32 replies to this topic

[Michael Martinez]

Since a lot of pages in the Supplemental Index provide useful, unique information I feel strongly that Google should let them compete with Main Web Index pages for all queries.

They only deprive their users of useful search results by practicing Web Apartheid. The spammers already know how to get around the Supplemental Results Index. They'll continue to get their content into the search results.

Google just needs to stop punishing millions of innocent pages and fix the problem it created. They allow links to pass anchor text. If they were to stop doing that they would find many of their problems simply vanish over night.

And Chris Sherman should keep his "great ideas" to himself. He hasn't done anyone any favors if Google really did take his advice.

[piskie]

What sort of comment is that:

And you needed those pages to be labeled supplemental to know that it was a bad idea to use the same title tag on them? Umm...ok

[Jill]

What do you mean what sort of comment is that? It is what it is.

Are you saying that you didn't know that your Title tags should be unique until you found the pages in supplemental results? That's what I was asking.

[piskie]

I was not referring my site.
The first time I came across this was when a Site Owner approached me asking why so many of their pages were listed as Supplementary results. When I looked at the site, I noticed that virtually all the Title Tags were identical made up of Business Name + Market Sector + Geographic Location. The only ones that differed were the 'Contact Us Form' and the 'How to find Us' page. There were no KW tags and the Description Tags were OK ish.

The site was produced by the company that did their Glossies so the copy text was very good and enough of it.

I examined the Site, less than 20 pages, and suggested we start by fixing the Title Tags then wait and see. This I did and after about 5 or 6 weeks the client phoned to thank me saying that the Supplemental labels had disappeared.

The site was Visually Pleasing, informative and functional so certainly did not fit into Your generalisation of "generally useless pages" hence my post #14 above. There are many Supplementary pages that are useful and informative so I consider it to be a mistake to tar them all with the same brush.

[projectphp]

Google just needs to stop punishing millions of innocent pages and fix the problem it created. They allow links to pass anchor text. If they were to stop doing that they would find many of their problems simply vanish over night.

Talk about a non-sequitor! What has anchor text got to do with the supplemental index?

There are many Supplementary pages that are useful and informative so I consider it to be a mistake to tar them all with the same brush.

Your example mixes cause and effect, and I severely doubt changing titles had any effect on the index they were in. And some pages will always be supplemental that don't deserve it, because they will move out and are waiting to hit the required marks.

Back ontopic, the labelling of results, who cares about webmaster's concerns when searching. I want to know something. That your site isn't there doesn't bother me, and your site is your responsibility. A SERP should serve searchers, and the more information on a SERP, the better. I personally wish Google gave me XML with lots of variables, and let me format the SERP how I liked. I wish I knew:
1. last crawl date.
2. Any flags for spam etc.
3. Domain facts.
4. Anything else the SE knows.

I want more information, not less. I can't stand the idea that less information is given, especially if the only reason is because people worry too much. I can acept that link: uses resources, but even then, I wish google had a link.google.com server, to check them, and if you over used it, they banned you. Then I could get full links, without Google dedicating too many resources to the command.

[piskie]

Yes to:
1. last crawl date.
2. Any flags for spam etc.


Not so sure about:
3. Domain facts.
4. Anything else the SE knows.

[Michael Martinez]

Talk about a non-sequitor! What has anchor text got to do with the supplemental index?

Everything. Google is trying to fight spam by making PageRank the issue. We all know that people are building links for the anchor text more than for the PageRank. But the more they squeeze people out of the Main Web Index, the more they force people to look at PageRank. If they stop allowing links to pass anchor text (which is about as poor an indicator of relevance as you can devise), then the link glut will vanish overnight.

It's a self-defeating cycle: the more emphasis Google places on links (and they have never in their history placed THIS MUCH emphasis on links) the more determined people become to acquire value-passing links. They need to go back to being a search engine and stop trying to police the Web.

[piskie]

Michael
My obsevationi s that over recent years, Pagerank has been devalued in importance.

[Jill]

My obsevationi s that over recent years, Pagerank has been devalued in importance.

If you're talking about toolbar PR, I'm quite sure that Michael isn't. Real PageRank/link pop is alive and well and very important to Google.

[projectphp]

They need to go back to being a search engine and stop trying to police the Web.

Policing the web! What does that involve? Breath testing sites? "Sorry, but your site was over the limit for font tags."

Anyway, as an SE, they should provide MORE labels.

Everything. Google is trying to fight spam by making PageRank the issue

Still a non-sequitor! Does the supplemental index exist because, and this is the direct quote "(Google) allow links to pass anchor text"?

