homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.90.135
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

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

    
Supplemental pages increase
More pages included in supplemental index
zaneta




msg:3530188
 12:42 pm on Dec 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

More pages of my site ( most of them with page rank 3 ) are included in supplemental index.

Site has been updated continiously
New pages have been added
we have also made some 301 redirects which have been cashed

The number of supplemental pages increases continiously during the last months

What is the problem and how can we recover?

 

tedster




msg:3530547
 7:46 pm on Dec 18, 2007 (gmt 0)

There are some key factors I know of for keeping URLs out of the Supplemental Index:

1. Enough link juice circulating to the page - this is a big factor
2. Unique Title element - keep it relatively short and vary more than just stop words
3. Unique Meta description - and make it of some length (not just a couple words) but under 160 total characters
4. Accidental duplicate URLs

Duplicate urls for the same content can make problems - and sometimes this kind of duplication is not intentionally created. Things like canonical urls, switching the order of query string parameters, not handling custom error pages with a true 404 status, placing tracking data in a url ... the list of potential technical oversights really can get huge.

So I'd say make sure there are relatively short click paths to your inner pages, either from the Home Page or other pages that have solid backlinks. Ensure that you have unique and page-specific titles and meta descriptions. And get intense about eliminating all kinds of duplicate URL issues.

But the biggest is having some strong link juice - good PR. As backlinks grow, then you have more PR to cireculate. Adding new pages without attracting more link juice can tend to divide the available PageRank into smaller bits. This doesn't mean don't add new content, it means be sure to market what you create.

dimmer




msg:3530915
 6:50 am on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

How are you measuring supplemental pages?

zaneta




msg:3530921
 7:14 am on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

site:www.domain.com gives 711 pages
site:www.domain.com/* gives 104 pages
as I know the 104 are indexed and the rest up to 711 are in supplemental index

dimmer




msg:3530932
 7:50 am on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Zaneta

In that case, my site has 99.9% supplementals but our pages rank reasonably well and traffic is stable. Most of our "supplementals" appear in the serps.

Do any of your remaining pages come up in the serps? If they do, I would not worry too much about it.

zaneta




msg:3530941
 8:07 am on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thank you
How are you measuring supplemental pages?

Ones that are in supplemental pages are not having good position in serps at all
the ones that are not in supplemental they have better positions

soapystar




msg:3530972
 10:10 am on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

try that method on the subdirectories and i think you will find the numbers dont tally when you add up the subdirectories and match it to the total for the domain as a whole....

zaneta




msg:3530979
 10:16 am on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

what is the best way to find the supplemental pages?
how you search them?

cheesy snacks




msg:3531072
 1:30 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yep I would also like to know how you find your supplemental pages.

Is it possibel to get supplemental pages back in to the 'main index'?

pageoneresults




msg:3531099
 2:03 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

My understanding of this is that the Supplemental Index changed a couple of months ago to something a bit different than it was previously.

Just because a page is appearing in this so-called Supplemental Index doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad thing.

When the SI was visible and tagged as such, it usually meant one of two things; pages on their way into the index that don't have enough history/trust yet and pages on their way out of the index that didn't quite cut the mustard for a variety of reasons.

What I don't understand is why we even look at this? Unless you are a Google Search Engineer, how can you effectively determine the cause and how do you know for sure that what you are seeing is this so-called Supplemental Index?

I do recall one way out of the SI was to start focusing PR on those pages in the SI. Change the click paths, point more links to them, etc.

SEOPTI




msg:3531116
 2:43 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yes, there is a suppl. URLs increase using this query. We will need to check if this query is still valid.

zaneta




msg:3531117
 2:45 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

is there another way to query for supplemental results?

zaneta




msg:3531118
 2:45 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

is there another way to query for supplemental results?

pageoneresults




msg:3531131
 3:02 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Is there another way to query for supplemental results?

If there is, what exactly will this tell us? Now that you've found these pages that reside in this SI, what is your next step? How do you determine the reason for them being in the SI?

I might go about this another way. I'm going to look at metrics and find those pages that are not performing and then I'm going to start my backtracking from there. I'm surely not going to rely on this Supplemental Index.

cheesy snacks




msg:3531165
 3:31 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

for me ,the pages in your supplemental index indicates that you have poor content on your website, perhaps the same title and meta tags for webpages, little content, otherwise why would they be in the supplemental index.

Therefore finding out which pages are in the supp. index and amending them/updating so that they are unique can only be a good thing in the eyes of google.

pageoneresults




msg:3531198
 4:07 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

For me ,the pages in your supplemental index indicates that you have poor content on your website, perhaps the same title and meta tags for webpages, little content, otherwise why would they be in the supplemental index?

For me, the pages in this Supplemental Index indicate many things and they are not all bad. In fact, I think many of those pages in the SI are only there temporarily. For those of you watching daily, this must be stressful, eh? ;)

The reason they are there? I can't give you an official reason but here is my "bottom line take" on it...

They just don't have enough PR to make it into the primary indices, bottom line.

Old pages being recaculated. New pages being calculated, yada, yada, yada. It's an ongoing "by the second" process for Google 24/7/366.

Remember when we had monthly updates? Then bi-monthly? Then weekly? Then daily? And now by the minute in some instances. When I talk with clients, I refer to Google's index as a "Rolling Index". It is in constant flux. Can you imagine the sheer number of pages being crunched across all those datacenters?

