Supplemental Index Dead?

[wige]

Originally Posted by crankydave

What tool are you referring to wige? I guess I don't follow you.

Dave

Sorry about that. Webnauts mentioned in #47 a tool that shows the hidden pagerank of a web page.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

What tool are you referring to wige? I guess I don't follow you.

Dave

PageRankBot - Supplemental Results Detector (SEO Tool)

Aaron Wall, Dan Thies, myself (but who cares) and others recommend it: PageRankBot - Supplemental Results Detector (SEO Tool)

[Clarrie]

Originally Posted by weslinda

There have been numerous discussions on the concerns of being in the "Supplemental Index" at Google. Are those no longer important with Google's recent change in basically getting rid of the "Supplemental Index" tag?

I think this is an interesting development from Google and one that might change how some manage their sites.

Don't think the SI is is gone - just different. Are the pages still there at all? Who knows.

Dropping the "Supplemental" tag off the results back in July was a bit of dodgy PR to try and offset some of the bad press they were getting. All smells of whitewash to me.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Clarrie

Don't think the SI is is gone - just different. Are the pages still there at all? Who knows..

I know. They are.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

PageRankBot - Supplemental Results Detector (SEO Tool)

Aaron Wall, Dan Thies, myself (but who cares) and others recommend it: PageRankBot - Supplemental Results Detector (SEO Tool)

Ahhh yes. I rember when you posted this before.

Not sure why you believe this tool shows you "hidden PageRank" but it is a very good tool for being able to illustrate and help you better visualize your internal link structure.

Dave

[wige]

Webnauts, does this tool actually talk to the Google servers? Still trying to get MySQL to install to test it on my machine, but from reading through the documentation, it sounds like the tool only crawls the site it is analyzing and shows the relative pagerank of the pages it finds, as opposed to any hidden or internal pagerank value...

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Ahhh yes. I rember when you posted this before.

Not sure why you believe this tool shows you "hidden PageRank" but it is a very good tool for being able to illustrate and help you better visualize your internal link structure.

Dave

A good idea would be to read more about it here: How To Exploit The PageRankBot Tool » Half’s SEO Notebook

I mainly use the desktop version, and sometimes the web based version we installed on the Webnauts Net server.

[crankydave]

John... I am well aware of what the tool is and what it does. Have been for quite some time. It's not something new to me.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by wige

Webnauts, does this tool actually talk to the Google servers? Still trying to get MySQL to install to test it on my machine, but from reading through the documentation, it sounds like the tool only crawls the site it is analyzing and shows the relative pagerank of the pages it finds, as opposed to any hidden or internal pagerank value...

Go in the menu to Tools -> Simulate backlinks and add the homepage PR value.

Additionally I retrieve a lot of invisible info in the google webmaster tools using a Greasemonkey script which reveals thorough information about the internal and external links, like their PR and broken links.

If you have problems with getting the PageRankBot running, drop me a PM or even better ping me in an IM, so I can tell you how to get it setup. It is so simple you can't imagine. Easiest option would be to install XAMPP instead of the default MySQL DB.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

John... I am well aware of what the tool is and what it does. Have been for quite some time. It's not something new to me.

Dave

If you used the web based one you will retrieve more details. The tool is not to underestimate.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Are you sure? Can you tell me how did you figure that out? I asked because checking your site I noticed something totally different.


I hope you are kidding here. If not please back that up. You will do us all a huge favor.


No positions changed? So you are telling here that after after the last days of June 2007 and later you have not see any SERPS changes? If you mean that, please show your statistics. You will do everyone here a huge favor.

I thought you weren't commenting here, John. Or are you just challenging?

My site, cyber-key.com is still in the top ten for 'seo web design' ... #16 for affordable web design ... (and a slew of other terms) ... my 'florida keys real estate' site, www.keysproperties.com remains in the top 10 for that keyword phrase ... as does fl-keys-realestate.com ... and the former site also remains in the top ten for 'florida keys vacation rentals' and a slew of other relevant, searched terms. I have two sites in the top ten for key west fishing (one has slipped a couple of positions due to a redesign) and two for key west fishing charter (3 different sites) ... I could go on and on ... I have 3 sites in the top ten for key west attractions ... one for 'key west weddings' ... all these sites lost an overall PR of 1 ... probably as a result of PR loss of sites linking to them ... but their SERPs remain the same ... some have improved.

I could give a lot of other examples but I am not at all sure how that can help anyone ...except to know that the way Google figures PR into SERPs must have changed, because many sites have lost a point or two and not changed in the SERPs ...

FWIW, MJ

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I thought you weren't commenting here, John. Or are you just challenging?

My site, cyber-key.com is still in the top ten for 'seo web design' ... #16 for affordable web design ... (and a slew of other terms) ... my 'florida keys real estate' site, Florida Keys Real Estate and Vacation Rentals in the Florida Keys: Key Colony Beach, Marathon, Keys real estate broker remains in the top 10 for that keyword phrase ... as does fl-keys-realestate.com ... and the former site also remains in the top ten for 'florida keys vacation rentals' and a slew of other relevant, searched terms. I have two sites in the top ten for key west fishing (one has slipped a couple of positions due to a redesign) and two for key west fishing charter (3 different sites) ... I could go on and on ... I have 3 sites in the top ten for key west attractions ... one for 'key west weddings' ... all these sites lost an overall PR of 1 ... probably as a result of PR loss of sites linking to them ... but their SERPs remain the same ... some have improved.

I could give a lot of other examples but I am not at all sure how that can help anyone ...except to know that the way Google figures PR into SERPs must have changed, because many sites have lost a point or two and not changed in the SERPs ...

FWIW, MJ

Now what the hell are you telling us MJ? Do you really think I am an Uncle Joe? I feel offended as never before!!!

I feel totally appelled!!!

If you had at least basic SEO knowledge and experience, you would accept that what you are talking about is pure ... you know what!!!

seo web design #30 - Wordtracker 164 searches for this key term
affordable web design # 31 - Wordtracker and Overture returns 84 searches for this key term
florida keys real estate # 5 - Wordtracker returns 33 searches for this key term
florida keys vacation rentals # 6 - - Wordtracker returns 34 searches for this key term

No key term is a searched term and they are very low competitive.

Are these the statistics based on your observations? Sorry, but I honestly think I am in the wrong film.



Back to the basics MJ.

[crankydave]

Play nice. There's still plenty of time to end up on Santa's "naughty list".

John... Not sure where you got your search figures but I checked a free tool and subscribed tools and based on them, your numbers are not accurate.

Here's the free tool...

Free Search Term Suggestion Tool by KeywordDiscovery.com

Dave

[Webnauts]

Some of my today rankings:

seo #81 - Wordtracker returns 1027 searches for this key term

search engine optimization companies #17 - Wordtracker returns 213 searches for this key term

search engine optimization company #24 - Wordtracker returns 201 searches for this key term

organic seo #26 - Wordtracker returns 105 searches for this key term

seo friendly #5 - Wordtracker returns 90 searches for this key term

search engine optimization consultant #14 - Wordtracker returns 48 searches for this key term

organic search engine optimization #11 - Wordtracker returns 48 searches for this key term

search engine optimization consulting #8 - Wordtracker returns 44 searches for this key term

My domain have been first time online 5 Oct. 2006 and the site went online 15 Oct. 2006 and have been indexed by Google 19 Oct. 2006. I am sure I did not overcame the domain age issue yet.

Just for a comparison.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Play nice. There's still plenty of time to end up on Santa's "naughty list".

John... Not sure where you got your search figures but I checked a free tool and subscribed tools and based on them, your numbers are not accurate.

Here's the free tool...

Free Search Term Suggestion Tool by KeywordDiscovery.com

Dave

Dave I used DP but which was broken. I corrected the numbers above.
And they are accurate now.

Done with this free tool: Seo Book Keyword Suggestion Tool

Stop defending something that we both know what that all means. And I think MJ is an SEO anyway, so should be able to defend herself. Or?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I thought you weren't commenting here, John. Or are you just challenging?

My site, cyber-key.com is still in the top ten for 'seo web design' ... #16 for affordable web design ... (and a slew of other terms) ... my 'florida keys real estate' site, Florida Keys Real Estate and Vacation Rentals in the Florida Keys: Key Colony Beach, Marathon, Keys real estate broker remains in the top 10 for that keyword phrase ... as does fl-keys-realestate.com ... and the former site also remains in the top ten for 'florida keys vacation rentals' and a slew of other relevant, searched terms. I have two sites in the top ten for key west fishing (one has slipped a couple of positions due to a redesign) and two for key west fishing charter (3 different sites) ... I could go on and on ... I have 3 sites in the top ten for key west attractions ... one for 'key west weddings' ... all these sites lost an overall PR of 1 ... probably as a result of PR loss of sites linking to them ... but their SERPs remain the same ... some have improved.

