sites lately; yet reading posts inc Matt Cutts should have been fixed some time ago.


 3:29 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hmmm... Something g1smd said in another thread seems to hold true for several massively-supplemental sites I've examined: Make sure any <h1> content on your page agrees with the page <title>, and that there's only one <h1> on a page. And yes, descriptions, like pages, should be unique.



 5:16 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

jd, should the <h1> be exact as the title or can there be any variation?


 5:42 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't know, since there are undoubtedly many, many factors (as always) at work here. But many of the supplemental pages I saw had total disagreement between <h1> and <title>, and in many cases, the <h1> had been used on an old non-CSS page simply to get large, bold, text. In other words, it was used for 'styling' and not as a semantic markup element, and often appeared more than once per page.

This wasn't true in all cases, but it was true in enough cases that I strongly suspect that it's one of the factors exposed by this interesting supplemental index bug.

Another one is the already-well-known non-unique meta description factor.

Looks like tomorrow's going to be a busy day at the 'plex...



 6:59 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Monday morning - my "corrupt titles" have all disappeared, and for the first time some of my de-indexed pages have reappeared.


 7:03 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hmmm.... I've just looked at my site more - the pages marked as supplemental now have really old version - the previous design, which I hadn't seen before (blech!)
The titles being replaced were single words - I wonder if Google thinks it is 'adding value' by pulling words out of the content 'surely thats more valuable than a single word'?
I hope not - it would mean that its on purpose, no accident and the way of the future.

(And I thought it was bad when they overwrote my carefully crafted titles with the titles the morons at DMOZ thought up!)


 8:38 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

My corrupt titles are all gone too, although they are still caching the ridiculously old pages - and they have had newer versions in the results previously.

What sane reason would there be for reverting to an older version of the site for results?
Hardware failure and poor backups? I don't believe it!

Oooh, thats interesting - I'm still seeing corrupt titles at the very end of the site: results, for pages which are now 404ed (the pages that exist have reverted to correct titles from non-current versions)
Actually, at least one of those results has a 301 on it.
Bad, bad, bad :(
But I guess they are working on it?


 10:15 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> my "corrupt titles" have all disappeared <<

Which datacentres? I still see them in some datacentres.
Check by direct IP address access.

Google now has at least 4 different "things" going on across their 80+ datacentres.


 10:38 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0) for me


 11:52 am on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just checked my second, 8 month old site, every page is now indexed for the first time ever, but the Titles on the Supplementals are still corrupt.


 12:13 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

My suplimental results and corrupt titles are gone too on But yesterday it was showing 600 plus pages, 100 plus new supplimentals with corrupt titles, and 300 plus pages omitted for being similar, today it shows 500 plus pages, all suplimental pages with corrupt titles gone and 400 plus pages are omitted for similarity. Can anybody workout this math of 100 odd pages being shuffled?

Anybody can explain this similarity concept of google? Since all my pages are as unique as other pages, just different articles.


 12:21 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am also haveing similar results when i am trying to search site:www.mydomain.com

Google has cached my new pages but inserted them into supplemental results with my original title and additional title on its own

Any suggestions to rectify this


 12:59 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

They need more incoming links, and/or more time online, to be considered "important enough" to be properly indexed.

This 49 message thread spans 2 pages: 49 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved