homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.61.85
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 110 message thread spans 4 pages: 110 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >     
Whats the Skinny on Supplemental index
Adam from google clarifies some issues
contentwithcontent

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 10:45 am on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

From Adams post at the Google webmaster discussion group...

"I thought I'd clear the air a bit:

1) Penalty?
When your site has pages in our supplemental index, it does *not*
indicate that your site has been penalized. In particular, we do not
move a site's pages from our main to our supplemental index in response to any violations of our Webmaster Guidelines.

2) Freshness?
You can expect to see a fresher supplemental index in the coming
quarters. By the definition of "supplemental," however, I don't forsee
it becoming as comprehensive or frequently updated as our main index.

3) Cure?
Get more quality backlinks. This is a key way that our algorithms will
view your pages as more valuable to retain in our main index."

more at... Google Groups discussion [groups.google.com]

[edited by: tedster at 11:12 pm (utc) on Nov. 11, 2006]
[edit reason] fix side-scroll [/edit]

 

Abigail

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 4:34 pm on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Once and awhile, more frequently over the last 6 months, my main index page disappears - can't find it by any kind of search, when that happens my whole site goes supplemental - when it reappears they many thousands of pages come out of supplemental. Just an observation.

[edited by: Abigail at 4:35 pm (utc) on Nov. 10, 2006]

cabowabo

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 4:56 pm on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am hoping Matt covers this next week. There is zero consistentcy with this and it is driving me crazy.

I have pages that I have nuked off the server over two months ago and they still show up in the SERPs.

Cabo

artdog

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 5:51 pm on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)


3) Cure?
"Get more quality backlinks. This is a key way that our algorithms will view your pages as more valuable to retain in our main index."

Thought were aren't suppossed to hunt for links that manipulate the SERPs.

Beachboy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 6:22 pm on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Manipulate but stay below the radar.

texasville

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 6:30 pm on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>>3) Cure?
"Get more quality backlinks. This is a key way that our algorithms will view your pages as more valuable to retain in our main index." <<<<

At least it is one more time in plain english.
Once again google is stressing it's slanted view of the web. What gets links? Especially valuable links? Informational sites. That's why so many mfa sites are informational.
Small mom and pop brick and mortar businesses are not able to obtain these kinds of links. Google's method of ranking is just going to push the deep pockets to the front of the line.
It translates to "buy you some links".
What happened to "on page concept" and all the semantics research they were supposed to be doing.
I am seeing more and more small sites with lower pr going into the supplemental index. Google is dooming them to the trash heap. When these pages go supplemental, no search brings them up at all. And what ever images are on them disappear from the image index.
Is your site next? Better buy some links. What a mistake they have made.

Halfdeck

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 6:43 pm on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Small mom and pop brick and mortar businesses are not able to obtain these kinds of links. Google's method of ranking is just going to push the deep pockets to the front of the line.

I wouldn't go that far, though I don't disagree with the main jist of your argument. Google is at least trying to combat sold links. Still, not everybody has the ability or time to run a great marketing campaign. Ideally, Google's motto should be "if you build it, they will come."

Until the birth of true AI, Google's algo will be heavily slanted toward linkage data. As it stands, I believe the algo often can't tell the difference between a great article and spam.

[edited by: Halfdeck at 6:46 pm (utc) on Nov. 10, 2006]

RonnieG

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 6:54 pm on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

As I also posted over there:

Well, that's just dandy! The way other webmasters find your content to make a determination on whether they should link to your site is to find you in Google's index for a particular search. But because supplemental pages with no backlinks are rarely if ever in any SERPs, no one will ever find your unique and relevant content as long as it exists only in supplementals, so it never gets any backlinks. Therefore, the only way to get backlinks to improve page rank is to buy them, which is counter to Google's stated position that purchased backlinks are bad, and can be penalized. Google has created one gigantic catch-22 feedback loop with this approach, and by doing so, is actually encouraging link buying schemes. Sorry, but I just don't see how this can be good for anyone.

PS: Except that large corporations with many sites can inter-link between their own sites, and also "encourage" their large dealer networks to link to their corporate sites, artificially inflating their backlink counts. So much for the little guy's ability to make a living with natural SERPs any more. It's all big bucks and big time players, and realistically, no way to honestly move up the ladder for the rest of us, except to spend all our spare time searching and recruiting for backlinks instead of running our small businesses.

texasville

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 7:07 pm on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ronnie-Very succinct and right on target.
Google in it's shortsightedness is going to create a huge link selling industry.

jobonet

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 8:02 pm on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Or sell more adwords...."Don't be evil."

hvacdirect

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 8:13 pm on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google in it's shortsightedness is going to create a huge link selling industry.

I think that ship has already sailed.

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 9:43 pm on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Get more links" doesn't translate into link buying.

If you own a website and have only one link to a page, that has nothing to do with buying links and everything to do with you structuring your website to not value a page.

Crawling and "on page" considerations are unrelated. If you (and nobody else) links to your wonderful content, it isn't going to get crawled at all. If you link to it weakly, it will get crawled weakly.

The real concern should be here is how Google's new bot is so poor in its crawling, and crawling decisions. They released this weakling idiotbot and still seem delusional in thinking that it isn't a disaster, which leads to Adam offering bad advice. It should be clear to everyone now, even those in their bubble at the plex, that quality backlinks are now relatively unimportant to crawling. (Get them, sure, but they aren't that important.) Volume of poor quality backlinks are what the new bot loves, and this has lead to the big degrading of the google index.

Redirect spam, that may be PR2 at best, with links from tens of thousand of blog comments get fresh crawled every day. Niche authority sites (and of course mom and pop non-authority sites too) don't get crawled very often even if they have high quality links like a dmoz listing, a yahoo listing, and a link from the most highly ranked site in the niche. A domain that has those three links should be what gets crawled most every day, not a piece of crap forum post that redirects that gets links from thousands of blogs that (if anything) should get it penalized, not enthisiastically crawled.

texasville

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 11:13 pm on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>>I think that ship has already sailed.<<<<<

Not to the extent as what it will have to be. I don't think people are seeing how huge this is. It is going to affect (speculation, I admit) a quarter of the web. It isn't even close to affecting websites yet. But it is coming. And it will affect a website near you soon.

>>>>The real concern should be here is how Google's new bot is so poor in its crawling,<<<<<
Steveb..I don't see this as a crawl problem. It will be straight pr problem. ibl's sum it all up. Any single url (interior page) that doesn't get passed on pr of at least pr4 or higher will never come out of supplemental. Unless of course your index page achieves at least pr4 or possibly pr5. If you notice in webmaster tools, pr4 is still considered low pr.
As google sees it now, pr4 and below pages are considered the "periphery of the web" and are non deserving of being indexed. Google..the search engine of snobs.
And as pointed out earlier, since these pages are no longer indexed and can't be found, they won't get links unless you buy them.

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 11:50 pm on Nov 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> I have pages that I have nuked off the server over two months ago and they still show up in the SERPs. <<

If they are now marked as Supplemental then they could hang around in the SERPs for a whole year. If they aren't marked Supplemental, then in all probability they soon will be.

Make sure that your custom 404 error page has some good links to other relevant parts of your site to get the visitor on their way to what they are actually looking for.

SullySEO

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 12:33 am on Nov 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Neither Adam nor Matt C. realize this is happening. They just simply refuse to believe it.

------

Texasville said

<< At least it is one more time in plain english.
Once again google is stressing it's slanted view of the web. What gets links? Especially valuable links? Informational sites. That's why so many mfa sites are informational.
Small mom and pop brick and mortar businesses are not able to obtain these kinds of links. Google's method of ranking is just going to push the deep pockets to the front of the line.
It translates to "buy you some links".
What happened to "on page concept" and all the semantics research they were supposed to be doing.
I am seeing more and more small sites with lower pr going into the supplemental index. Google is dooming them to the trash heap. When these pages go supplemental, no search brings them up at all. And what ever images are on them disappear from the image index.
Is your site next? Better buy some links. What a mistake they have made. >>

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 4:45 am on Nov 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

"I don't see this as a crawl problem. It will be straight pr problem."

? If a page is crawled, it is crawled. The problem is getting pages crawled. Why they aren't crawled is simply the reason(s) for the problem.

Staffa

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 9:57 am on Nov 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Small mom and pop brick and mortar businesses are not able to obtain these kinds of links. Google's method of ranking is just going to push the deep pockets to the front of the line.

True, example : earlier this year one of my sites, with most pages in supplemental, was sent an email from Adsense as it appeared to them that I was not using Adsense text links on its pages. I replied that with most pages in supplemental there was no Google traffic and therefore no point in putting Adsense on the pages. Reply from Adsense : use Adwords.

texasville

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 3:18 pm on Nov 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

staffa..I love it. Google has the answer for everything. Just spend money with them. Sorts starts sounding like paid placement doesn't it. Makes me start wondering if they profile sites to sell to.