I could give a lot of other examples but I am not at all sure how that can help anyone ...except to know that the way Google figures PR into SERPs must have changed, because many sites have lost a point or two and not changed in the SERPs ...

FWIW, MJ

They didn't change? Compare the rankings you posted here and the ones I just check with Google. They are far behind the positions you mentioned.
For example seo web design #30 means top ten?

[crankydave]

<mod hat on>

John... Now you've really annoyed me.

Either post accurate numbers or I will start linking to screen shots provided by the WordTracker free tool which shows that daily search volume they report, indicates that even the numbers you edited from zero and posted are wrong.

Your choice.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

<mod hat on>

John... Now you've really annoyed me.

Either post accurate numbers or I will start linking to screen shots provided by the WordTracker free tool which shows that daily search volume they report, indicates that even the numbers you edited from zero and posted are wrong.

Your choice.

Dave

Then the tool of Aaron Wall should have a bug. I will mail him about this issue right away Dave.
Then my numbers are also not right. Sorry for that buddy.

But <mod hat on>? Because I probably presented possible wrong results I got of Aarons Wall Keywords Tool?
And what is if you are annoying me Dave. What hat should I wear?

[incrediblehelp]

I really dont see how this bickering back and forth is getting us anywhere.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Either post accurate numbers or I will start linking to screen shots provided by the WordTracker free tool which shows that daily search volume they report, indicates that even the numbers you edited from zero and posted are wrong.

Do you mean something like this?

[weslinda]

Dave, the bad numbers started with MJ. Lets remember that, and lets also remember that we're here to discuss the supplemental index of Google, not who gets the best numbers each time. I put the most faith in the tool on SEOBook it's served well and is tightly integrated with Wordtracker.

I'm tired of people coming on touting their "ranks" and they aren't factual statements. MJ was completely off on her rankings and misleading people in the thread on where she was for what search terms.

John was simply trying to correct the misinformation, along with sharing the full reach of the search terms she was sharing. Why do you always have to live up to the name CrankyDave? And, if you're deep into a thread, I wouldn't put your <mod hat> on as you're not the best person to be a mod in a thread you are deeply involved in. Lets all be a bit fair here.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I really dont see how this bickering back and forth is getting us anywhere.

Jaan... For the record...

John's original post showed "zero" searches for every phrase.

He edited that post with more inaccurate numbers.

He can either post some semblance of accurate numbers or I will.

His choice.

As far as the "bickering" goes, you're right.

Dave

[weslinda]

Dave, look at the image John posted from Wordtracker, it confirms his #'s. Stop slamming on someone when they admitted their original error and updated the post to reflect the correct numbers.

[Webnauts]

Jaan for the record I first edited:

seo web design #30 - Wordtracker 0 searches for this key term, getting the results from DigitalPoint's tool which seems to broken.

Dave mentioned the inaccuracy and I checked with SEOBook tool and I corrected to:
seo web design #30 - Wordtracker 164 searches for this key term

Dave claimed that it was wrong again, and said that he should make a screenshot from Free WordTracker.

I did that myself and posted above. And the origninal Wordtracker Tool confirms that my correction was right: 164.

I had no intention to mislead someone, as MJ did that already before I posted those wrong numbers.

Check when my posts were last edited as an evidence.

Just FYI.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

John's original post showed "zero" searches for every phrase.

I agree. But that was not done intentionally. Otherwise I would not have corrected them.
My apologies for the mistake.

Originally Posted by crankydave

He edited that post with more inaccurate numbers.

That is absolutely not true. See screenshot.

Originally Posted by crankydave

He can either post some semblance of accurate numbers or I will.

Mine are already corrected. You should probably correct the numbers of MJ.

Originally Posted by crankydave

His choice.

No choice left Dave, since I did so.

Originally Posted by crankydave

As far as the "bickering" goes, you're right.

I agree. So whats next? PEACE? If yes, I will go and pick up my pipe.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Do you mean something like this?

You post a capture of dogpile and metacrawler results.

Last chance John.

