Reasons for ‘Supplemental Result’?

[billshorters]

What are all the possible reasons for a page to have ‘Supplemental Result’ next to the url in the Google search results?

[greeneagle]

I believe the main reason is that pages seem too similar to the GOOG.

Here are some tips that may help:

1) High Content to Code Ratio - up to around 50% if possible. Code cleanup is a big step there.

2) Different Titles and Tags for every page!

3) Substantially Different content on each page - Not just Site Internal but - "cookie cutters" just don't fly anymore.

They have had to go there to filter out faux adsense sites and other garbage from top SERP. This hurt a lot of semi-legit businesses such as event ticket sellers and other database based "canned sites".

Ken

[Pascal77]

Originally Posted by billshorters

What are all the possible reasons for a page to have ‘Supplemental Result’ next to the url in the Google search results?

Good question! But if we know that there weren't any supplementals from members off WPW ...

[scanmonkey]

If a high percentage of your inbound links are reciprocal, it can cause you to be on the fringe of what is considered worthy to crawl and your site can go supplemental.

[Pascal77]

Originally Posted by scanmonkey

If a high percentage of your inbound links are reciprocal, it can cause you to be on the fringe of what is considered worthy to crawl and your site can go supplemental.

I don't think this is THE reason.
Perhaps it has something to do with it but i have seen no proof off this, contrary. When you build links with this in mind and look for 1way links you still go supplemental like when you have a lot reciprocal links.

[scanmonkey]

Originally Posted by Matt Cutts Blog

After looking at the example sites, I could tell the issue in a few minutes. The sites that fit “no pages in Bigdaddy” criteria were sites where our algorithms had very low trust in the inlinks or the outlinks of that site. Examples that might cause that include excessive reciprocal links, linking to spammy neighborhoods on the web, or link buying/selling. The Bigdaddy update is independent of our supplemental results, so when Bigdaddy didn’t select pages from a site, that would expose more supplemental results for a site.

See http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/indexing-timeline/

Excessive reciprocal links, linking to spammy neighborhoods on the web, or link buying/selling would expose more supplemental results for a site

[Pascal77]

I'm very sorry for Matt Cutts but i don't believe anything he writes on his blog(i don't read it anymore).
Especially sites with not many links end in supplementals.

Possibly you go supplemental when you're score off different factors of your site isn't high/good enough.
And i think age is a very important factor.

(i did a check on the most important keyword in dutch language and there seems to be a very important age-factor, very very important. Most sites of 2000 or sooner)

also i saw very good results of bought links and link spamming. Very very good results.

I only believe what i see, not what MC is telling on his blog.

[SPC3]

The Supplemental index is nothing like it used to be before BD. So much so, that Matt thinks that it shouldn't even be called the Supplemental index any more. I have a very good idea that he will talk more about the new Supplemental index when he does some more videos.

For those who missed it, Google now evaluates the links in and out of a site, to determine how many of its pages to have in the Web index. The rest of the site's pages are put in Supplemental - if they have them. The evaluations look at the number links, the types of links, and the quality of the links. Included in that is the percentage of a site's links that are reciprocals - as has been stated already.

It raises the question, since Google puts some or many of a site's pages in Supplemental, just because the site is only allowed a certain number of pages in the Web index, what determines which of the sites pages go into Supplemental? It's PageRank. The pages that are put in the Web index are determined pretty much by PageRank, which means that the pages that are put in Supplemental are also determined by PageRank. That only applies to pages that are in Supplemental because of the site's linkage evaluations, but that's the reason why a massive number of Supplemental pages are there.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by SPC3

It raises the question, since Google puts some or many of a site's pages in Supplemental, just because the site is only allowed a certain number of pages in the Web index, what determines which of the sites pages go into Supplemental? It's PageRank. The pages that are put in the Web index are determined pretty much by PageRank, which means that the pages that are put in Supplemental are also determined by PageRank. That only applies to pages that are in Supplemental because of the site's linkage evaluations, but that's the reason why a massive number of Supplemental pages are there.

