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

Linking to supplemental site?
Is linking to site in supplemental G index harmful?

 1:50 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hello guys,

I need help regarding one question that gives me trouble.
I would like to know is linking to site that has supplemental pages in google index harmful for site that links to it.
For example, let's say I have site: domain1 and it is listed in regular google index, but however its subpages (domain1/page1/, ../page2, /page3, etc) are in Supplemental index, and that's why page1 is dir. and has about 10 pages in it. Each page is however the copy of index.html (page1/index.html, page2/index.html, etc), but with different header (header contains 3 links)...so every other file in particular directory (page1/ page2/ page3/ ...) contains different set of link in the header. Google indexed those pages and put them into Supplemental index. I think it's a bit ok, since every other file, as I said, is actually dup. index.html but only with different links in the header.

Now, will linking to that "original" source, index.html harm the site that links to it? For example I link from domain2 to domain1/page1/ . Will domain2 be penalized for such a behaviour?

Thanks in advance,

[edited by: engine at 2:03 pm (utc) on July 24, 2006]



 6:23 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

Not necessarily.

But if the other site is on the same topic, you risk increasing your problems.

And if you do a lot of interlinking, you risk being seen as a link netwrok, which is often fatal.

If the links are in the interests of your visitors, go for it; if the sites overlap, why do you have two?

And don't forget to deal with the issues that made those pages supplementary listed. Google hates duplication; it confuses your readers and never helps anyone. Fix the sites, and Google will smile on you.

Try to con Google using 1998 methods, and you won't get far.


 7:14 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

Thanks for the answer.

Those pages are duplicated because they have to be submitted to particular directories, which only allow 3 outgoing links. Thus I have to duplicate the same page to about 10 times, to be able to submit it to 30 link directories. I haven't had ever thought about duplicating the page to trick or even cheat Google, no, I am not that kind of guy. Everything on my sites is PURE WHITE HAT and always will be!

Now, regarding those supp. pages, I think it's not possible to get out of supp. index, cuz is I said, they lay there and actually have link dirs. pointing to them, so deleting them would cause ban on those link dirs. I just want to know will linking from my other site (domain2) to those supp. pages harm it?



 9:05 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm not convinced that that kind of directory is worth the risk; you'd be better going for quality directories that just list you the once (www.domain.com). That carries sevral advantages:

1. You'd not need duplicate pages, which is hurting you, and in future could hurt you more.

2. You'd have no risk of being banned for a bad neighborhood - link exchanges are bad news; NEVER ever submit your site to a directory that demaind a reciprocal link. There's plenty of free directorie that don't; stick to them.

3. You'd be safer when linking between your own sites - which normally is just fine, but for you, it risks being banned - especially if both are involved in this directory scheme.

I'm sure that you are doing what you think is right - but linking to bad sites is no longer always white hat; and the trouble is, no-one can tell you (for sure) which sites are OK.

But there are warning signs;

1. A cheap looking directory with no page rank
2. Adsense all over it like a rash
3. demands a reciprocal link
4. full of c**p sites
5. little or no active editing - many sites with spam descriptions or titles

If a directory features ONE or MORE of those characteristics, move on; white hat it ain't!

There's at least 20,000 directories; leave the c**p ones to the spammers. They need it - you don't!

Good Luck :)


 9:59 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0)


"...And if you do a lot of interlinking, you risk being seen as a link netwrok, which is often fatal..." "...Google hates duplication... Fix the sites, and Google will smile on you..."

You made some pretty definitive statements. Have you incurred the wrath of Googlebot and lived to tell about it. Are you speaking from experience or just pontificating? Please enlighten us.


 11:16 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

"...And if you do a lot of interlinking, you risk being seen as a link netwrok, which is often fatal..." "...Google hates duplication... Fix the sites, and Google will smile on you..."

If you think I'm pontificating, you must be new to SEO; I have some experience, and I can read - there's plenty of evidence out there, if you care to look.

Even spammers are aware that link networks are being eradicated. the policy in these forums is not to name names - but they certainly know who they are - even if you don't.

And if you seriously doubt that removing the causes of supplemental listing is not the right way to go, I can only suggest you read around - including these forums. Those causes re well known, and the remedy is usually in the webmaster's control

Nothing I've said is controversial; most of it is common sense; ALL of it is supported by easy-to-find evidence; do look.

Apology accepted ;)

BTW - if you'd like to start a thread on YOUR problems, I'll be happy to chip in.

[edited by: Quadrille at 11:17 pm (utc) on July 24, 2006]


 12:02 am on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

What about linkmetro, is that a no no as far as google is concerned?


 12:03 am on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)


Your answer is very informative and helpful, thanks. However, there are things that are not so clear. So let me try to explain a little bit better the situation.