Dave

[weslinda]

Dave, try using the Keyword Suggestion tool from SEOBook and it shows the numbers as John has shared them. The tool is powered by Wordtracker, so, I would guess the results are fair. Not a great idea to strike back at someone using published numbers. At this point I feel your simply being rude and disrespectful of others in the community, poor behavior for a mod.

Regarding Johns screenshot, the numbers came from the "Free Trial" that wordtracker offers. So he's simply using the outstanding tool. I got the same results as he did above and I don't get to pick where the results are coming from.

[crankydave]

Sorry John, but weslinda holding your hand doesn't cut it for me.

Guess I'm a bit disappointed. But you made the choice.

Dave

[mjtaylor]

And I just checked Scroogle and I do place #8 for seo web design. Not #30. I checked every number before I posted.

No bad numbers here.



Of course, I could have faked this ... or kept it from a year ago ...

I really can't believe you would attack me like this, John. Just because I see things differently from you.

We do not KNOW what sort of factor PR is in SERPs. You don't know and I don't know. These are matters of opinion based on observations, and all I am doing is sharing my personal experience and conclusions and because they differ with yours you challenge and attack.

[weslinda]

Is there anyone here with some serious control over the moderators on this forum? Dave you are seriously out of control. Did you ever think that since John is in Germany, that he might be in bed? Since it's what? 4 AM there.

John showed where he got his numbers from, I simply chose to follow up in more depth. You seriously need to rethrink your strategy in this forum as you're really getting out of line, especially for a moderator.

[weslinda]

Here you go MJ, your web site is #30.

[weslinda]

affordable web design #34, any more numbers you want to tout?

[mjtaylor]

Check Scroogle ... it's 8 there ... and that's where I got my numbers ...


And here are WordTracker numbers

[weslinda]

Why would I use Scroogle? We're talking Google numbers, that's where I pulled the results from. I'm believe this is the Google section of the forum? Or no?

[mjtaylor]

I believe you're using Google directly ... and since there is a certain amount of personalization I don't use it ...

I use Scroogle Scraper ... the numbers I quoted are verifiable there.

Please be kind enough to stop attacking me. To say I was "touting" was unkind, unnecessary and innaccurate; I was simply responding to Webnauts request to back up my comments on my experience.

I have been using Scroogle for a few years .... because they don't reflect any of my search patterns in Google ... and are, I believe, more reliable.

My observations remain the same and my conclusions as well.

Though I have to say, I have a new conclusion about your kindness, wes.

[weslinda]

About my kindness? How is that in this discussion. You said you're in the top 10. I went to Google, and you weren't. Not sure what I'm missing here. John is in Germany, I'm in the states, we don't have the same search preferences, but we're seeing the same Google rankings.

Hmm...why should I believe your Scroogle engine, versus what Google is showing multiple users. I'm sorry if you don't like my responses to you and Dave, but I have the right to say when I feel I see BS. And that's what I'm saying.

[mjtaylor]

Kindness, politeness, respect for others is always part of the discussion here. And I believe just a few posts back you were berating Dave for his lack of respect.

You can check Scroogle yourself and see if I am not telling you the truth about what I see there.

If you have a Google toolbar, Wes, then your results are skewed. If you use gmail, your results are skewed. I use Scroogle. That's my source and I stand by my word.

[mjtaylor]

And Scroogle isn't a FF plugin.

[weslinda]

NO, I don't have Google toolbar in this browser, for very specific reasons.

Here is the result from SheerSEO, a free site ranking service. Hmmm...31...

[mjtaylor]

Well, have you checked Scroogle or are you determined that I am lying despite the screenshot I gave you?

Here's the point: since I have been using Scroogle all along to check my site and it hasn't changed in there, my point remains the same: my rank has not changed in the ranking software I check it in even though my toolbar PR has.

And I accept your apology for being rude to me, thank you.

[weslinda]

Scroogle means nothing. No one is using Scroogle. Only real results have any affect on anything. Do you tell your clients to look at their rankings in Scroogle? Versus in their own browsers?

Do you use any other ranking tools outside of Scroogle?

I'm showing you rankings from real Google results and from a ranking service and it's funny that you don't believe them. Stop insulting me as if I just started in this game last week.

There will be no apology and don't put words out there like I did apologize. I feel that I'm calling out the numbers you've stated as wrong, and I have the right to do that.