Steveb...crawled or not, if an interior url is lacking in quality ibl's, it will be supplemental. getting crawled will not get it out. And with this new supplemental class of low pr pages...if it is in supplemental, it is a dead page to google.

Lorel

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 8:18 pm on Nov 11, 2006 (gmt 0)


When your site has pages in our supplemental index, it does *not*
indicate that your site has been penalized. In particular, we do not
move a site's pages from our main to our supplemental index in response to any violations of our Webmaster Guidelines..... You can expect to see a fresher supplemental index in the coming quarters.

Translation: Supplemental means it goes to a lesser index because it's not valuable enough and thus isn't refreshed as often, i.e., you've been penalized.

Solution: get more links for those pages.

This is nigh to impossible without paying for links as most directories won't let you link to inside pages and Google penalizes sites for buying too many links. If you only have a few pages to buy links for maybe this will work but woe to mega sites needing links.

Last Resort: Buy Adwords.

Of course this is Google's main goal in the first place.

However if you do buy AdWords be prepared to keep it running forever or they will drop your KW rank for all major KW--speaking from experience here.

Which is another Google goal.

tedster

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 11:00 pm on Nov 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

if you do buy AdWords be prepared to keep it running forever or they will drop your KW rank for all major KW--speaking from experience here.

Well, my mileage has definitely varied from that. I work with several Adwords campaigns running only sporadically on several sites. They are used to boost traffic at critical times in the year. The organic ranking on those keywords is usually toward the bottom of page one, top of page two. Whether the Adwords is running or not, I never see a related change in the organic result that is timed to turning off the Adwords.

All of that is only marginally related to the Supplemental Index - my apologies for taking the diversion.

As I see it, Google's goal in organic search is related to the Supplemental Index -- but that goal, in the case of organic search, is end user satisfaction. If I see a url tagged as Supplemental, my first question is "why wouldn't Google not want to serve this url as a primary search result?" -- not this "page" but this "url". And if I look closely enough, I can often find an answer. But if I look at as Google as my opponent, then I tend to blind myself to important insights.

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 11:16 pm on Nov 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

"getting crawled will not get it out."

Since when? Getting crawled gets you in the index 100% of the time, unless a URL is discarded as duplicate, or there is a penalty or something like that.

The issue with not having supplemetals is getting crawled. You get crawled because you either have lots of links, even if all bad ones, or a small number of good ones, and you don't have any dupe issues.

I've never seen a thread here where healthy URL that gets crawled that doesn't get indexed. Having a parallel supplemental happens all the time with weak pages, but getting the URL back in the main index too is always easy if it has no dupe issues.

RonnieG

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 11:51 pm on Nov 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

steveb,

Sorry, but your head is in the sand of past times on this one. I have and have seen several sites with extensive and accurate internal linking structures, and usually Google sitemaps, so all of the pages do in fact get crawled. Read the other threads on this. Just getting crawled is not enough to got a page into the main index any longer, even if it has unique content. What is in the supplementals these days is not what it used to be. A page in supplementals is not there just because it was edited or is a duplicate or is being "penalized" for some reason. The Supplementals index is now Google's "dumping ground" for internal pages of low PR sites, plain and simple.

If someone at Google thinks that this means a better user experience, then they haven't ever looked past page 2 or 3 in many common searches. Really relevant results stop much sooner then they used to. The results very soon start to be totally random occurrences of the search term(s), instead of the deep list of relevant results that a user used to get. Instead, what a user now gets is a shallow list of relevant results from high PR sites, followed by a deep list of random c**p.

texasville

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 5:35 am on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Steveb...pretty much what Ronnie said. You can get that internal page crawled...and if it doesn't have those outside inbound links..it will still not get back into the main index. Simple as that.
As for that little quote by Matt Cutts...
"...having supplemental results these days is not such a bad thing."

That is what we call in Texas...a lot of bull. If it is there, it will be dead to google. It will never be served up to the index no how, no way. It is a different kind of supplemental. It is akin to being a banned page.

Tedster-
"If I see a url tagged as Supplemental, my first question is "why wouldn't Google not want to serve this url as a primary search result?" -- not this "page" but this "url". And if I look closely enough, I can often find an answer."

