ken_b - 4:08 am on Dec 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

recent statements from Matt Cutts and Adam Lasnik recently to the effect that Supplementals aren't always "bad" in every case,

Isn't that supported by the same page showing in a site: search as supplemental, but in a keyword search as non-supplemental (and rank well), both instances with the same cache date?

At any rate, wouldn't the situation I described make it pretty hard to come up with a count of, or ratio for supplemental pages?

I wonder if a page might be shown as supplemental based on a comaprison to other pages on the same site, but not necessarily when compared to pages on other sites.