| 8:16 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I added 2-3 back links everyday from forums, blogs and community sites |
that might be your downfall right there. spamming links on forums, blogs and stuff like that is frowned upon these days. most of them have rel="nofollow" attached anyway.
it's not quite blackhat SEO, but it's certainly greyhat.
you want to concentrate on attracting some more natural links.
| 8:34 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Check out the Google Search forum. There's a lot of excellent discussion about the supplemental issue.
BTW, I have never seen a page go supp from lack of links, or even spammy links. It might rank poorly, but never supplemental. Your troubles are very likely rooted in your titles and meta descrip tags. Look for repeat words or phrases accross multiple pages. At least, thats the first thing to check.
Going supp is much different from the usual 'bad ranking' woes or even penalties like the 30+ and 950.
| 9:56 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There is definite repetition of words in title, metas but not at least any phrases. All my titles are unique if you say in terms of phrases but few might have 1 or 2 common words in them.
My Name is Bill Gates
My Name is Brad Pitt
This site is not very old. It doesn't have enough pr to distribute along the pages. Thatís why i tried to give a link to my pages from digg.com and more. They kind of helped few pages to get out of supplemental and i don't know why itís going back in that way again.
| 10:17 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|not quite blackhat SEO, but it's certainly greyhat |
I disagree. Gotta promote your site somehow - if you participate adding quality to forums, blogs, social sites, etc. then whats the problem if you give some self love if those sites allow such things. If Google can spot such links as self serving then certainly they can just simply allow such links to carry no weight. Which could be one thing that has happened. Carried some weight at the beginning then no weight. Now automating such things adding no quality certainly can get into the realm of spam.
But I do have to say that there are other methods of attracting links that will be more beneficial in the long term for the time spent.
| 10:28 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I got few links from article sites by writing unique articles for them. That counts less in front of nofollow links. nofollow links are over different anchor tags. It's not that easy to figure out if it is being posted for promoting. I create different user names and put a unique anchor tag to link my page.
Anyway, what you suggest me to do now? Should i concentrate in getting some links to my category pages without a nofollow on it? All that I know is article publishing sites. Do you know something else?
| 11:39 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I have never seen a page go supp from lack of links, or even spammy links. It might rank poorly, but never supplemental. |
You may not have seen it, but I think you might be incorrect.
why unique contents are Supplemental Result at google [webmasterworld.com]
In August 2006, matt cutts made this comment:
|...having supplemental results these days is not such a bad thing. In your case, I think it just reflects a lack of pagerank/links...it just a matter of we have to select a smaller number of documents for the web index. If more people were linking to your site, for example, I’d expect more of your pages to be in the main web index. |
At the time it sounded odd to me, because I'd been focused on duplicate urls as a principal cause of supplemental results. But then I realized that a duplicate url is also quite likely to have low PR, so that's one particular case of a much broader phenomenon. Time goes on, and low PR is now almost always what I see in my client's supplemental results.
The preceding quote is Tedster's 2nd post in the thread.
[edited by: jd01 at 11:40 pm (utc) on Nov. 15, 2007]
| 11:39 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I repeat: links are probably not the issue. They won't help you out of being supplemental if you have other issues.
You seem to be confusing supplemental with other ranking problems.
|My Name is Bill Gates |
My Name is Brad Pitt
Is very repetitive, in my opinion.
jd01: Thanx for Ted's post quote. I thought what I was saying here reflected what I've learned from his advice re:supplementals.
| 11:48 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Wow... A good number of us (including Tedster, Robert Charlton, etc.) must be wrong, and Matt Cutts must have flat out lied when he said the main reason for a page going supplemental is lack of PageRank. (Loosely translated inbound link weight, either quality or quantity.)
I think links have something to do with supplemental results.
We were posting at the same time...
I think the edits you made about links not helping if there are other issues is a valid point.
Sorry if I am sounding harsh, but since there are a large number of people who read these threads (in addition to those of us who post), I want to make sure if we are giving advice we are accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Do I think links (or lack of) are the *only* reason a page goes supplemental?