Yep. You said it yourself in another thread. I can't find it to quote it but I remember you postulating about how you noticed a year ago how google was showing a reluctance to serve up interior pages putting the surfer two clicks away from the information he wanted.
The biggest problem that google is creating here...the catch 22 mentioned earlier and putting the surfer further away from the information they desire.
Currently I have a site that is entirely supplemental except for the index page. It is getting into the top 5 in many search terms for "widgets". This business sells all kinds of widgets. Red, blue, green, etc. Surfer's look for "blue widgets" ...they get served the index page instead of the "blue widgets" page...which makes no sense. It is just stupid.
Sorry but Google's new philosophy of indexing reflects the same management style of a 1980's third world communist country's beaurocracy. It isn't the page's fault...it's google's. And ultimately, the surfer suffers.

Staffa

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 7:54 am on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google's new philosophy of indexing reflects the same management style of
.... a racketeering gang.
You pay* us for being listed in the normal index or we bust up your shop.

* See my previous post. Whatever reasoning Google uses to put pages in supplemental will suddenly become irrelevant if you pay for Adwords.

steveb

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 8:34 am on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Simple as that."

Hardly. And "unique content" is not necessarily what makes supplementals. Any page that has no www 301 redirect can end up ignored and the wrong URL, the supplemental one, the one that is dominant.

However, unless something has changed in the past few hours, it still remains impossible for a page to get a fresh tag and be supplemental. If you have a URL that gets crawled and doesn't get indexed, you have a problem. The supplemental index is separate from the main index. Pages that get crawled get put in the main index, unless Google has a reason to discard them.

Every supplemental page I see gets a normally indexed page two days later if you point a decent link at it and get it crawled.

This says nothing:
"I have and have seen several sites with extensive and accurate internal linking structures, and usually Google sitemaps, so all of the pages do in fact get crawled."

When in fact was the page crawled? If it was more than two weeks, the regular page may be dropped and a supplemental the only thing shown.

Test it out. Put up new pages at the same linking level as a supplemental page. Make sure it has a 301 on it, a unique title and description, content on no other URL, and enough of the "content" part of the page to be dominant over the navigation/template part... and then see if when it is first crawled it appears as supplemental result. No way, not ever.

On the other hand, if the page is something like the millionth copy of an Amazon feed page, with www and non-www versions, with no unique description, well then it might go straight into the supplemental bin and stay there.

Staffa

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 8:45 am on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Make sure it has a 301 on it, a unique title and description, content on no other URL, and enough of the "content" part of the page to be dominant over the navigation/template part... and then see if when it is first crawled it appears as supplemental result. No way, not ever.

Last week I launched a new site with all if the above and then some. Two days ago G crawled the site for 12 hours uninterrupted. Let's see if the above statement stands. I'll let you know.

photopassjapan

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 1:31 pm on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

steveb, i think you are right with a page needs to be crawled to get out of the supplemental index, but not right on that alone will solve the "problem".

Although i think you're right that not any NEW page will be tagged as supplemental right from the start. Or perhaps not any page that is crawled at the level of other supplementals will show up in the index after being crawled, but passed on to the supplemental index, which is updated like... 3 to 4 times less often perhaps? Okay i have no idea about this, but here's what i've seen:

We were worried about pages going suddenly supplemental on our site so i monitored some pages closely and am now somewhat relaxed, for i think we understood the way it works, and that it's not a plague, not a penalty, but a new way of saying uninportant (PageRank 0, not TBPR but PR0 ). I'm not 100% sure, it's just what we're experiencing by looking at the few hundred static pages on our site that are going though this.

Most pages that were tagged supplemental had the same meta description tags two months ago, so i thought that might be the problem, not to worry, since they've been updated with the proper information for like... one and a half month now. Although it was somewhat of a disturbance that not ALL same meta pages were tagged supplemental eventhough they've been indexed relatively at the same time... some were, and some weren't. But we kept saying to ourselves for two weeks... that they are in the navigation as everything else, so no problem, it's a new site, it's a large site, G will eventually index them again, and they'll get out.

Yea well...
Wrong.
Again =.=
( i miss all too often in this area )

Some pages have been indexed since then.
With the proper meta tag.
Needless to say that the pages had no more in common than the navigation and the description, so... they're not duplicates.

And they're still supplemental.

...

And at the same time, some that were still using the old description were not.

I did some more research and found that our navigation might seem linear to G from a certain point, meaning pages are not "same level". Imagine an index page with image links ( thumbnails ) to 50 single pages, all with a picture, a title, a label, location, etc. But there is an alternate, manual-slideshow-like anchor text "overruling" this ( i guess. For there's no code or frames or anything asking G to do this. ) So the albums get crawled through the "first picture, last picture, next picture, previous picture" links, linearly instead of the also pretty basic thumbnail links.