[weslinda]

After reviewing the first 100 sites linking to scroogle.org, not one major SEO / Web Design / Search Firm is included in those results. Lets find a current and relevant source for your numbers before we move forward please.

[mjtaylor]

Clearly you haven't apologized. It was an affirmation.

And you are missing the point. Yes, I use Scroogle. And my numbers haven't changed there. Which was the point. It doesn't matter if that site is 30 now. Then it was 30 a year ago before PR was changed.

That's the point. I am not trying to say I am a fabulous SEO because my site is such and such. I was backing up my assertions and the fact remains that my site has not slipped, according to the source I have been using, while PR did.

I am done defending myself. I stand by my assertions. And the numbers I presented are verifiable in present time. That my site was where it was a year ago is not. Sorry, you don't have to believe me.

May god bless you and keep you, Wes. May you be happy.

[weslinda]

My point is that Scroogle isn't trustable, as it isn't showing the current live results, so I would say that you have no idea of where you actually stand since Scroogle isn't providing you with quality data. You can't verify that data outside of Scroogle. You can't verify their results outside of their environment. I'd be very concerned if I was you that you're not seeing what reality is when it comes to your search rankings.

The original discussion based around the fact that your rankings hadn't changed, but when you posted your "rankings" they were not verifiable in th engine you said you had those rankings in.

Bad Data = Bad Conclusions

And please, honestly, stop being patronizing to me. This isn't personal, this is a discussion on the numbers, and outside of your sheltered Scroogle world, they can't be verified. Since they can't be verified, the validity of the ranks in the Scroolge world your using are obviously in question. This is the Google discussion area, not the Scroogle one, lets focus on Google verifiable numbers, and then we can have a real conversation.

[mjtaylor]

Well, since I don't use Google directly to check my rank, I can't tell you where my sites were a year ago in Google ... so I can't speak to the point of the thread using data I don't have.

I did want to remove any suggestion that I had somehow falsified numbers. I use Scroogle, and while that may not be acceptable to you, you could have verified those numbers in real time. I would bet a pretty penny you did, and had you seen something different you would have called me on it.

I am sorry it became an unpleasant exchange. I do apologize for my part in that.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

You post a capture of dogpile and metacrawler results.

Last chance John.

Dave

My last chance?

Jeeez! What I posted above is a was screenshot from Wordtracker web site. Do you want to dive me nuts buddy?

Here is the full page screenshot, to avoid further misunderstandings.



If you or someone here thinks I faked the image check it out yourself!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by weslinda

affordable web design #34, any more numbers you want to tout?

Wes when I want to check with Google U.S I go through a U.S proxy server in California: Free Anonymous Web Proxy

So I do not get the Germany datacenter results:

And here is my screenshot:

[Webnauts]

My last screenshot is Free Monitor for Google, setting to U.S. datacenters and my Google API Key:

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I believe you're using Google directly ... and since there is a certain amount of personalization I don't use it ...

I use Scroogle Scraper ... the numbers I quoted are verifiable there.

I have visited Google and made the screenshot above with a clean browser cache, not logged in to my Google account, and through an anonymous proxy server in California. Which personalization results are you talking about?

So is this a new SEO strategy showing Google ranking results with Scroogle Scrapper? Interesting. I will spread this idea to other forums I am a member. Seems to be a clever idea.
But I am too ethical to show something like to my customers.

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

To say I was "touting" was unkind, unnecessary and innaccurate; I was simply responding to Webnauts request to back up my comments on my experience.

Well after all I read from you in this thread, I am honestly very sure that you had no intention to tell any fairy tails. I am sorry if you feel attacked, but I felt offended from those numbers in that post, but that only happen because I probably over estimated your knowledge and experience in SEO. Sorry for that MJ. I will honestly be more careful in the future.

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I have been using Scroogle for a few years .... because they don't reflect any of my search patterns in Google ... and are, I believe, more reliable. My observations remain the same and my conclusions as well.

Scroogle is a piece of you know what, but if I say so you will not agree. If Bruce or Dan will say so, then you will agree. Or? Anyway. Lets not make things worse here.

So lets go for peace sister. I think thats what we all want.
---
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. - Matthew 5:9

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Clint... Please keep it civil. No need for name calling.

Thanx

Dave

How about YOU LOOK AND SEE WHAT AND WHO STARTED IT WITH HIS CONSTANT ABUSE, HARASSMENT and INSULTS OF ME?????
Thanx.