| 3:47 am on Jul 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Try a space between *** and -view like: site:www.example.com *** -view
It does work, although it looks like is shows a small number of non supplemental results first. Not sure why....
| 4:23 am on Jul 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I noticed the same thing.
From some Blogs(sorry totally forgot the name)I heard that google is planing to drop the supplemental concept.May be in some data center they are doing the changes and it is the effect of that.
I am not very much sure,but it can be the reason.
| 4:26 am on Jul 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
To be honest, I hope it isn't true that they'll drop it. There are some good reasons for it, and it can provide some very helpful information for webmasters (and SEOs).
| 4:56 am on Jul 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|To be honest, I hope it isn't true that they'll drop it. There are some good reasons for it, and it can provide some very helpful information for webmasters (and SEOs). |
[searchengineland.com...] from here I got the information.
But again you may be right. :)
others also feeling in the same way.
| 7:52 am on Jul 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Oh, I mean even doing the site: search with supplementals showing is very helpful, not just how it was showing with *. It can help show up serious flaws in site navigation, I just saw a perfect case of it.
[edited by: Marcia at 7:56 am (utc) on July 26, 2007]
| 7:28 pm on Jul 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Ah, they say they may remove that "TAG".
If they do that, they will still have a Supplemental Index, and they will still show results from it.
However, no one will be able to see which index the results are actually coming from. That WILL be a Black Box.
| 8:08 pm on Jul 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yes it is correct. You can no longer use a query to see your supped pages. I have found a tool to show them to me however I can't link out. Either way I sincerely hope Google does not remove the tag altogether.
In that post at SEOmoz Cutts came in and commented. He stated people are concentrating on it to much, like the early days of PR. So they made TBPR only update every 3-4 months. Now sup pages can't be found with a query.
I feel this is a terrible comparison, and webmasters have a very valid reason to see which pages do not rank. TBPR is one thing, but a supped page is something worth noting and assessing, bottom line.
| 8:24 pm on Jul 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Why do they go to do that. That was such a nice feature. Maybe they will put it in webmaster central.
| 10:44 pm on Jul 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, some folks at Google tell people they concentrate too much on supplementals, if you got 80% supplementals, you just concentrate way too much, which is of course nonsense.
That's the same as: your server is offline 80% of the time, yeah you concentrate way too much on your server uptime. Supplementals are one of the most important parts of your website, you should concentrate getting pages out all the time, purchasing links or whatever.
[edited by: SEOPTI at 10:48 pm (utc) on July 26, 2007]
| 1:55 pm on Jul 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Its very useful information especially when when you're working with large sites. Hopefully this is something they can add to Webmaster Console.
| 2:36 pm on Jul 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm not able to view supplementals by the query, but for one of my newer sites which doesn't have many pages Google still displays the pages that are in supplemental.
| 8:20 pm on Jul 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I still get to see supplementals on my site using site:www.sitename.co.uk ***-view. But as per a previous comment I get about 10 non-supplementals first. If I do a search on an individul page it also appears as supplemental if relevant.
| 9:18 pm on Jul 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I hope it isn't true that they'll drop it. |
I'm glad you can afford the drop in traffic. I can't.
Since the beginning of this year about a third of my pages across all sites have gone supplemental. Most are niche pages but used to bring in traffic. But more importantly if a middle-level page goes supplemental all the lower pages seem to follow eventually. Also pages which were #1 in serps for a keyword phrase now that they are supplemental are completely missing for a normal search, and can only be found if the phrase is put in quotes. But how many searchers think to do that? The page might as well not exist.
Supplemental pages do not help the users. For example for one specific 3-keyword phrase (a tourist attraction) there are only two pages on the web - one in Wikipaedia and mine, but mine is now supplemental so the user never sees it unless he knows enough about the web to put the search phrase in quotes.
I agree the problem is probably navigational, but its also related to the superficial way Google now calculates PR. If there are too many internal links for Google to analyse PR quickly some pages get dropped. This I believe hits low-PR sites most of all.
| 12:25 am on Jul 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I get supplementals when I enter this:
| 2:30 am on Jul 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Nice discovery - and it seems to work for site:example.com/directory/& too.
| 3:17 am on Jul 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Good find. Thanks for sharing. One can also check supplement results through site:yoursite.com *-abcde
| 3:20 am on Jul 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Also works for subdomains... and since the site operator allows you to do compound searches, you can use it to probe into weak spots on a site.
The numbers on a large site, though, are way different from what I was seeing in mid-June using the *** -asdf syntax... higher in one case by a factor of 3; lower in another case by a factor of 10.
Still, very useful (while it lasts).
| 3:30 am on Jul 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|One can also check supplement results through site:yoursite.com *-abcde |
zohaibahmed - We posted almost at the same time, so when I saw your post, I immediately check out the syntax you suggested (which is basically the old syntax noted above), just in case Google had re-enabled it.
On my tries, anyway, it doesn't appear to work, whereas the /& syntax does return low PR pages marked as Supplemental.
Does anyone have an analysis of these two methods... the old syntax with the **** characters and the -asdf exclusion string, and the new with a "&" file search (that doesn't exist)?
And why does "&" work when some other characters don't?
| 6:14 pm on Jul 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
yep, that does the trick for me. but why change this and not tell anyone about it? sometimes, i just dont get google...
| 6:59 pm on Jul 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
hmm... taking bets that in a week that query won't work either?
| 4:35 pm on Jul 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The trailing ampersand returns just three pages of results when queried against wikipedia.
Given there's no shortage of "placeholder" pages there (the type of "content" I assume the supplementary index was designed for), then the "&" isn't all that hot.
Better than nothing though
| 8:36 pm on Jul 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think its a two edged Sword. It helps in debugging spidering issues with your site and for that matter I would highly appreciate that information in the webmaster console, but on the other hand I am with Google in trying to suppress that information from the public search.
A "shady" person might just search for text and keyword rich supplemental results that simply lack links (not everyone is a pro webmaster with tons of link power to every page), copy the content, throw some links at their own copy and outrank the original page.
| 4:48 am on Aug 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
That something new...
Does that mean that Google have stopped taking supplemental results ...
or Google doesn't want us to know that where we are lacking with context of the supllemental results.
Well it's showing to me:
search query: site:www.google.com ***-slktf
| 11:48 am on Aug 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|It helps in debugging spidering issues |
Yes, it shows if a site has a navigation problem. But I think it also highlights Google's shortcomings in working out page PR.
Google seems to be taking shortcuts in working out PR, possibly by only taking account of a certain number of links per page. So a lower-level page may not get the PR that it would have done if Google had done a thorough calculation. And I suspect pages that fall below a certain level of PR meet one of Google's criteria for Supplemental status.
This hits low PR sites where one would expect to find many low-level pages with a PR of 1 or 2. From my own experience many of these now get greyed out and go supplemental. The effect is cumalative because their links no longer count and other pages begin to drop of the radar.
I don't know if I'm right in this, but I can't just wait around hoping my pages will return, so I have been forced to greatly simplify my navigation to make it Google friendly. Unfortunately this is at the expense of usability - no more nav bars for instance.
| 5:30 pm on Aug 3, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I don't know if I'm right in this, but I can't just wait around hoping my pages will return, so I have been forced to greatly simplify my navigation to make it Google friendly. Unfortunately this is at the expense of usability - no more nav bars for instance. |
Somehow I find it very hard to grow organic traffic. I am now getting most traffic from referrals anyways and its a continuing trend.
I am shifting my attention a bit towards a pleasant user experience and turning visitors into fans and loyal followers.
For that matter, i don't care as much about Google anymore.