Supplemental Index Dead?

[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.

[better]

I am new to the seo and dont know really whether google just ended it or not. But when last time i talk aboiut it, at that moment it is in wrking. My collegue is telling me about that.

[incrediblehelp]

Well they say they did, but the crappy operators still work to "see" SI pages.

[wige]

I think the supplemental index still exists, it just isn't the supplemental index anymore. From the somewhat cryptic posts I have seen, the way pages go into this other index, and they way that queries are processed through the index have changed drastically since it was called the supplemental index. I do see a lot of pages indicated as being not in the main index, but these same pages are frequently at the top of other types of searches. For example, if you do a search in Google's blog search for Matt Cutts blog (chosen because it gets so many links) most of the top results are (or were as of last week) in this other index. Granted, that could be because his blog has some serious duplicate content issues...

[crankydave]

Tend to agree Jaan.

I'm not seeing a whole lt to lead me to believe, that as far as the searcher is concerned, much has changed in regards to what they are delivered for their queries.

Personally, I'm still seeing longtail queries where there's less than a page of relevant exact phase matches not showing up for a general search.

Additionaly, when using the site: operator, there's still a clear delineation between the pages that "were in the RI" and "were in the SI".

Dave

[ArthurKay]

I think the idea is not to get rid of the "Supplemental Index", but rather to redefine what it is and how is works.

See the Google Webmaster Tools blog:
Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: The Ultimate Fate of Supplemental Results

Google is now (or shortly going to start) returning SI results more often mixed into the SERPs... without labeling them as such. The SI results are supposed to be deeper, esoteric queries - which typically has unusual content or content in other languages. How Google defines that is beyone me.

This shift will undoubtedly help some sites and harm others.

[mjtaylor]

I do see more pages from my sites in the SI and I see pages in the SI returned in SERPs far more often than I used to.

The no-longer-so-called SI, as I understand it now, is simply all the pages that don't have PR ... and there are certainly a lot more of those at the end of this year than there were in January 2007.

We have seen two rounds of PR slashing, and while the fanfare has revolved around the reduction of PR on link selling pages and sites, Google was equally busy this year removing PR from reciprocal link pages. Many of my sites lost a PR point overall, but none of them changed positions in the SERPs.

[joncase]

Here's an interesting article on the subject.
Google Offers Reprieve From Google Hell | WebProNews

[nipplecharms1]

Has John weighed in on this yet?

Michael

[SemAdvance]

From what I see Google tossed the supplemental pages into the dumpster.

In doing so they dumped PR adding to the mass hysteria of paid link penalty....

I think we should call this Update Trashcan!!

I am monitoring positions on Google top 2 pages for one of my clients sites.

In the past two weeks many posted here at DP how their PageRank has gone to zero.

In the current update I found Googles index has been reduced by millions of pages

Here is an example.

November 29 2007

video download 943,000,000

video downloads 545,000,000

December 19, 2007

video download 123,000,000

video downloads 80,200,000
==============================

The keyword term, video download - lost 820,000,000 pages and as such all of the PageRank... that was exported from these pages, was lost by websites across the spectrum.

video downloads lost 425,000,000 pages.....

Positions actually improved for the terms...

Seems odd considering all the links thrashed... but if the links Google sent in the trash with the pages were crap to begin with I guess it would only help...

Interested in what others think happened to these pages....or the index ....

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by nipplecharms1

Has John weighed in on this yet?

Michael

I did. Incrediblehelp have send me the posted link at Googles Blog and I told him about the operators issue. But I prefer to abstain from expressing my observations.

[weslinda]

Abstaining? You? Abstaining from commenting on a subject! Someone start making the sign, this must be a first!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Abstaining? You? Abstaining from commenting on a subject! Someone start making the sign, this must be a first!

Sorry Wes, but if you have followed the last time threads about the supplemental results here at WPW, there were members who were debating that the supplementals are not harmful, and such crazy stuff, so before I spend the time I do not really have, and before I get pissed off again I prefer to abstain expressing my observations. And one more reason is that I am not so popular like Bruce Clay or Dan Thies, so what I will say is bulls... anyway. I told Incrediblehelp about my problem here already yesterday, and I will not give my statements when a specific member is in a thread I want to post. I will still read all posts here with interest though.

[weslinda]

Not everyone can be as popular as me and Bruce...lol. I was simply teasing you a little. I certainly understand your point though, and agree with you.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I do see more pages from my sites in the SI and I see pages in the SI returned in SERPs far more often than I used to.

