Are Supplemental Pages Evil?

[Webnauts]

How could anyone think that being in a supplemental index would be positive? The definition of supplemental itself means nonscheduled.
Why would pages not included in the main index be a good thing?

As I am one of probably few SEOs who agree that having pages in the supplemental results is negative, I thought I would share with everyone the results I published today:

Supplemental Pages, Results & Ratio

I would appreciate if you would give me your feedback/comments about my work so far.

If anyone can tell what could be positive being in the supplemental results, I would appreciate if that will be added here also.

Thanks for sharing,

John

[mjtaylor]

I never said being in sups was positive ... I said perhaps it is no longer the hell it once was ... because I do see them pop up in searches quite often now ...

From your article above:

>> Common Causes of Supplemental Pages:

• Duplicated content;
• Too much content similarity;
• Pages with low or no content;
• Orphaned web pages. Pages that no one links to, including yourself; ...<<

Exactly ... which is why I link to them to help them out.

and the rest of your common reasons pages make the sups:

• Error pages, if a site does not use If-Modified-Since, Last Modified and/or Expires rules;
• Poor website navigation;
• Pages due to canonicalization problems;
• Too low PageRank;
• Long URLs, especially with long parameters, starting with a question mark (?) and being separated with an ampersand (&) and are not rewriten;
• Suspicious pages for spamindexing, like non-unique and irrelevant to page content meta tags, or linking to bad neighborhoods, etc. <<

All reasons most pages are in the sups; however, I have seen many pages that do not suffer any of these issues make the sups since last April/May when G when after links pages. I believe that change in the algorithm is flawed and has caused pages that meet none of the criteria above to go supplemental ...

And Google recently removed the supplemental tag ... why do you think they did that?

JMO, MJ

[ctabuk]

Am I missing something????

Googles Official Stance on this topic is as follows.


What happened to Google's supplemental results? My pages no longer show this label.

We've removed the label "Supplemental Result" from our search result pages. Supplemental Results once enabled users to find results for queries beyond our main index. Because they were "supplemental," however, these URLs were not crawled and updated as frequently as URLs in our main index.
Google's technology has improved over time, and now we're able to crawl and index sites with greater frequency. With our entire web index fresher and more up to date, the "Supplemental Results" label outlived its usefulness.
For webmasters who have used the supplemental result label as a diagnostic aid, Google encourages the use of our Webmaster Tools and also our Analytics service. These free services can provide you with insight into those pages that users and Google may find less relevant.

[mjtaylor]

Thank you ... sometimes going to the source is so, well, perfect!!

[thindenim]

They are the Skeletor of the internet.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by ctabuk

Am I missing something????

Googles Official Stance on this topic is as follows.


What happened to Google's supplemental results? My pages no longer show this label.

We've removed the label "Supplemental Result" from our search result pages. Supplemental Results once enabled users to find results for queries beyond our main index. Because they were "supplemental," however, these URLs were not crawled and updated as frequently as URLs in our main index.
Google's technology has improved over time, and now we're able to crawl and index sites with greater frequency. With our entire web index fresher and more up to date, the "Supplemental Results" label outlived its usefulness.
For webmasters who have used the supplemental result label as a diagnostic aid, Google encourages the use of our Webmaster Tools and also our Analytics service. These free services can provide you with insight into those pages that users and Google may find less relevant.

Yes you did miss something. The label is removed, but not the supplemental results.
If you try what I published you will see what I mean.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I never said being in sups was positive ... I said perhaps it is no longer the hell it once was ... because I do see them pop up in searches quite often now ...

Can you tell where or how you see them?

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

All reasons most pages are in the sups; however, I have seen many pages that do not suffer any of these issues make the sups since last April/May when G when after links pages. I believe that change in the algorithm is flawed and has caused pages that meet none of the criteria above to go supplemental ...

Can you give an example of a page or site I can look at myself?

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

And Google recently removed the supplemental tag ... why do you think they did that?

I suppose they want to make the index thinner. Do doing that, many people will not be able to see the problem pages, and soon they will be de-indexed. Imagine how many pages will be ripped off, and how much workload, brandwidth, etc Google will save.

Just my guess.

[wige]

I saw the recommendation to visit Webmaster tools, but I don't see anywhere that indicates which pages or how much of your site is listed in the supplemental index. Is it there and I am missing it?