No, but I do know it is a cause, and when Google's main algo is based on links and some pages rank for those searches, even if the terms are generic and/or repetitive, the question I have to ask is what is the difference... and the answer is usually, the 'authority' of the site, which, in my opinion generally includes age, inbound links, age of inbound links, link growth rate, and a few others.
If each of those pages had 500 inbound links accumulated over a 5 year period of time, do you think they would rank? Personally, I do.
| 12:11 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|My Name is Bill Gates |
My Name is Brad Pitt
Is very repetitive, in my opinion.
IMHO, Those titles look to me like about 40% unique, I would think that would pass pretty well, but like every one else here, it is just IMO, and is worth just what it cost you to get me to say it.
As far as lack of real PR causing supplemental, that is the only real information I am aware of, that anyone from Google has confirmed, so that is where I would point my finger.
| 2:42 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
1. Best Example of my Titles:
How to Buy Widget-2
Buying One Widget-3 for My Wife
How to Rent Widget-4
2. I use similar phrases for anchor text
3. All my pages are unique(not auto generated) and targeted to the title.
4. Index page is pr-1 but couple of interior pages got 2 and 3. I donít know how they got that pr but they are having some nofollow links. They donít have any non nofollow links.
Date - organic traffic
Nov, 15 - 16
14 - 57
13 - 88
12 - 110
11 - 56
10 - 53
9 - 42
8 - 31
7 - 64
6 - 56
5 - 36
4 - 10
Nov, 3 - 5
Link of my earlier post here while trying to figure out the real problem for getting organic traffic.
You all are here for a long time. I appreciate your help on solving my problem. Please suggest me what I should do to get all my pages out of the supplemented list, I donít care the SERP ranking as of now. I know few of the long tail searches can feed me something and drive my passion for writing more and more.
Imagine this is your situation and tell me what you would do, what would be your strategy at this point of time. I am scared to take any step from my brain. Please donít fight or argue, just suggest me couple of things to do.
[edited by: JustKidding at 2:48 am (utc) on Nov. 16, 2007]
| 4:39 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You will not get "all" your pages out of the Supplemental index - that's just not realistic. Kkeep improving the site, one page at a time and one factor at a time. There are too many different elements at play to give a perfect set of instructions that will work for any specific site.
Your site is still young - unstable rankings are common in the early months of a website.
| 4:46 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Personally, I would not try to get every page to rank or get every page out of the supplemental index.
What I would probably do is create 'index pages' which are an 'overview' of to 10-15 articles each and design those pages to rank for the terms you target on the inner pages.
By 'design those pages to rank' I mean I would:
SEO the s*** out of them.
Attract links to them.
(Not spam links, but solid directory links, purchased links, or other good solid text links, which are not 'nofollowed' for any reason.)
Continue to grow the site around the topics or 'themes'.
What you will do by building a set of indexes is 'focus' your inbound link weight on a few key pages, which will then pass that weight to the deeper pages and to the home page (if linked properly). This concentration should not only help the index pages rank, but should help deeper 'similar' pages be pulled into the regular index after they have 'aged'.
In many cases it can take quite a while to get a new site to rank, so don't get discouraged if it doesn't happen tomorrow. Keep building, let it age, keep building links, stay away from 'duplicate' or 'near duplicate' content, and make sure your visitors have a good experience when they visit... Word of mouth is still a powerful tool if you provide something useful, and you do not rely on the whims of G to support yourself.
Keep in mind things are becoming more 'pattern based', so you will need to look at visitor behavior, growth rate of the site, inbound link growth rate, age of the page(s) (aka documents), update frequency, etc. as well as making sure you control your internal PageRank distribution and pass weight to the correct pages.
| 5:19 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for all your guidance.
I think I will try to get more targeted links to my category and sub-category pages and let those pages to distribute the weight to other pages.
Keep on adding 1-2 pages a day.
Might create few pages targeting to integrate couple of other pages and get some links to it.
I wonít be discouraged by any means, itís not only money to me but also knowledge for future. It will become my experience over the time..