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

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

The no-longer-so-called SI, as I understand it now, is simply all the pages that don't have PR ... and there are certainly a lot more of those at the end of this year than there were in January 2007.

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

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

We have seen two rounds of PR slashing, and while the fanfare has revolved around the reduction of PR on link selling pages and sites, Google was equally busy this year removing PR from reciprocal link pages. Many of my sites lost a PR point overall, but none of them changed positions in the SERPs.

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.

[Webnauts]

A while ago we messed something up in our forums, which caused a certain problem we are fully aware about (but 100% not canonicalization issue), and our homepage with "/" has PR5 and is in the SI now. How can that happen if only pages lacking PR go into the SI? Is it probably because Google is treating us different than others?

[weslinda]

Google doesn't like you John, you know that.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Google doesn't like you John, you know that.

Damn it! I think so too man.

Maybe it is because they know that I have two friends working there, and that one more is probably getting a job there too.

[weslinda]

All this time, I thought you were good at SEO and now the truth is that you have friends on the inside? LOL

Come on, Google is just one fish in the sea, lots of fish out there.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by weslinda

All this time, I thought you were good at SEO and now the truth is that you have friends on the inside? LOL

Come on, Google is just one fish in the sea, lots of fish out there.

I wish they could tell what I wanted to know, but as you probably know, they can't really do that.
And I know that I am a terrible SEO man.
That is why my preachings are not valuable here.
But at least they are very valuable for my clients, and that is most important.

[weslinda]

You have clients? I'm so jealous!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by weslinda

You have clients? I'm so jealous!

Yeah daddy. I got one too!!!

So back to the topic Wes. Before you will be penalized for going off topic on your own thread.

[weslinda]

Penalized? As in they are going to take my reprank away or what?

Back to the topic, I simply think it's very interesting that Google is discussing that the Supplemental will be a more relevant source for searches for them than in the past. And that it seems like in the long run, they are wanting to get rid of the "supplemental" title.

I think that in the end, my concern for both me and my clients is trying to work as much relevancy into each site we develop as possible and work with them to create a high quality, well designed web site that meets their clients goals.

In the end we all have to worry about the design client and what their web site will do for their business, right?

[Webnauts]

OK Wes. I guess I shall give a small hint:

What is coming is going to hurt many very very much. It is a bigger hammer than the paid links.

So get some popcorn, check the best seat you can and enjoy the show. This time it's the Director's Cut.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by SemAdvance

From what I see Google tossed the supplemental pages into the dumpster.

In doing so they dumped PR adding to the mass hysteria of paid link penalty....

I think we should call this Update Trashcan!!

I am monitoring positions on Google top 2 pages for one of my clients sites.

In the past two weeks many posted here at DP how their PageRank has gone to zero.

In the current update I found Googles index has been reduced by millions of pages

Here is an example.

November 29 2007

video download 943,000,000

video downloads 545,000,000

December 19, 2007

video download 123,000,000

video downloads 80,200,000
==============================

The keyword term, video download - lost 820,000,000 pages and as such all of the PageRank... that was exported from these pages, was lost by websites across the spectrum.

video downloads lost 425,000,000 pages.....

Positions actually improved for the terms...

Seems odd considering all the links thrashed... but if the links Google sent in the trash with the pages were crap to begin with I guess it would only help...

Interested in what others think happened to these pages....or the index ....

You are on my path man. Great post!

You got a positive reputation vote from me.

[weslinda]

I'll take extra butter on my popcorn!

I think that over time, the games people play to try and get ahead in the search engines will be found out. It will simply come down to quality and value and reputation in the long run, and those working the system will lose.

It's always fun watching people dance each time something new like this happens.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by weslinda

I'll take extra butter on my popcorn!

Haven't you already?

Originally Posted by weslinda

It's always fun watching people dance each time something new like this happens.

Same here.

[weslinda]

Are you calling me fat?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Are you calling me fat?

Your weight depends on how many disqualified pages you have which shall be moved to trashcan.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by ArthurKay

Google is now (or shortly going to start) returning SI results more often mixed into the SERPs... without labeling them as such. The SI results are supposed to be deeper, esoteric queries - which typically has unusual content or content in other languages. How Google defines that is beyond me.