Meaning the PR3 index pages pass on PR to the first, the last, the second and the second last pics... PR 2..1.. and that's IT.

What this has to do with supplementals?

Well... the PR0 pages in between are being crawled allright, but even with the updated info, they're still going supplemental. Except those that were being linked from somewhere else ( but those are not PR0 anyway ). Reason: the image link from the PR3 index did not pass on importance. BAM!
Supplemental :)
Uninportant.

And the message is...
The message is that we're sending the wrong message, of some pages being 25 times LESS important than others. While we obviously feel they're, or should be at the same level, the links say otherwise. So... make the navigation reflect this decision, right?

IF this is right, then it could read... Dear people, you have site navigation "problems". Well in fact they're not probelms, unless you want these pages to be in the primary or even the normal index. Just bring the pages you think that should be, to the same level in case it is so. But be reasonable. And don't say that any single page is as important as the index.

( in our case, all pages in the album sharing the same low, but not TOO low importance )

And yes, i've seen pages come out from supplementals because of this. I mean... it works. For us... right know, it does.

Basically it's common sense from G.

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 5:12 pm on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> a page needs to be crawled to get out of the supplemental index <<

It seems to me that most of the stuff that is tagged as Supplemental are URLs that Google actually wants to drop from the index but which they hang on to as Supplemental Results for a year before they are completely dropped. Those include URLs that are now redirects, now 404, or were on a domain that has now expired.

Most of the rest are "live duplicate content" (multipe URLs with same content: one shows as normal, the rest are shown as supplemental) or "historical supplementals" (where the supplemental tag only shows when you search for words that were in the previous version of the page, the same URL shows as a normal result when you search for current content). These don't get dropped from the index until you fix the problem with the site. Until then, random URLs from the site drop in and out of supplemental on a random basis, at random times.

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 5:24 pm on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> The biggest problem that google is creating here...the catch 22 mentioned earlier and putting the surfer further away from the information they desire. <<

Actually, that is not a bad thing in many cases. For sites with a vast product catalog and whose site has a new page for each colour, size, and design variation, of each and every single product, maybe Google does not want to index:

widget, red, type 001, size 1
widget, red, type 001, size 2
widget, red, type 001, size 3
widget, red, type 001, size 4
widget, red, type 001, size 5

widget, red, type 002, size 1
widget, red, type 002, size 2
widget, red, type 002, size 3
widget, red, type 002, size 4
widget, red, type 002, size 5

...and so on...

widget, blue, type 001, size 1
widget, blue, type 001, size 2
widget, blue, type 001, size 3
widget, blue, type 001, size 4
widget, blue, type 001, size 5

and on and on for millions of pages.

In fact, it is likely that having searched for a particular widget that you might end up on a page that is close by, but perhaps the wrong size or the wrong variation.

In that case I would prefer to land on the product index page rather than on the detailed product page but which is for slightly the wrong product.

Some sites don't make it very easy to get to related products, but almost all sites have a product index page of some sort.

Halfdeck

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3152332 posted 5:54 pm on Nov 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

a page needs to be crawled to get out of the supplemental index

Matt Cutts said supplemental pages need to be recrawled by Supplemental Googlebot in order for Google to refresh the cache of those pages and reflect the 301s placed on them (if any) in the search results.

Assuming that's true, a supplemental page doesn't need any recrawling to get back into the main index if it gains enough PageRank.

Will fine tuning the internal PageRank distribution of a TBPR 9 site like amazon.com get some of their pages back into the main index (out of 17 mil pages, I see 900 pages in the main index)?

Maybe not.

Say I rework the internal link structure of a 99% supplemental site (supplemental except the home page) to maximize internal PageRank distribution. Only the changes I make on the home page is going to matter, because regular Googlebot won't refresh the cache of the rest of the site, so the links I add or remove on supplemental pages are going to be ignored.

Even if I go out and get a bunch of high TBPR links to my home page, that link juice may not reach my internal pages if my internal link structure happen to suck. And there's nothing I can do in that scenario except wait patiently for Supplemental Googlebot to roll around.

So, to get my site out of the supplemental index, I may have to get a bunch of links pointing directly at my supplemental pages. That's easier said than done.

[edited by: Halfdeck at 5:56 pm (utc) on Nov. 12, 2006]

This 110 message thread spans 4 pages: 110 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >
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