But the more they squeeze people out of the Main Web Index

"Squeeze" people out? Come on dude, seriously, this isn't personal, and Google aren't doing anything to "people". Maybe Google need a "No People Were Harmed In The Making Of This SERP" disclaimer. You choose infrastructure, and sites fall where they fall, and rightly so. Thjis goes right back to Inktomi's Best Of The Web.

I am happy for you to rant, but to bring this topic, which is about the discontinuing of the labelling of results as supplemental, back to a crusade about links, and talk about squeezing people and "policing"... well, IMHO, it just makes you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

[Michael Martinez]

Everything. Google is trying to fight spam by making PageRank the issue

Still a non-sequitor! Does the supplemental index exist because, and this is the direct quote "(Google) allow links to pass anchor text"?

Wrong again (and that should be "non sequitur". Google has turned the whole "get more links for anchor text" issue into a "get more links for PageRank" issue. SEOs and spammers alike depend on the anchor text, not the PageRank, to boost their rankings.

But the more they squeeze people out of the Main Web Index

"Squeeze" people out? Come on dude, seriously, this isn't personal, and Google aren't doing anything to "people".

Wrong again. They are most determined to squeeze out people whose sites they feel are abusing the index (the spammers -- and we're not just talking about so-called "black hats" but also many so-called "white hats" who are running around building links), but the process has hurt many innocent Web sites that don't build links.

This is about Supplemental Results, so let's keep it about Supplemental Results, okay?

The Supplemental Results Index is where Google puts pages that have low internal PageRank. Most Web site operators don't know anything about that, they don't build links, and they are being penalized by Google for not having enough links to be included in the Main Web Index.

The penalty is a "de facto" penalty, not an algorithmic penalty. Google has made it clear that they will pretend everything is about PageRank, even though the people who have traditionally been advocating link building have made it clear they want the anchor text.

If Google stops allowing links to pass anchor text, and if it allows pages in the Supplemental Index to rank on an equal footing with pages in the Main Web Index, their problem will go away. People will no longer have a reason to build artificial link profiles.

[Jill]

If Google stops allowing links to pass anchor text, and if it allows pages in the Supplemental Index to rank on an equal footing with pages in the Main Web Index, their problem will go away. People will no longer have a reason to build artificial link profiles.

Yeah, then people can go back to simply keyword stuffing spam instead!

[projectphp]

They are most determined to squeeze out people whose sites they feel are abusing the index

Dude, whatever! If a SERP squeezes people, then how about I virtually tickle you with this post. Can you feel the feathery goodness?

Supplemental results aren't about "squeezing" sites (let alone people). The supplemental index was addded in an attempt to index more of the web. From the article that started this thread (which, I know, it is a lot of effort to read):

When Google originally introduced Supplemental Results in 2003, our main web index had billions of web pages. The supplemental index made it possible to index even more web pages and, just like our main web index, make this content available when generating relevant search results for user queries
Empharsis supplied by moi

No squeeze, more like adding a shed to the back of your house. Sure, you won't go there much, but you can store stuff you need, that has use, but won't be useful all the time. Like sleeping bags for guests, hammocks, weed killer, hockey masks, chain saws, ninja swords, shotguns... ah, I mean, useful stuff like that

That you now want to play this broken record about PageRank and anchor text doesn't change the fact that the supplemental index was, and I would argue still is, a good idea. We all need a place for stuff that doesn't have everyday use, but has value nonetheless.

Yeah, then people can go back to simply keyword stuffing spam instead!

Exactly! Or just move on to the next type of spam.

The SEO community is the lamest when it comes to "solutions" that purport to "solve Google's problems". "If you do XYZ the problem is solved" is something that you read on fora, blogs et al constantly. RRRRIIIIGGHHHTTT. Because, like, the taxation system has so totally been "solved" by the various gazillion laws that have passed, in every country of the world, in the last like 300 years, and now no one EVER cheats on their taxes

Whenever there is an incentive to push the edge of the envelope, people, being people, will do just that. SEO provides the "winners" with the chance at $$, and every system wuill always have ways to "cheat", or at the very least push the edge of the envelope. In fact, for most ever system, from tax to search, the optimal point is not zero cheating, but a minimal amount of cheating where the cost to detect the remaining % of cheating is higher than the expected returns.

Link spamming is the hardest spam to do, no matter what any SEO tells you, because it requires far more work than on-page spam. Any SEO who thinks link analysis is a bad idea is either biased by their own personal stake, a fool or both.

[chrishirst]

Just my 's worth but,

The supplemental index arrived on the scene a little before the "Google is running out of space" non-event over docids

http://www.highranki...h...ost&p=97321

Maybe Google have finally completed the restructuring and testing of their entire database and so no longer need the extra index??

[piskie]

Yes Chris, a distinct likelihood.