Exactly....but they generally "behind the scenes" define it as a page with PR that's too low. It really has nothing to do with content (nor does G for that matter, it's all PR to them). Most of my product pages are in the SI, and this is for COMMON items, no unusual content nor esoteric in any way. Just because other site owners don't have the need to link to them is why their are in the SI. Here's a thread I found on it for a little more info.
Supplementals Cease to Exist - Crawling, indexing, and ranking | Google Groups

Recently I've had more pages showing in the site: operator so that's good. (But I'm another one of those that's recently had their homepage deleted two days ago, but G is possibly claiming it's due to WEBHOSTS blocking G IP addresses. So, why would so many hosts, suddenly, all start to block G IP addresses?? Doesn't make sense. A G post on that here:
Google's Algorithm's ? Similar Sites ? - Crawling, indexing, and ranking | Google Groups )

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Clint1

Exactly....but they generally "behind the scenes" define it as a page with PR that's too low. It really has nothing to do with content (nor does G for that matter, it's all PR to them).

What are you talking about man? Can you back that up please and stop telling fairy tails please? I did not want to get involved in the discussion, because I knew such stories will come up again.

Originally Posted by Clint1

Most of my product pages are in the SI, and this is for COMMON items, no unusual content nor esoteric in any way. Just because other site owners don't have the need to link to them is why their are in the SI.

OK Clint. So tell us how many pages you have in the supplemental results? If you base your calculations on this tool Supplemental Index Ratio Calculator I regret to inform you that it is not able to show them all. Period.

Originally Posted by Clint1

Here's a thread I found on it for a little more info.
Supplementals Cease to Exist - Crawling, indexing, and ranking | Google Groups

What is so great about that thread? Can you point exactly what was cool? The only thing I thought was interesting was the statement of Susan Moska. But reading within the lines, doesn't seem that she has the same opinion with you.

Originally Posted by Clint1

Recently I've had more pages showing in the site: operator so that's good. (But I'm another one of those that's recently had their homepage deleted two days ago, but G is possibly claiming it's due to WEBHOSTS blocking G IP addresses. So, why would so many hosts, suddenly, all start to block G IP addresses?? Doesn't make sense. A G post on that here:
Google's Algorithm's ? Similar Sites ? - Crawling, indexing, and ranking | Google Groups )

That should be another fairy tail of Google. But actually nothing accurate was mentioned as the member did not provide his URL. Again, what are you talking about man?

If you knew what is coming, you would regret if you have too many pages in the supplemental results, if you would like to have as many as possible pages in the main index and ranking well.

[Clint1]

I don't remember rattling your cage. Wow, you're just an all-round abusive ass aren't you. If you knew as much as you claimed to know, I wouldn't HAVE to explain anything to you.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Clint1

I don't remember rattling your cage. Wow, you're just an all-round abusive ass aren't you. If you knew as much as you claimed to know, I wouldn't HAVE to explain anything to you.

My apologies if you have felt offended. And thanks for confirming that it was really a mistake that I joined the discussion. But no worries, as I will leave you and all others in peace. I knew about this thread but I did not want to get involved, until the thread starter have kindly invited me per IM, asking me to express my observations.

No problem though. I can talk with him in our IMs.

By the way, I wish you all a great discussion.

Peace.

[crankydave]

FTR...

It is possible to get a really good indication of how many pages in what was/is "SI" using the site: operator. Currently, using it returns all the pages in what is/was the "RI" first followed by all the pages that are in what was/is the "SI." All you need do is find or "create" that cutoff line.

Dave

[crankydave]

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

Thanx

Dave

[wige]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

A while ago we messed something up in our forums, which caused a certain problem we are fully aware about (but 100% not canonicalization issue), and our homepage with "/" has PR5 and is in the SI now. How can that happen if only pages lacking PR go into the SI? Is it probably because Google is treating us different than others?

I have to ask about this, because I have seen a lot of comments lately about changes in PR, and this comment about PR staying the same...

The toolbar PR that we can view is still updated only on a semi-annual basis, three or four times a year, correct? Being that which index a page is in can change at any time, how do we *know* so absolutely that 1. This root page still has a PR of 5, and 2. That pages in the supplementals, many of which (not most, not all, but many) are new pages and have grey toolbar PR bars do not have pagerank?

In other words, how do we know for a fact that being in the secondary index means that a page has no pagerank?

[crankydave]

As a direct answer wige... we do not.

What we do know is that a page that is in what was/is the SI at the time of an export will not show any TBPR. That page can move back and forth between the different indexes and the TBPR will not change until the next export.

Dave

[weslinda]

Well I don't think that being in the supplemental index has ever meant a zero page rank, but my concern is why is Google making this move? What are the reasons behind this, and what is the bigger change that is really coming.