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Can you tell where or how you see them? .

If a page is cached but not found when I search for it, it's in the sups.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Can you give an example of a page or site I can look at myself?

Sure: this page on my site:
Search Engine Ranking: Placement and Positioning used to have PR5 ... and is grey now ... the only thing I see wrong with it is the double links at the bottom ... which I must note to remove ...

That page is cached but:

Your search - http: //www.cyber-key.com/search_engine_ranking.html - did not match any documents.

Another set:
Listings of Residential Real Estate for Sale -

*all the listing pages linked from this menu used to have PR and are now in the supplementals ...

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I suppose they want to make the index thinner. Do doing that, many people will not be able to see the problem pages, and soon they will be de-indexed. Imagine how many pages will be ripped off, and how much workload, brandwidth, etc Google will save.

Just my guess.

Why? Do you think Google will stop indexing them at all ? I get the impression that Google is indexing 'sups' much more often than they used to ...

MJ

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Sure: this page on my site:
Search Engine Ranking: Placement and Positioning used to have PR5 ... and is grey now ... the only thing I see wrong with it is the double links at the bottom ... which I must note to remove ...

I checked your active page http: //www.cyber-key.com/search_engine_ranking.html and not the cached one. As a spammer hunter, I found the following issue:

You are using "tiny text" in the body of a page and that can be considered spamming. You use size is 1.

To be more specific, the use of "tiny text" loaded with keywords is considered to be spamming. You're using a font size under the default size of 2. Your tiny text may be a copyright notice at the very bottom of the page, or even your contact information. If so, that's fine. Just make sure that you're not spamming the engine by using keyword after keyword in a very small font size.

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Why? Do you think Google will stop indexing them at all ? I get the imression that Google is indexing 'sups' much more often than they used to ...

Maybe the collect them for their testing environment for improving their filters. I am sure that will not last long. Just wait and see. I just cannot wait for Christmas time.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Another set:
Listings of Residential Real Estate for Sale -

This page is even worse:

1. I found hardly visible text as you are using very similar text and background image colors. Text with foreground color near background color

Google and other search engines consider utilizing the same or similar font color on the same or similar colored background to be spamming. Make sure that the font color differs from the background color by at least 10%.

2. There is not much text, just invisible separators, punctation or other graphical characters. I cannot really tell if that is seen as spam by the bots.

3. You also have tiny text as you do on your other site.

So after all, it is very obvious that both pages have been filtered.

That is all I can tell on the fly. When I have more time, I can have a closer look, if you think that the issues I mention are not reasonable.

[Feydakin]

Are we looking at the same pages?? I see a white page with blue and green text with thumbnail pictures..

Unless you are referring to that small menu block at the bottom of the page that sits on a graphic.. And even that is not hard to read..

Also, where did you get the 10% number?? Just curious..

[Webnauts]

MJ,

I also though that I should bring to you attention the following:

• Google has a total of 94 pages indexed from http://www.cyber-key.com/
• 66 are in the main index
• 28 are in the supplemental index
• Supplemental Ratio 29.79%

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Google has a total of 118 pages indexed from http://www.keysproperties.com/
• 21 are in the main index
• 97 are in the supplemental index
• Supplemental Ratio 82.2%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you would PM me your email, I could run a certain text for your internal linking and co. That is all for the moment.

[wige]

Webnauts, how do you determine the number of pages in the main index vs. the supplementals?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Also, where did you get the 10% number?? Just curious..

With the following formulars:
1. Contrast Ratio

• L = 0.2126 * R + 0.7152 * G + 0.0722 * B where R, G and B are defined as:
  • if RsRGB <= 0.03928 then R = RsRGB/12.92 else R = ((RsRGB+0.055)/1.055) ^ 2.4
  • if GsRGB <= 0.03928 then G = GsRGB/12.92 else G = ((GsRGB+0.055)/1.055) ^ 2.4
  • if BsRGB <= 0.03928 then B = BsRGB/12.92 else B = ((BsRGB+0.055)/1.055) ^ 2.4
  • and RsRGB, GsRGB, and BsRGB are defined as:
  • RsRGB = R8bit/255
  • GsRGB = G8bit/255
  • BsRGB = B8bit/255

2. Colour Brightness Formula

((Red value X 299) + (Green value X 587) + (Blue value X 114)) / 1000

3. Colour Difference Formula

(maximum (Red value 1, Red value 2) - minimum (Red value 1, Red value 2)) + (maximum (Green value 1, Green value 2) - minimum (Green value 1, Green value 2)) + (maximum (Blue value 1, Blue value 2) - minimum (Blue value 1, Blue value 2))

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by wige

Webnauts, how do you determine the number of pages in the main index vs. the supplementals?

