Supplemental Results

Google supplemental result listings.

[wiseapple]

Greetings,
Using the "Site:" command on Google I have found a ton of our pages are marked as supplemental results. All of the cache are either: Nov. 27 2004, Dec. 1 2004, or Feb. 21 2005.

Does anyone have a similar problem?

Googlebot has visited these pages tons of times over the past few months. However, the cache remains out of date.

Thanks.

[strangerrr]

supplementel issue has been discussed many time here ... check it over here : [google.com...]

HTH

[zeus]

They dont update there supplemental results database, Im not sure why, but it has been a long time since anything changed there, I dont see any logic in have with a nov. 2004 cache, even if it has not been updated.

[wiseapple]

Does Google ever update its supplemental database?

If something is in the supplemental, does it count towards ranking? Or duplicate penalty issues?

I just recently found out that they have results for our "ftp" subdomain in the supplemental results. I am trying to go through the URL removal tool to get rid of these. If you click on any of these pages from Google, the user would get a 404-page.

[zeus]

wiseapple - google index everything also things that are not there, like domains20%.com or files or 302links they are created as new page.

About supplemental DB, THEY say its updated every 3 month, but why do we then see supplemental results from mid 2004, so I dont think they have updated that for a long time, Im not sure whats wrong these days, but everything started when they added all those "sites"

[Dayo_UK]

>>About supplemental DB, THEY say its updated every 3 month

Zeus - I have seen this mentioned a few times - where does it say this? Have you got a link to a Google page or WebmasterWorld thread.

[Pradeep]

That’s really strange. Do you mean the data of main and the sub domain will be placed separately?.

And also I have observed we get good ranking and quicker also for the sub-domain rather then the main domain can anybody say why is that so?

Cheers

Pradeep SV

[Import Export]

I can't find the actual posts, but GG (in the last several months) gave more info on the supp index. If you dig through some threads you will find it.

[wiseapple]

Many of our supplemental listings have the date Nov. 1 2004, Dec. 2 2004, or Feb. 5 2005.

[zeus]

Dayo_UK - yes look for googleguy I think he hav also mentioned it here.

[g1smd]

Google has at least one datacentre with VERY OLD data in it.

I know of a site that had both www and non-www pages listed. Many were without title and description. Some pages were duplicated (under both www and non-www) in the SERPs and other pages were completely missing.

In March a 301 redirect was set up, and gradually the listings corrected themselves. As of a few weeks ago, about 120 non-www pages were all listed with proper title and description, and all the www pages were no longer listed.

However, I have found that on a different datacentre there are now 92 www pages listed as supplemental results, and the listings for the non-www pages are are messed up too. The cache dates are all from December 2004 and January 2005 on this datacentre.

In regular google.com results the cache date for this site is only several weeks to a month old for all pages.

.

For some other search term (actually an email address that has been removed from many sites) I also see the "old" datacentre bringing up 15 sites as showing the email address, but those are results with a cache date from January 2005 again.

In normal google.com results there is only one match for the search query, and with a recent cache again.

The IP for the "old" results is [216.239.37.99...] and there are several others too. These "old" results have been around for many weeks now.

I see [66.102.9.104...] as having the "new" results on it at the moment.

[sailorjwd]

I've got 5 pages marked supplemental. The pages haven't existed for 8 months now.

I believe the pages that replaced them are being hit with a dup content penalty. Dup contents problems are why they were removed in the first place.

I can't believe G hasn't cleanup this mess in 8 months!
Yahoo and MSN seem to have no problem getting rid of pages that don't exist (eventually).

[Marcia]

>>5 pages.....haven't existed for 8 months now

I have a few pages on a site Supplemental and URL only. I've been trying to check why it happened to those pages and track to see if they'll come back.

Two of them hadn't existed for about 6 months, they didn't get put up when I moved the site back around February. I put the missing pages back up a few days ago (August 2nd), and they're out of the Supplemental listed just like regular pages. I found out because one got a hit from Google for some odd search term yesterday.

[edited by: Marcia at 7:27 am (utc) on Aug. 12, 2005]

[Dayo_UK]

g1smd

I am seeing the same thing - I called it a state of Limbo in supporters :-

[webmasterworld.com...]

[Vimes]

That "new" Dc looks to be spreading,
here as well now [66.102.9.99...]
well spotted.

Vimes.

[Dayo_UK]

>>>That "new" Dc looks to be spreading

Mmm - not 100% sure they are spreading.

[zeus]

Yes I dont know whats wrong with google, why they dont clean up the results and I dont mean all the scrapers, just a pure clean up like when we delete temp files.

why dont they just have results with description, like in the good old days, before they where playing with all those fake site(over 8mill. sites indexed) in the results, it can not be that they are satisfied with supplemental results from mid 2004 or URL only.

[wiseapple]

I also have pages in the supplemental index for a sub domain that no longer exists. These would be 404 if anyone ever clicked on them...

[wiseapple]

(DUP)

[g1smd]

Does anyone else see MAJOR differences for their site between those 2 IPs?

I see big differences for sites that made changes 2 to 6 months ago, when using the site: search.

[Angelis]

The [66.102.9.99...] server is actually an old cache its not the up to date one...

[zeus]

I also have this theory, that many former hijacked or sites that where hit by the googlebog 302, still is not reapearing in the serps, because of all those old caches around. If the hijacker and 302 links still have the old cache where they have dublicated the original site, listed in google, then the original site still have troubles.

I just say thise

GOOGLE UPDATE YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL RESULTS DB NOW

[zeus]

Even my privacy policy and Terms and condition is under supplemental results, well it can not get more unique then that.

[Lorel]

To get rid of Supplemental Results just add more original text to those pages--12-15% should do it.

[koan]

I have some supplemental results from an old domain name, before I moved to a new one, that redirect to my new pages but those supplemental pages show up in the SERPs while the new pages don't get indexed. It's irritating.

[g1smd]

>> To get rid of Supplemental Results just add more original text to those pages--12-15% should do it. <<

Not always true. We changed an email address printed on a number of sites about 18 months ago. Searching Google for that email address still brings up those pages as supplemental results (and the email address is still shown in the snippet), whereas for other searches the pages are not shown as supplemental results.

That's right: a page may not be supplemental for all results that it is returned for. In all cases the cache is from only a few weeks ago, and is updated at least monthly. The email address cannot be found in the cache because it was removed from the page at least 18 months ago; so why does this result still appear in searches, and why does the email address still appear in the snippet for the single supplemental result?

In one case we changed the entire page content, but for the email address we still get a snippet from the old page, and the old result only appears when searching for the email address we no longer want found. Excluding the page with robots.txt and submitting to the Google remove tool only removed it for 3 months.

[zeus]

Lorel - No that would not make it, I think those 2 pages totaly unique fit into my topic of the site and my writing it can not get more uniqu, no I think I know whats wrong, its former hijack pages which cache is still in google DB, that way there are more versions of those pages, its a shame they dont update this supplemental DB.

[Marcia]

>>its former hijack pages which cache is still in google DB, that way there are more versions of those pages, its a shame they dont update this supplemental DB.

zeus, is the site hosted on a unique IP?

[zeus]

Marcia - yes, I still think all site which has been hijacked are still in trouble because of old caches on google, thats also why we see the most supplemental results, for other sites which has not had the troubles with hijackers or 302 googlebug, they maybe are hit by a to large snip of there site/page from scrapers.

[promis]

My 380 supplemental results for non-www pages have toaday vanished from Google. I had set up a 301 redirect only 10 days ago from non-www to www.