Google Suplimental -> Please Help! 2

[1DMF]

Hello,

I've read alot about pages that are in suplimental due to lack of quality backlinks, BUT will show when the main index does not yeild results.

But I have a page in the suplimental, I use an exact phrase match for my title tag, google returns 6 results not 6 pages of results, six results and my page is not one of them.

So I have to conclude that these statements of being in the suplimental index not being bad is wrong, along with suplimental pages will be returned if the main index is exhusted.

So now what do I do, why have some pages gone to suplimental, when they are no different to other pages in the main index, and why are they not showing when there are no main index results to yield for my search term?

Thanks 1DMF

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!

 

[WhoKilledKenny]

I'm a newbie when it comes to SEO. So, I'm just going by information I've picked up on. So, I really don't know if I'm off base with this or if what I am discussing is already well know. With that disclaimer being made, I am under the understanding that most pages end up in the suplimental due to duplicate links.

 

[johnwm]

You can find a summary of a presentation that Dan Crow, director of crawl systems at Google, gave to a conference recently here

From the number and level of your questions posted here you may get some benefit from

http://www.highrankings.com/

They have a list of 'advisor articles' (FAQs) and a forum

___________________________________________________________
If you want the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first.
'If we're supposed to work in Hex, why have we only got A fingers?'
Drive a Steam Roller
Steam Engine Prints

 

[1DMF]

It's ok, I am already a member of HR.

Plus I've discovered to my dismay that this 'they appear if there is nothing else to show' is rubbish.

The pages I have in suplimental are not duplicate (anymore) and only 6 results show if i do an exact phrase match for the 'Title Tag' of the page.

Thus proving this theory wrong, if your pages are in suplimental - they are dead period!

I've been working hard to drag them out of sumplimental and hope it won't be long now.

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!

 

[Foamcow]

Google UK recently did a bit of an update I think.
I noticed a few of my sites get dumped into supplementals, but they seem to be coming back.

They also did some stuff with Adwords that caused a few hiccups. I think the 2 are related.

<honk>*:O)</honk>

Tyres: Mine's a pint of the black stuff.
Mike: You can't drink a pint of Bovril.

 

[1DMF]

I might be having this problem, as the pages in suplimental were duplicates in a sense, as I had two domains pointing to one site, it index half the site under one and half under the other.

I issued a removal from one domain and then found the 'missing' pages in suplimental for the other domain.

I'm hoping when Google re-indexes the site all pages will come back into the real index for the one domain, as I have now created a real site for the other domain.

It was a painful lesson to learn having multiple domains pointing to one site, google got smart and so only indexes one page, for one site, only it can mix and match leaving you with the entire site indexed under the various domains.

oh well you live and learn

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!

 

[WhoKilledKenny]

1DMF - I had three domains pointing two the same site (.com, .org, and .net) I did 301 redirects on .org and .net so that pages don't show up in the suplimental. Another suggestion to keep pages from showing up in suplimental is to redirect everything to WWW. So for example you have

http://www.mysite.com

and mysite.com. If the user types the URL mysite.com it gets redirected to

http://www.mysite.com.

-or- vice versa depinding on what you prefer(

http://www or

no

http://www).

 

[1DMF]

hmm I've seen a discussion on this

http://www /

no

http://www some

beielve it better to simple allow 'not found' for no www. , and the user will simply realise their mistake and put the

http://www in.

especially as google see's sub domains (which

http://www is

basically) as a different site/domain.

the problem with all these redirects in IIS is you end up with a whole bunch of entries for .com . org. .net .co.uk and other conical names, when you jave this for loads of domains it starts making IIS look overcrowded and messy.

oh well just the way it is i guess.



"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!

 

[WhoKilledKenny]

hmm I've seen a discussion on this

http://www /

no

http://www some

beielve it better to simple allow 'not found' for no www. , and the user will simply realise their mistake and put the www in.

I don't know if I like that idea, some users may not realize their mistake. Would be lost traffic if they think your site is down.

especially as google see's sub domains (which

http://www is

basically) as a different site/domain.

yes, that is why the google webmaster tools allow you to configure google crawler with your preferred site name(

http://www or

no-

http://www).

"Once you specify your preference here, it may take some time for changes to be reflected in our index. While Google doesn't guarantee that we'll show your URLs in the form that you prefer, we will use your choice as a suggestion to improve our indexing.
So again you are telling google what to use, say

http://www.mysite.com.