Thanks a lot to everyone.
| 3:29 pm on Nov 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Reporting back after 2 weeks.
Before 1 week i checked with "/*" command and noticed that it went up to 99 pages now again it is back to 48. In the mean time i reduced promoting my website; I posted 1-2 articles with 4-5 back links to my site. Google is scaring me, I was able to make $17.00 due to 99 pages in regular index now that i am struggling with $8.00 because of 48 pages. I am not interested to buy any back link as i am scared of google, if it will know about it then it may penalize me.
I got all my category pages running and all other pages are linked from category pages now.
| 6:02 pm on Nov 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
JK, you mentioned that your site is still new. What you're seeing is perfectly normal. Don't try to game the system. Continue to build a quality site and eventually Google will see it as that.
As tedster said, your site is still young and unstable rankings are common in the early months of a website. I have two relatively newer sites that are almost 2 years old. For the first year, there were major changes in and out of the index, in and out of supplemental. After that first year, it pretty much stabilized. New pages now get indexed right away and aside from the normal flux or Google hiccup, the rankings remain pretty constant for the phrases I watch.
| 6:34 pm on Nov 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Another thought...the fresh index.
When a new page is first discovered, it's put into the fresh index. It sits in there for about a week and gets a nice rank/traffic bump. After that week, one of two things happens:
1. The page is immediately in the deep index, but traffic/ranking is lower, although it would rank at the "natural" (non-fresh index inflated) rank.
2. The page (or updated content) disappears for a period of time (few weeks to a month) until it hits the deep index and/or certain "let out of the sandbox" type filters are tripped.
I have only observed this overall general behavior for one site I'm working on, and I might not have the details exactly right since I observed it in hindsight. It's very characteristic of the pre-everflux google.
| 7:22 pm on Nov 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
purplekitty: Honestly, I will never try to game with google. I don't have any inbound link from higher PR pages so i am trying to build some links for the site. I am not buying any links as i am scared. Then I am left with other community sites where even these pages i add become very new. It will give me some juice after 2-3 months.
All my articles are unique and written to help people. They are well optimized for few keywords. Those pages do well till it stays in regular index; it doesn't give me any referrals once it goes supplemental(other than few long tails). I personally believe my pages are being supplemental for not having enough juice in the domain or else they are unique, different from rest of the site, unique title and description. They are well optimized but still can't remain for a long time in regular index. I have seen a url was getting 60% referrals and one morning that went supplemental which made me mad. Then i got few back links from here and there and again it's back in track and doing the similar job.
I don't even think it's wise not to do a little one-way link building for a site as it is new. I will try to get some one-way links but don't know what is that limit which can flag google for spamming. That bothers me..
Anyway, you guys are gr8. I am new but i work a lot on my site and learn from my own mistakes. Please keep advising me to make successful website.
| 2:58 am on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I also agree with the idea that PR matters in this case. So my question for you is:
Did you well control your PR flow? for example, nofollow the unimportant or blocked pages?
I think that you should look at SEOmoz.org, they are a great example of how to control the PR flow.
| 3:32 am on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I see a big hit on all my sites this week. My sites lost 30% of URLs which went into the supplemental index.
They heavily crawl the suppl. results but don't release them from the suppl. index.
I need to go ahead and buy a view PR6 and PR7 links from a text link broker. Since google so heavily relies on PR for their supplemental index there is no other choice.
They simply force people into buying links.
Additionally they hide their failure by removing the "supplemental tag".
Maybe they are concerned about their stock because some smart journalists could discover that all the billions of URLs in their index are not real because 80%-90% of them sit in the supplemental index, are compressed and not worth the hard disc space they are saved on.
| 5:17 am on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The more repeated text in "unique" titles, compared to other titles on your site, the less likely Google will consider it distinct enough to be kept out of supplementals.
Although internal linking can offset this issue; i.e: two similarly titled pages crosslinked.
|I got few links from article sites by writing unique articles for them. |
That's spamming! Article sites are spam link farms. A time is coming, or is already here, when Google's researchers learn about article sites used to generate unnatural links, supposedly endorsements from other sites ("link votes") when those links are actually created by the person wanting the link, not an independent site, i.e., 100% artificial.