This kinda seems like the calm before the potential storm in my opinion.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

FTR...

It is possible to get a really good indication of how many pages in what was/is "SI" using the site: operator. Currently, using it returns all the pages in what is/was the "RI" first followed by all the pages that are in what was/is the "SI." All you need do is find or "create" that cutoff line.

Dave

I just checked with the ordinary operator my site i.e site:example.com/ and I got this: Results 1 - 10 of about 154 from seoworkers.com. (0.08 seconds)

Then I tried my operator ... and I got this: Results 1 - 10 of about 169 from seoworkers.com for ... (0.11 seconds)

What should that suppose to mean? Can you explain me that?

Thanks.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by weslinda

Well I don't think that being in the supplemental index has ever meant a zero page rank, but my concern is why is Google making this move? What are the reasons behind this, and what is the bigger change that is really coming.

This kinda seems like the calm before the potential storm in my opinion.

I told you man. Check some pop corn.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I just checked with the ordinary operator my site i.e site:example.com/ and I got this: Results 1 - 10 of about 154 from seoworkers.com. (0.08 seconds)

Then I tried my operator ... and I got this: Results 1 - 10 of about 169 from seoworkers.com for ... (0.11 seconds)

What should that suppose to mean? Can you explain me that?

Thanks.

That's not exactly what I mean John. I'll try and explain...

When using the site: operator, Google still returns the pages in order. All of the pages that are in what was/is the RI first, and all of the pages that are in what was/is the SI next.

Once you able to find "that line" you then know all of the pages below that line are in what was/is the SI.

Does that make more sense?

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

That's not exactly what I mean John. I'll try and explain...

When using the site: operator, Google still returns the pages in order. All of the pages that are in what was/is the RI first, and all of the pages that are in what was/is the SI next.

Once you able to find "that line" you then know all of the pages below that line are in what was/is the SI.

Does that make more sense?

Dave

Got that Dave, thanks. But that was already obvious for me until recently. Is it still so? And the next question is, how can we find the line?

[Webnauts]

No worries Dave. I just checked with the operator as you have mentioned and that does not work that way anymore. Or are you talking about another hack operator?

[qh4dotcom]

If your site contains keywords not found in other sites, such as misspellings then it can be found in the supplemental search results when someone makes a search for that particular keyword.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by qh4dotcom

If your site contains keywords not found in other sites, such as misspellings then it can be found in the supplemental search results when someone makes a search for that particular keyword.

That sounds like a very attractive strategy, but it is sure not for me.

[wige]

Originally Posted by crankydave

What we do know is that a page that is in what was/is the SI at the time of an export will not show any TBPR. That page can move back and forth between the different indexes and the TBPR will not change until the next export.

Then, just to follow on that, is it possible that the toolbar PR export simply does not include anything not in the main index? Because the SI is new and different and experimental and all that, their tool simply doesn't export the pagerank from those documents?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by wige

Then, just to follow on that, is it possible that the toolbar PR export simply does not include anything not in the main index? Because the SI is new and different and experimental and all that, their tool simply doesn't export the pagerank from those documents?

Wige, there is a tool to calculate the hidden PageRank of pages. I use that almost everyday. And the last Google Toolbar export confirmed that it is accurate. If I remember I mentioned that before in another thread but I think that post have been totally ignored.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by wige

Then, just to follow on that, is it possible that the toolbar PR export simply does not include anything not in the main index? Because the SI is new and different and experimental and all that, their tool simply doesn't export the pagerank from those documents?

Pages in what are/was the SI have not displayed TBPR for quite some time so I don't think it's because it's new. Granted this can change at any time.

John... I did a quick check for where it appears "the line" is for seoworkers but won't post it without your permission.

Dave

[wige]

Well, I am of course all for tools that reveal hidden data, but again, how do we know that this tool reveals the pagerank of sites in the SI accurately?

All I am trying to say is, we really don't know much of anything about this. Even the simplest of tools that are being used in relation to the SI, the SI ratio calculation tools are fundamentally flawed because they use bad data as the basis of their calculations.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by wige

Well, I am of course all for tools that reveal hidden data, but again, how do we know that this tool reveals the pagerank of sites in the SI accurately?

All I am trying to say is, we really don't know much of anything about this. Even the simplest of tools that are being used in relation to the SI, the SI ratio calculation tools are fundamentally flawed because they use bad data as the basis of their calculations.

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

Dave