It may still index mysite.com but chances are that it will not end up in the supplimental, which is what you are trying to avoid.

the problem with all these redirects in IIS is you end up with a whole bunch of entries for .com . org. .net .co.uk and other conical names, when you jave this for loads of domains it starts making IIS look overcrowded and messy.

yes, i did my redirects using PHP, so not sure if you would use the URL redirection in the IIS or an ASP page to do your redirects. But if you do code it, to keep your entires small think of using the booleen expression "NOT."

seudo code:
If URL is NOT .Com then change to .Com
rather than - If URL is .org change to .com etc...

 

[1DMF]

I agree with most you say apart from the redirect, not on a 'your wrong' basis.

my extensions are .html , changing the extention to something else (in my case it would be ASP to issue the 301 header). would be a nightmare having all my pages currently indexed.

So I went for the IIS option, bit of a pain having duplicate looking sites in the IIS , but at least I don't need to re-index my site with new extentions nor loose visitors for missing the WWW.


thanks. 1DMF


"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!

 

[WhoKilledKenny]

No problem... I understand that there are more than one way to accomplish things. I agree that the goal is not to have the site re-indexed, as that may drop your standings in the SEPRs.
Just FYI- is you wanted to do this with .html - you would not have to migrate to .asp to do redirects.
Found this on the Web... I would not do the 5 second re-direct.

Redirecting In HTML
If you don't have the necessary access to use IIS or Apache redirects, you can still redirect the user in your HTML. Search engines might not figure out right away that the move is permanent and forget about the old page, but with care you can still give them a way to learn about the new page.

All you need is a <meta> HTML element, inside the <head> element of your old page, and a plain old <a> link in the <body> of the old page to please search engines. The following simple page redirects to another page:

<html>
<head>
<meta
http-equiv="Refresh"
content="5; url=http://www.example.com/newpage.html">
<title>Redirecting To Our New Page</title>
</head>
<body>
In a few seconds you will be redirected to our new page. If not,
just <a href="[URL unfurl="true"]http://www.example.com/newpage.html">click[/URL] on this
link to go to our new page.</a>
</body>
</html>

The key element here is <meta>, an element that can contain information that would normally be part of the HTTP response from the web server. By setting http-equiv to Refresh, we tell the browser we want to "refresh" the age. And by setting content to 5; url=..., we tell the browser that we want to go to the specified URL five seconds from now.

You'll note that my simple page also provides an ordinary <a> link to the new page. That's good practice because it allows users to find your new page if they have browsers or devices that reject or don't undetstand <meta> - a rare situation today, but it could happen, perhaps with a simple cell phone browser. More importantly, it allows search engines to index your new page, even if they fail to understand that you are redirecting to it in a permanent way.

 

[ChrisHirst]

Search Engines do not handle a meta refresh in the same way as browsers do.

Unlike a 301 redirect, using a meta redirect will NOT transfer link value over to the target page, so you may have a lot of links pointing to the original page, but only one pointing to the new location.

BTW I ran a test page that had a 0 second meta refresh on it on a site for over a year and the googlebot never crawled the target page

I'll probably repeat the test at some point to see if anything has changed.


Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Woo Hoo! the cobblers kids get new shoes.
People Counting Systems

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

 

[feherke]

Hi

Thanks for that information, Chris.

Although I know that search engines do not care about HTML and JavaScript URL manipulations, I would expect to just read the [tt]meta[/tt] tag to find out another URL.

Feherke.

http://rootshell.be/~feherke/

 

[WhoKilledKenny]

Unlike a 301 redirect, using a meta redirect will NOT transfer link value over to the target page, so you may have a lot of links pointing to the original page, but only one pointing to the new location.

Chris this is really good info. I used php to do my 301's. For the IIS crowd, is there a solution for doing 301's? Is the URL redirect in IIS the answer, since a meta redirect doesn't seem to be?

There might be a possiblilty that I will be assisting someone who is running IIS, ASP, VisualStudio.

 

[ChrisHirst]

http://www.candsdesign.co.uk/articles/iis/redirect/site-redirect/

If you have access to the IIS MMC


or

http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11904&st=0&p=117701&#entry117701

for ASP redirects





Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Woo Hoo! the cobblers kids get new shoes.
People Counting Systems

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

 

[WhoKilledKenny]

From the site: Redirecting at the top level of a website will cause every file and folder in the website to be redirected to the URL specified.

Very nice chris, have another star!!!