Google will figure out which sites are article link farms using the same type of link abuse reporting procedure it uses for paid link farms, and those article sites will be useless for link juice.
Your experience could be an early sign that Google has started cracking down on article sites, something many people expected a long time ago, but like most Google crackdowns, starts late.
| 5:55 am on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|That's spamming! Article sites are spam link farms. |
Are you sure? I have seen a number of websites that succeeded with links from free article sites.
| 4:38 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think I have to give nofollow to contact us and about us page. Thatís draining some of my pr.
Itís not spamming to publish articles in article sites and take free link back. Itís called gray hat trick. There are so many things behind link structure. 100s of ways to get a link because google counts on those stupid links, I donít know why it can't evaluate the page strength from user behavior. User Behavior: how long a user stays on a page, how far he scrolls before clicking on an ad, what is the bounce rate etc.
You are right, google is forcing to buy links and itís against it as well. I have seen few similar title pages of a site went to supplemental index but came out of it once I improved the link structure internally to give some juice to it.
The way you and google define the title just bothers me. Suppose I have a site on gadget reviews then I will personally think to create many titles as gadget1 review, gadget2 summary, gadget3 analysis which max people will search for. Honestly I would create only gadget1 review, gadget2 review if I would never think about SEO.
If you think a page should be supplemented on titles then itís wrong, a page should actually be supplemented on duplicate title and description or similar page content to other pages. It should never be supplemented on similar titles and lower pr.
I donít want to spend a second on trying to tell what my page is all about to google. I am doing it because google is not smart enough to decide the strength of a page from my average page views by users, bounce rate and rest of the valuable information like k-map and seeding to find the keywords. I am taking equal time in promoting my site after creating nice unique contents also. I hate it but canít help it.
For similar page title if you see ehow.com, they have tons of pages starting with how to and comments on how to. What google should do in that way, it should dump all of their pages in supplemental index. It should see the pattern and give less value on those keywords not that it should push it supplemental list.
[edited by: JustKidding at 5:33 pm (utc) on Nov. 30, 2007]
| 4:56 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I am taking equal time in promoting my site after creating nice unique contents also. |
This is not different from most offline business, is it? Then at a certain point, any business reaches critical mass and the proportion of time can shift, since there is now strong brand recognition and developed users loyalty.
| 5:21 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It is Good to read your comments. That's what i am confused at, google and web masters say no to it. I should sit idle and watch the game. If i don't promote my site then there are chances i might get lost in deep SERP rankings and loose the battle to rest. Tell me honestly, how long you can wait to see someone linking to you naturally, google believes strongly on these links and pr.
| 5:50 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I run a few free sites even with those free sites 1 of 5000 people link to a site naturally. Forget about natural linking, but ...
of course you can wait 2 years for a site to get some natural links and natural rankings
but Google is chaning daily, who the heck can wait years for natural links if you rely on SEO as primary income?
This is all bull#%$&!
| 5:57 pm on Nov 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I don't think I will be able to wait for 2 years, why should i wait? I can spend the money in buying few quality links which i can make it over 2 years of time. I think I will have to make more research on finding some one way quality links.
| 9:43 pm on Dec 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing a huge increase in supplementals across all of my sites.
If this trend continues within 4 days I will have 99% of my URLs in the supplemental index.
Well done Google, your algo is broken.
[edited by: SEOPTI at 9:44 pm (utc) on Dec. 1, 2007]
| 12:59 am on Dec 2, 2007 (gmt 0)|
same here, it has reached 15% now. I am just waiting for a good day when i can see my pages out of supplemented results.
| 1:26 am on Dec 2, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I'm seeing a huge increase in supplementals across all of my sites. |
I've been watching mine increase, too. However, I've seen this happen before only to rollback and then some a few days later. I'm not going to panic unless this continues and then doesn't swing back the other way within a few weeks.
| This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: 45 (  2 ) > > |