Did you read my first post in the thread? Did you follow the link? Did you read what I have written there? If you did, I think you would not ask. Or did I misunderstand your question?

[wige]

I could have missed something. I tried this using the queries exactly as you posted (who knew there was actually a domainname.com) and found at least one page that showed up in all four forms of the query.

site:domainname.com
site:domainname.com ***view
site:domainname.com with &filter=0 appended to the result page URL
site:domainname.com -inallurl:domainname.com with &filter=0 appended to the result page URL

all listed the terms page (domainname.com/Terms.html) in the first page of results. If the second form I mentioned only returns the results that are in the supplemental results, the other two forms look like they return all the pages indexed, not just those pages listed in the main index. There is a different number of pages reported for each variation of the query though, but your equation of
(search term 1 * 100%) / search term 4 does not seem to line up because of this overlap.

[thindenim]

I use: -

site:/www.domainname.com - which shows non-supplemental pages
and site:www.domainname.com/& which shows supplemental pages

It seems to work pretty well.

I really do despair sometimes when pages with good content (all written from scratch), good links (internal and external) and no spammy nonsense appear in the supplemental index and pages with very little no content, which are buried 3 levels in appear in the regular index.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by thindenim

I use: -

site:/www.domainname.com - which shows non-supplemental pages
and site:www.domainname.com/& which shows supplemental pages

It seems to work pretty well.

No it doesn't. I used that myself until 3 days ago and seems that they eliminated it. That is why I came up with the new option.

[spiceboy]

Yes it does (at least on Google UK at the moment).

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by wige

I could have missed something. I tried this using the queries exactly as you posted (who knew there was actually a domainname.com) and found at least one page that showed up in all four forms of the query.

site:domainname.com
site:domainname.com ***view
site:domainname.com with &filter=0 appended to the result page URL
site:domainname.com -inallurl:domainname.com with &filter=0 appended to the result page URL

all listed the terms page (domainname.com/Terms.html) in the first page of results. If the second form I mentioned only returns the results that are in the supplemental results, the other two forms look like they return all the pages indexed, not just those pages listed in the main index. There is a different number of pages reported for each variation of the query though, but your equation of
(search term 1 * 100%) / search term 4 does not seem to line up because of this overlap.

OK Wige. I have rewritten the information to make it more understandable. Please check it out and tell me what you think now:
Supplemental Pages, Results & Ratio

Thanks,

John

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by spiceboy

Yes it does (at least on Google UK at the moment).

I am sure here in Germany not anymore.

[wige]

I did the test again, starting each query from the search box at Google from within the US, entering the strings based on the text in your page:

To find the number of pages with "www" indexed by Google, type in their search box: site:domainname.com
This query returned 71 results, domainname.com/Terms.html was #2. Adding &filter=0 to the end of the result page URL brought the total results to 85.

To find the total number of pages in with "www" in the main index of Google, type in their search box: site:domainname.com -inallurl:domainname&filter=0.
This query returned 87 results, domainname.com/Terms.html in #2. I tried to enter it encoded as shown on your site, but got no results.

To find which pages with "www" are in the supplemental index of Google, type in their search bot: site:domainname.com/ ***view
This query returned 4 results, with domainname.com/Terms.html in #2. adding &filter=0 to the end of the result page URL gives 20 results.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I checked your active page http: //www.cyber-key.com/search_engine_ranking.html and not the cached one. As a spammer hunter, I found the following issue:

You are using "tiny text" in the body of a page and that can be considered spamming. You use size is 1.

To be more specific, the use of "tiny text" loaded with keywords is considered to be spamming. You're using a font size under the default size of 2. Your tiny text may be a copyright notice at the very bottom of the page, or even your contact information. If so, that's fine. Just make sure that you're not spamming the engine by using keyword after keyword in a very small font size.