Does above mean that PageRank is important, or did I miss something?

[SPC3]

It depends what you mean by important. The PageRanks within a site aren't what determine how many of its pages to have in the Web index. The PageRanks are used to decide which of the site's pages to have in the Web index after the number of pages has been determined.

[Pascal77]

Originally Posted by SPC3

It depends what you mean by important. The PageRanks within a site aren't what determine how many of its pages to have in the Web index. The PageRanks are used to decide which of the site's pages to have in the Web index after the number of pages has been determined.

So the more you spam, buy links, etc
The better your site ranks?
That's a very good tactique to remove spam from the index ...
(Or did i miss something?)

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Pascal77

So the more you spam, buy links, etc
The better your site ranks?
That's a very good tactique to remove spam from the index ...
(Or did i miss something?)

You talk to the Admin at the "home of PageRank" (Google toolbarrank of 6 as compared to WPW's toolbarrank of 5) so why not go to his site and learn the basics of PageRank?

After having acquired the necessary skills there, you may also trust Matt Cutts a little more.

My own subjective impression:
The suplemental index is becoming less important.

"Or did i miss something?"

IMO you did :-)

[Pascal77]

so don't look for relevant links but for links with high PR?(and if they are relevant then that's nice)

I have it very difficult with this.
I understand PR but i don't see this as the real power to rank.
And why the hell should they don't use good pages because they have to few links?
That's bringing relevance AND quality of SERP's down. Why should Google do this?
(i have to say that i think this from going out off the standpoint off dutch language and other smaller languages. For English language it can be understood because there are so many results available that you almost always have quality and relevance)

There used to be a time i searched links for relevance of my site(travel to brazil exchanges links with travel to brazil2). Now i only look for links which i can put somewhere for my benefit.

[kgun]

My bolding and remarks in blue

Originally Posted by Pascal77

so don't look for relevant links but for links with high PR?(and if they are relevant then that's nice)

Relevant links are the key.

I have it very difficult with this.
I understand PR but i don't see this as the real power to rank. (on the SERP's?)

Are you sure?

Because of the assumed nonlinearity of pagerank and the "bleeding out of PageRank" from sites with too many OBL's, 100 relevant links from a PageRank 4 site may be more important than 10 from a PageRank 6 site.

More pages on your site with relevant content will also increase the sites absolute web pagerank.

[Pascal77]

Originally Posted by kgun

My bolding and remarks in blue

No, but what i'm sure off is that we are more and more building sites for search engines(especially Google) then for visitors.
And doesn't Google says "build sites for visitors". Why do they make changes which pushes webmasters more and more to the opposite they say?

[Pascal77]

describe : relevant links like Google evaluates them

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Pascal77

No, but what i'm sure off is that we are more and more building sites for search engines(especially Google) then for visitors.
And doesn't Google says "build sites for visitors". Why do they make changes which pushes webmasters more and more to the opposite they say?

My short answer, build accessible and usable sites / pages for human beings with quality content that are XHTML (Google toolbarrank of 7 homepage 8) valid if possible.

[jackson992]

What the heck is xhtml? Can't see how using it would affect rankings considering I've never heard of it.

[greeneagle]

jackson992,

XHTML™ 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition)
A Reformulation of HTML 4 in XML 1.0
W3C Recommendation 26 January 2000, revised 1 August 2002

Ken

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Pascal77

No, but what i'm sure off is that we are more and more building sites for search engines(especially Google) then for visitors.

Me not! :)

[jackson992]

This looks way too compliacted to me LOL. I'll stick to good ole html

[westie]

Whats the relationship between PageRank, TrustRank, the Supplemental Index and invese PageRank ? Has anybody figured this out yet?


It's OK - I don't expect an answer - I just thought I'd ask the question ;-) If you do find an answer - you could become a very wealthy SEO! Keep us informed!

It seems to be getting ever more complicated to second quess the search engines - I suppose that is the idea. I think the new algos will give the SEO community a few headaches. I think I'll just build for my visitors and let the bots get on with it!!

Regards