What used to be the official SI no longer exists from my perspective. Googles indexing patterns have evolved to a point where that SI has a different meaning than it did previously. It's more of a holding area for pages it doesn't exactly know what to do with.

All sites are going to have a certain percentage of their pages in Google's "Rolling Index", it is a given. You cannot expect every single page of your site to perform, that just isn't going to happen unless you have just a few pages. ;)

Do you have the potential for generating 100,000 product pages? I'd expect you to see at least half of those in this "Rolling Index" at any given time. If the site is dynamic and things are changing, there is constant recalculation going on which means movement amongst the indices. And, just because they appear in this SI, doesn't mean they are not performing, does it?

No, the real metric here is what is happening at the analytics level. Out of those 100,000 pages, which ones are not performing? I'd be willing to bet that many of them are at deeper levels in the click path and just haven't been able to establish themselves yet. Change the click path. Point some external links to the level above in the click path. Change the indexing pattern of those pages that are not performing. All that can be done by changing the click path. "Roll your content". :)

SEOPTI




msg:3531219
 4:23 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Purchase PR, there are some text link brokers out there, it is the best way to bring URLs back in the main index.

Their supplemental index is very aggressive, purchasing Page Rank is the only way which should work immediately to get at least some URLs out of this mess.

[edited by: SEOPTI at 4:28 pm (utc) on Dec. 19, 2007]

pageoneresults




msg:3531239
 4:40 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Purchase PR, there are some text link brokers out there, it is the best way to bring URLs back in the main index.

This is definitely one method of achieving the end goal. I think you can also use internal PR to achieve the same goal. On most of those pages anyway. There are probably going to be some that are going to require some hard core push tactics. :)

cheesy snacks




msg:3531240
 4:40 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Well, I wouldnt buy any incoming links from brokers at all in the current climate.

For pages that have been in the supplemental index for a while ie Early 2005...what would you suggest...keep these pages in the s.i/add more content to them or stop google visting them in your robots file?

Kiter




msg:3531317
 5:49 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

Interesting post, interesting timing. Yesterday on the google webmaster blog:

This led to a major effort to rethink the entire supplemental index. We improved the crawl frequency and decoupled it from which index a document was stored in, and once these "supplementalization effects" were gone, the "supplemental result" tag itself—which only served to suggest that otherwise good documents were somehow suspect—was eliminated a few months ago. Now we're coming to the next major milestone in the elimination of the artificial difference between indices: rather than searching some part of our index in more depth for obscure queries, we're now searching the whole index for every query.

Well I hope so. I run a site in a popular hobby sector, with about 2300 pages of content. We get a fair amount of google generated visits to our supplemental pages, but many many more to the pages in the main index. In the last six months the number of pages in the main index have varied between 30 and 160 – pathetically low - and I’ve been tearing my hair out trying to get the numbers up.

The site’s content in the main-indexed pages is not better than the content in the supplemental index, just different. Any mistakes I’ve made on in-page SEO (I don’t think there are many) have been made in both sets of pages – the site is database-driven and pages are ‘templated’, but text content is appreciably different on each (and urls are unique with no parameters).

I can’t get further than thinking that its mainly a link-juice issue – the site is currently running with a PR3 at the top/second level pages, but I guess very little drips down to the third/fourth level pages, when it has to be shared 2300 times.

Meanwhile I’ll wait for G to start judging my content on its merits, as they promised in the blog yesterday ;)

[edited by: tedster at 6:43 pm (utc) on Dec. 19, 2007]

pageoneresults




msg:3531345
 6:20 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

I run a site in a popular hobby sector, with about 2300 pages of content.

2,300 pages of indexible content? Did you come out of the gate with that many? I mean, is this a fairly new launch, within the past 12 months?

We get a fair amount of google generated visits to our supplemental pages, but many many more to the pages in the main index.

How do you determine the visits to your Supplemental Pages? Are you tracking your pages in this SI over periods of time? Are you watching the movement of those pages across the various indices that Google have?

In the last six months the number of pages in the main index have varied between 30 and 160 – pathetically low - and I’ve been tearing my hair out trying to get the numbers up.

How are you determining the number of pages that Google have indexed from your site? What does Yahoo! show? Live?

Yes, that number is a bit low. But, if the site is "fresh", I'd expect that. If it is over a year old, then there may be other issues at hand from a technical standpoint that have yet to be discovered?

I can’t get further than thinking that its mainly a link-juice issue – the site is currently running with a PR3 at the top/second level pages, but I guess very little drips down to the third/fourth level pages, when it has to be shared 2300 times.

You are absolutely correct. Trying to spread that little bit of PR across 2,300 pages is not going to work. I'm sure there is some sort of scale that could be used that says if your site is PR3 at the root level, you'll only get 100-250 pages into the index at a "seated" level. Those at the top of the click path and/or those with the most links pointing to them. The rest of them will fluctuate in the "Rolling Index" until such time that enough history has been established for Google to do further calculation.

[edited by: tedster at 6:46 pm (utc) on Dec. 19, 2007]

tedster




msg:3531369
 6:43 pm on Dec 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

We've got a new thread for discussing the changes in the Supplemental Index that Google just announced. Let's take any further discussion there:

The Ultimate Fate of Supplemental Results [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.
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