Submitting to those "Link Directories" are not for the cause of good SE ranking but for traffic. They don't even place hard link to my page(s), it goes through the scripts, so they can track how many hits they sent out...

So, I have to make those dup pages with different links on top to be able to get as much traffic as possible, so those sites actually update daily, so my link is placed today, and say tomorrow it's going down (on the page), thus less traffic is being sent... I hope you now understand why I submit to those sites, and why I use about 10 same content pages but with different headers. And yes, the sites that link to my pages, are all CLEAN sites, with PR and actual incoming links.

Once again, I'll repeat my question. Will linking to one of my pages, let's say to the main one, index.html , cause some troubles to the linker?

Thank you again~


 12:52 am on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)


You took me questions totally wrong. And I definitely am not new to SEO--I having being doing it for 8+ years, all but the last 7 months successfully.

A lot of what you say has merit, but my question is: Are you speaking from experience (which then would then give you tremendous credibility) or are you just citing what you read from these forums (= much less credibility but still meritorious). Please state which is the case.

I have never been part of a link network and would never entertain such a dangerous endeavor. There are links from high PR sites out there, but you have to really work to get them and offer them something tangible and beneficial in return.

One last question: Do you equate link networks with crosslinking which would build your own mini linking network.

I would like you to assist me in solving my problem. Here is some postings that you can review and elaborate on:



 1:06 am on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

As I said; both but not just these forums. I am active in others, and I read key resources - such as Matt Cutts - and discussions about those.

One of the (very few) disadvantages of this forum is that we cannot get 'specifix', and so we must all generalise to some degree - but on the issues in this thread, that is not a problem; as I said, these issues are really not contentious (though they may have been less than six months ago!)

link networks vs crosslinking:
crosslinking among your own sites shouldn't be a problem. Within reason. I crosslink my sites; just as in the 'real world' I'd use one business to promote another. I've never had a problem with doing that.

However; it can be a problem, especially if you have many, many sites and overdo it - or if one or more of your sites are deemed to be part of a 'network' - just as outgoing links are usually safe.

So, for example, as I suggested above, if more than one of your crosslinked sites does reciprocal linking with a c**p directory, I'd consider that a risk; you could easily trigger a filter somewhere in Google's algo.

If there is already a problem, crosslinking, in my view (and many reports) can NEVER help, and often increase the agony.

I shall look at those other links ....

BTW; while not being able to be 'specific' can be a disadvantage, on other occasions it is a distinct advantage - so I'm really not knocking the forum policy; the web has room for both types of forum, and I'm happy to be a member of both types!

[edited by: Quadrille at 1:12 am (utc) on July 25, 2006]


 1:23 am on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)


Check your logs and see how many visitors you are getting from those link directories.

I cannot be 100%, as I do not your site or these directories, but I believe they are the root of your problem, and I very much doubt they are giving you any benefit at all. I have never, ever heard of directories with such weird behaviour, and I cannot imagine they have many users - unless they are paying them to click.

I fully accept I may be wrong, but it sounds like a scam to me, and my feeling is that you'd be much better off without the duplicate pages, and without a scam that forces you to have duplicate pages.

Sorry; but lets see if anyone else has a vew on this. :)


 1:46 am on Jul 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

What about linkmetro, is that a no no as far as google is concerned?

I do not know them, but if they are a commercial link exchange, then Google has warned against that kind of thing, and many have disappeared. And many members have suffered badly. very badly.

But I do not know that one at all.


 1:27 am on Jul 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hey people,
sorry for a little bump, but i had to ask the following...

Do you think it's possible to somehow block, disallow access to bots to the rest of pages that are actually dups? So, let's say I allow bots to view only index.html page and not anyone else in certian directory...

That could be done with robots.txt , but do you think META NOFOLLOW,NOINDEX would work as well?

That's the idea I got few mins ago, and thought it should work....what do you think guys?



 4:14 am on Jul 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

I think manca is talking about TGP gallery submissions, in which case each submission pulls gazillion of uniques in the span of 3-4 days. Manca, what I'd do is place a NOINDEX on 29 out of 30 submissions. That will solve the supplemental problem, and from previous threads on other forums I doubt those directory sites care what meta tag you use on your pages.

P.S. Sorry didn't catch your last post. The answer is a definite yes. Use a META NOINDEX on your mirrors.

[edited by: Halfdeck at 4:18 am (utc) on July 31, 2006]


 5:53 pm on Jul 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

You've got it ;) Yes, I am talking about TGP submissions...(didn't want to mention it at first, as it's not kinda mainstream related, it's more adult biz...)

So you recommend me to put META NOINDEX on all duplicated pages, expect say index.html?

What to do with the ones already submitted. I can't change them...the only thing I could do it robots.txt and disallowing spiders access to them...Here comes another problem...how to remove those supplemental pages, that are already indexed...


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