Size 1 is not tiny text ... -1 or -2 is tiny ... and if that were the issue it why were the many other pages where I do the same thing not affected ...

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

This page is even worse:

1. I found hardly visible text as you are using very similar text and background image colors. Text with foreground color near background color

Google and other search engines consider utilizing the same or similar font color on the same or similar colored background to be spamming. Make sure that the font color differs from the background color by at least 10%.

2. There is not much text, just invisible separators, punctation or other graphical characters. I cannot really tell if that is seen as spam by the bots.

3. You also have tiny text as you do on your other site.

So after all, it is very obvious that both pages have been filtered.

That is all I can tell on the fly. When I have more time, I can have a closer look, if you think that the issues I mention are not reasonable.

That menu page is ranked .. it is the listing pages that are not.

[mjtaylor]

I must not understand how to do the supplemental search ... when I do site:domainname.com/ ***view
I get some pages that have PR on them ...

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

That menu page is ranked .. it is the listing pages that are not.

As you are a SEO professional, I am sure this info can tell you a lot:
Supplemental Results Detection for Cyper-Keys.com

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by wige

I did the test again, starting each query from the search box at Google from within the US, entering the strings based on the text in your page:

To find the number of pages with "www" indexed by Google, type in their search box: site:domainname.com
This query returned 71 results, domainname.com/Terms.html was #2. Adding &filter=0 to the end of the result page URL brought the total results to 85.

To find the total number of pages in with "www" in the main index of Google, type in their search box: site:domainname.com -inallurl:domainname&filter=0.
This query returned 87 results, domainname.com/Terms.html in #2. I tried to enter it encoded as shown on your site, but got no results.

To find which pages with "www" are in the supplemental index of Google, type in their search bot: site:domainname.com/ ***view
This query returned 4 results, with domainname.com/Terms.html in #2. adding &filter=0 to the end of the result page URL gives 20 results.

Come on man. I said I updated the page. Look at it again please.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I must not understand how to do the supplemental search ... when I do site:domainname.com/ ***view
I get some pages that have PR on them ...

1. I just setup a method how to check the supplemental results ratio.
2. 1. How can you tell that you still have PR on them? Green bar?
3. I posted a link for you above to demonstrate you why I can not understand how can you check a site internal linking and co manually. And I kept it very simple. I could add much more numbers on it, but I think that is enough to begin with. But remember that the PageRank is what Googles shows in the bar. Seems to me though that at the next PR update you will have a loss if you do not fix your site. Just a tip, if PR is important for you. For me it is!

[thindenim]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I am sure here in Germany not anymore.

Definitely still working in the UK, but perhaps they are doing away with it. I'll try out your method.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I must not understand how to do the supplemental search ... when I do site:domainname.com/ ***view
I get some pages that have PR on them ...

Google is eliminating every new hack short after it becomes public. How would you deal with that when all hacks are gone?

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

As you are a SEO professional, I am sure this info can tell you a lot:
Supplemental Results Detection for Cyper-Keys.com

Thanks ... it doesn't make much sense to me at all.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

1. I just setup a method how to check the supplemental results ratio.
2. 1. How can you tell that you still have PR on them? Green bar?
3. I posted a link for you above to demonstrate you why I can not understand how can you check a site internal linking and co manually. And I kept it very simple. I could add much more numbers on it, but I think that is enough to begin with. But remember that the PageRank is what Googles shows in the bar. Seems to me though that at the next PR update you will have a loss if you do not fix your site. Just a tip, if PR is important for you. For me it is!

My site is due for a re-design, but it's the last site I have time for ... your methods are very sophisticated and not my style at all ... I do things from an intuitive, experiential point of view. That's worked for me for a long time, and when it stops, I will have to adjust. But I don' t mean your methods are not valuable ... just not something I tend toward.

PR used to feel more important to me .. but where I place in the SEs is more so ... I still place in Google's top ten for seo web design, which is my niche and top 5 key west web design, and florida website design which is 'home' ... affordable search engine placement, too, and variations... though I am no longer really affordable ... I really have too many variations of incoming anchor text ...

I do appreciate your time and efforts, though.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I still place in Google's top ten for seo web design, which is my niche and top 5 key west web design, and florida website design which is 'home' ... affordable search engine placement, too, and variations... though I am no longer really affordable ... I really have too many variations of incoming anchor text ...

