homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.17.176.149
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor
Visit PubCon.com
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

    
Supplementals - effects on internal linking and overall ranking?
Google's treatment of supplemental pages in algo
Whitey




msg:3273420
 2:23 am on Mar 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

A couple of questions:

Does anyone know if the effects of referring links ( internal and outbound ) is diminished if they are on a supplemental page?

We set up some "sitemap" pages with referal links which have all fallen to supplemental status.

Also, does a site diminish in it's overall ranking strength if it has an larger proportion of supplemental pages?

My SEO is telling me to get rid of those pages, but I haven't yet understood why.

 

tedster




msg:3273512
 4:30 am on Mar 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

The categorization as supplemental do not cause those problems -- the actual causes are elsewhere. As I see it, Whitey, this is like asking if a doctor diagnosing your disease by name will make you sick.

For example, low PR come first and it means that the url has little juice to pass on through its links. If the PR is low enough, then the url might also get tagged as supplemental. But that tagging does not inflict any further diminishment.

[edited by: tedster at 6:03 pm (utc) on Mar. 8, 2007]

mirrornl




msg:3273760
 11:38 am on Mar 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

ty for this clean explanation Tedster

Whitey




msg:3275047
 11:05 am on Mar 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

Simplistic question - simplistic answer - simplistic solution found :)

Removing the links, was not the answer, finding a method to strengthen the link architecture was - many thanks.

Sweet Cognac




msg:3275387
 4:31 pm on Mar 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think this is a good question. I checked google with mydomain.com and my site comes up first and is not supplemental, yet there are 161 results linking to my site that are ALL supplemental except for 3.

I suspect these supplemental pages are not helping my ranking, but are they dragging it down?

jimbeetle




msg:3275425
 4:55 pm on Mar 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

I suspect these supplemental pages are not helping my ranking, but are they dragging it down?

I haven't seen anything that suggests links from supplemental pages are not beneficial, and can't come up with anything myself as to why they would not be.

About the only thing we know about pages in the supplemental index are that they are those that do not have enough PR to be spidered as frequently as those in the main index.

Whitey




msg:3276109
 5:56 am on Mar 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

About the only thing we know about pages in the supplemental index are that they are those that do not have enough PR to be spidered as frequently as those in the main index.

Do you know at what PR level these pages shake off their supplemental status?

tedster




msg:3276137
 6:41 am on Mar 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Since we don't know present time PR but only toolbar PR (with its limited ten whole-number-only reporting) it's very hard to say what the break-out level might be.

But PR is apparently just part of the picture that can put a url in the supplemental index. I'm seeing TBPR2 in the regular index and TBPR3 in supplemental.

photopassjapan




msg:3276477
 12:53 pm on Mar 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

... our entire site is in and out of the supplemental index, except the uppermost 2 levels of pages ( okay that's a few hundred though ). There are a lot of albums which i definately wouldn't mind being supplemental, heh... some time before i even knew about the supplemental index, we actually came up with that word to DESCRIBE them ;)

But...

There're many albums that we'd like to see indexed as a resource, we worked hard enough for them to be found.

Toolbar pagerank is tricky, same level pages show me anything from 0 to 3. And there's no connection to being supplemental or not. Actual pagerank is probably connected though. But how would we know what that is... webmaster tools isn't much of a help when it comes to PR.

But what i see is that while many, many pages become supplemental, they aren't treated exponentially worse. It's just a definite label for a threshold that was probably there long before they gave it a name.

...

...

Apart of the problem that the pictures on them are DROPPING OUT of google images! They weren't in for a full month, now they're dropping out.

...

Or ... so it seems right now.
Since like... yesterday perhaps?
I can't be sure about this conclusion either.
But there's just no other problem...

So much fun... this optimization thing is.

trinorthlighting




msg:3276514
 1:38 pm on Mar 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

We had some pages on an eccommerce site that we recently pulled out of the supplemental index. The reason why was the url was to long.

It was:

[mysite.com...]

We wrote some php code and changed it to:

[mysite.com...]

We also did a proper 301 redirect as well.

Besides that, no changes to the page at all, no content added to them, just a shorter url. It took about 3 weeks to kick in.

So, before ditching the pages, try to shorten the url first and see what happens.

jimbeetle




msg:3276666
 3:57 pm on Mar 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

But PR is apparently just part of the picture that can put a url in the supplemental index. I'm seeing TBPR2 in the regular index and TBPR3 in supplemental.

Yeah, but with everything so hard to pin down with rolling updates, constant data pushes, time to take migrating across data centers, etc., I'm going to ascribe anomalies like that to G's system just not having caught up with itself. Or, for that matter, just as curious anomalies.

That's just to keep myself sane. ;-)

g1smd




msg:3276797
 5:36 pm on Mar 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

[webmasterworld.com...]

Are you sure that the problem wasn't that there are other URLs that bring up the exact same content as that one?

Whitey




msg:3277096
 10:51 pm on Mar 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

From Google's perspective those pages only offer a page full of referring links ( they are sitemap pages ) , but do have different meta titles, descriptions and page links.

I noticed that on one of our sites, the sitemap pages has PR3/4/5 which i would have thought ben OK to relieve the supplemental status, but apparantly not.

My only conclusion at this stage is that they offer little content value to Google , which i can live with , if the links are working.

photopassjapan




msg:3277177
 1:04 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

... and?

Do they work?

:{

Whitey




msg:3277212
 2:10 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't know for sure - we haven't tested it with unique keywords. The current keyword text is alo delivered from other pages.

One thing for sure is that the higher PR is not clearing the supplemental status, as i mentioned.

However, I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has evidenced that links from supplemental pages work in the context of us now saying that we have enough "juice" per Tedsters remark on these pages..

and to what extent, per jimbeetle's remarks above are supported.

There would be lot's of good folks in this position I'd imagine.

Whitey




msg:3277228
 2:57 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

My apologies.

The specific example I used with regards to our Sitemaps pages which have PR3/4/5 having supplemental status is now cleared .

I relied on the site:tool which is having bugs per [webmasterworld.com...]

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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved