The Ultimate Fate of Supplemental Results - Google's announcement

[sunroof]

[googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com...]

can anyone explain this? tnx

[steveb]

It's common for a page to be supplemental and also non supplemental.

When a page is only supplemental, it may or may not appear for a search, but it probably won't, and it won't rank as well as if it was not supplemental. (Although literally today we could be seeing some changes in the behavior based on the promises that have been made.)

[Marcia]

doubt that this change will help most supplemental urls show up for any high value searches.

Ah, yes. But there are many multi-word keyword phrases that have very high value in terms of precise targetng and conversion.

Does anyone suspect that being both supplemental and non-supplemental for URLs on a site might possibly have something to do with query specific criteria?

Added:

BTW, does anyone recall where that Google paper is that gets solidly into query expansion?

[edited by: Marcia at 2:26 am (utc) on Dec. 23, 2007]

[JS_Harris]

In my opinion the only way for google to begin pulling pages out of suplemental is for Google to better understand the pages.

Given that spiders are blind, this may be the result of improved technology on Googles part. In the past a "what is this?" or "hmm, seen this before" or even "blah,blah,blah... 60% of the page spidered and i'm still not out of the header and java stuff yet, next page" spider result may have meant instant supplemental. Perhaps now it won't.

I get the feeling this is related simply to Google "seeing" pages better, and implementing that in their spiders.

[System]

The following 6 messages were cut out to new thread by tedster. New thread at: google/3542438.htm [webmasterworld.com]
1:30 pm on Jan. 7, 2008 (EST -5)