I do appreciate your time and efforts, though.

Sorry MJ that I could not help. But by the way if you are happy with your rankings, I would honestly never be. I rank for dozens of such almost not searched keywords/keyphrases.
Do you call them affordable?

To be specific:

Top 10 for seo web design
Competition: 357,000
Activity (Estimated): 26 web-wide search engine queries per day
Google = 15 - Yahoo Index = 7 - MSN = 4

Top 5 for west web design
Competition: 789
Activity (Estimated): 1 web-wide search engine queries per day
Google = 1 - Yahoo Index = 0 - MSN = 0

Top 5 for florida website design
Competition: 23,100
Activity (Estimated): 6 web-wide search engine queries per day
Google = 3 - Yahoo Index = 2 - MSN = 1

Top 5 for affordable search engine placement
Competition: 49,600
Activity (Estimated): 1 web-wide search engine queries per day
Google = 1 - Yahoo Index = 0 - MSN = 0

You can check the above yourself if you want: web2 Check Traffic - Tuesday, September 04, 2007 at 16:33:47

[thindenim]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Sorry MJ that I could not help. But by the way if you are happy with your rankings, I would honestly never be. I rank for dozens of such almost not searched keywords/keyphrases.
Do you call them affordable?

To be specific:

Top 10 for seo web design?
Activity (Estimated): 26 web-wide search engine queries per day?
Google = 15 - Yahoo Index = 7 - MSN = 4?

Top 5 for west web design ?
Activity (Estimated): 1 web-wide search engine queries per day?
Google = 1 - Yahoo Index = 0 - MSN = 0?

Top 5 for florida website design?
Activity (Estimated): 6 web-wide search engine queries per day?
Google = 3 - Yahoo Index = 2 - MSN = 1?

Top 5 for affordable search engine placement?
Activity (Estimated): 1 web-wide search engine queries per day?
Google = 1 - Yahoo Index = 0 - MSN = 0?

You can check the above yourself if you want: web2 Check Traffic - Tuesday, September 04, 2007 at 16:33:47

That's a nice tool Webnauts, if you don't mind me asking, where does the data come from (if it's one of yours)?

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Sorry MJ that I could not help. But by the way if you are happy with your rankings, I would honestly never be. I rank for dozens of such almost not searched keywords/keyphrases.
Do you call them affordable?

Yes, and I could show you a dozen more as well.

I meant I am not affordable even though my site ranks well for affordable+ or budget+

Here's my bottom line:

I would love to be higher for all terms *and* I get 1-2 serious inquiries a week, sometimes more. Most of them I turn down or refer, as I am only me and one assistant and a few sub contractors and I can't keep up with the work I already have (especially since they made me a moderator and I am newly obsessed with the forum!) ... the keyword I really care about is copywriting, as I would like to do more of that ... but that is new content for me and placement will come ...

Again, thanks for your effort ...

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by thindenim

That's a nice tool Webnauts, if you don't mind me asking, where does the data come from (if it's one of yours)?

That is from Bruce Clay. And I think he is using Keyword Discovery. I have some tools but I only provide to the public the one in my signature.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Yes, and I could show you a dozen more as well.

I meant I am not affordable even though my site ranks well for affordable+ or budget+

Here's my bottom line:

I would love to be higher for all terms *and* I get 1-2 serious inquiries a week, sometimes more. Most of them I turn down or refer, as I am only me and one assistant and a few sub contractors and I can't keep up with the work I already have (especially since they made me a moderator and I am newly obsessed with the forum!) ... the keyword I really care about is copywriting, as I would like to do more of that ... but that is new content for me and placement will come ...

Again, thanks for your effort ...

MJ do you need have so much work that you might would like to outsource? Drop me a PM if you need help.

[crankydave]

Briefly on the supplemental index.

Please take this as my speculation...

Removing the tag is only the tip of the iceberg. I know it's been said ad infinitum but the supplemental index is simply not what it used to be, namely, a repository for unwanted pages. As Google becomes better at filtering and deindexing unwanted pages, and more importantly, more confident in their ability to do so more efficiently, I wouldn't be least bit surprised to see efforts aimed at removing the name altogether.

Perhaps starting to hint at the idea of dual indexes.

Speculating further, I'd think that the removal of the tag was also aimed at the random surfer. Why show them a tag that could cause them to draw negative connotations about the result they're being delivered? If it's possible that this is the case, then what about toolbar PR?

Currently, a page that is in the SI at the snapshot time for a toolbar PR export, will not display PR. Again, with the random surfer in mind, why display, or in this case not display, something that could immediately cause a random surfer to draw negative connotations for a result they're being delivered? Afterall, they are supposed to be delivering the best results for a particular query right?

So I'm not surprised that the ability to find out which pages are in which index is being removed. I won't be the least bit surprised if the name get's removed too.

Dave

[crankydave]

MJ...

Run your page you noted above through copyscape.

I rather suspect this is the reason.

At a glance, it appears that the page is in the SI due to the above, which is why it doesn't show any toolbar PR.

Dave

[wige]

Apparently I got a cached copy of the page. I did rerun the page with the new links:
A. site:domainname.com - Google Search
81 results, domainname.com/Terms.html in position 2
B. site:domainname.com -inallurl:domainname.com - Google Search
21 results, results 1-10, exactly the same order as above
Side Note: site:domainname.com/ ***view - Google Search
21 results, domainname.com/Terms.html once again in position 2, most of the other results are different from B. Added &filter=0 for completeness.

If A is all pages and B is main index pages, and Side Note is supplemental pages, why does Terms.html show up in position 2 for all three queries? I think B is all pages and Side note is supplemental pages, so the most accurate ratio would be found using (B - SN) / B * 100.




As far as supplemental results being all bad, I have numerous (21,000) dynamically pages that are intended for users to make customization choices during the checkout process, or more precisely, shows the user extra options before entering the final checkout process, and provides users with highly specific, per product information. As such, these pages are not heavily optimized, and are very low on text. They contain about two paragraphs of duplicated text and links, and a table of specifications. These pages are all in the supplementals, and we don't expect any different.

These pages also generate about 200 hits from the page 1 of Google's serps, daily. These are extended queries typically including a date or other partial information relating to a specific product. Because this information changes rapidly, it would be impossible to generate up to date content for tens of thousands of products and optimize it for SEO, but the supplemental results ensures that the user gets these less important, but highly relevant pages.

[crankydave]

wige...

The ***view search does not return supplemental pages. That query no longer works either.

Also note that the word "view" is highlighted in the results returned.

Dave

[wige]

Good point.

In testing the A and B queries, though, results 1-21 are identical and most the remaining entries have no toolbar rank, however there are a few that have a pr as high as 5 that show up on the B query. Can supplemental pages have a toolbar rank?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

wige...

The ***view search does not return supplemental pages. That query no longer works either.

Also note that the word "view" is highlighted in the results returned.

Dave

Suddenly that does not work either now.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by wige

Good point.

In testing the A and B queries, though, results 1-21 are identical and most the remaining entries have no toolbar rank, however there are a few that have a pr as high as 5 that show up on the B query. Can supplemental pages have a toolbar rank?

It has been the case, and still remains to the best of my knowledge, that pages that are in the SI at the time of the snapshot of the toolbar export, will not show any toolbar PR.

Have you read my speculation a few posts above?

Dave

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by crankydave

MJ...

Run your page you noted above through copyscape.

I rather suspect this is the reason.

At a glance, it appears that the page is in the SI due to the above, which is why it doesn't show any toolbar PR.

Dave

What's copyscape?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

What's copyscape?

Copyscape - Website Plagiarism Search - Web Site Content Copyright Protection

Dave

[wige]

Yes, I was just curious if there might be a filter applied - even though Google only builds the list of toolbar pr values on a set schedule, and pages can move between the indexes, would Google continue showing the PR of a page that is in the supp index, or would it return n/a. The more I test though, this seems to be coming from its own server that probably maintains its own listing and has no idea which index a URL is in.

[mjtaylor]

Figured it out ... Aha! Yes, I found the naughty little scraper ... Build Me A Website - Website Design, Maintenance and Hosting for Businesses on a Budget ... and email them in no uncertain terms!

When I have time I will have to check all my other pages! And I know there is something I have to do about it with Google.

I knew the page itself didn't deserve the sups ... *and* I tend to agree with you on the trend of the SI ... it is not the hell it used to be ...

Thanks, Dave!

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Thanks, Dave!

You're welcome. You might consider though, not giving them a link in your post.

Dave