• http://www.seo4fun.com/blog/ Halfdeck

    “So being in the supplemental index clearly isn’t the kiss of death”

    How do you draw a conclusion based on one URL? Not all supplemental URL ranks 0-60 for competitive terms. In fact, I don’t remember seeing any supplemental result for terms like “car insurance” in the first 300 results.

  • http://searchengineland.com Danny Sullivan

    And you’ll draw a conclusion from that one result?

    I said in the article already that in the past, you’d only be seeing results for supplemental listings coming up after primary listings were consulted. I think I was pretty clear on that, in terms of how sucky it would be.

    With the change, yes, I’m pointing at one example where I can see a supplemental listing showing up ahead of primary listings, which does indeed show that supplemental listings aren’t necessarily never to be competitive, as some might assume.

    Still — and again I think I’m pretty clear on this — I’d rather Google made it easier for anyone to check and know if a supplemental result is ranking competitively against regular ones, as they say will be the case. Then we don’t have to poke and guess, and a bunch of people can share experiences to determine how bad — or not bad — being in supplemental will be.

  • http://www.seo4fun.com/blog/ Halfdeck

    “And you’ll draw a conclusion from that one result?”

    Danny, where did I draw one?

    “I’m pointing at one example where I can see a supplemental listing showing up ahead of primary listings, which does indeed show that supplemental listings aren’t necessarily never to be competitive, as some might assume.”

    Okay, then I wish you wrote “so being in the supplemental index isn’t necessarily the kiss of death.”

    If a robots.txt disallowed URL shows up as a supplemental result, for example, that’s nothing to worry about. And like you said, supplemental URLs sometimes outrank URLs in the main index.

    But I don’t buy your specific example because some URLs show up as both supplemental and non-supplemental, depending on the query. In the case of the SEL article ranking for “PageRank”, it isn’t clear if the URL ranking is really supplemental. Notice your second screenshot doesn’t show a “supplemental results” label.

  • http://www.searchengineworkshops.com RNobles

    Danny,

    Phenomenal article and extremely insightful. Congratulations to Google for taking steps in the right direction. As you so aptly stated, more needs to come, but at least they’re headed in the right direction.

    The SI has been seen as a nightmare to so many people for so long. I sincerely hope things change in more ways than just the labels.

    Robin

  • http://www.seo-theory.com/wordpress/ Michael Martinez

    Being in the Supplemental Index HAS actually been “the kiss of death” since at least a year ago. Google has now openly admitted on more than one occasion (including this latest announcement) that pages in the Supplemental Index have not been fully parsed and indexed.

    Even now we are being told that we’ll have to wait a little longer for Supplemental Results pages to appear in ALL queries (because they were not appearing in MOST queries until recently).

    I have already noticed (and reported on improvements in Google’s handling of Supplemental Pages). I’m encouraged because Supplemental Pages NOW show up in queries.

    But Google needs to be fair about this. Just because a page doesn’t have many inbound links is no reason to prevent it from having an equal opportunity to score well for relevance. We already know that spammers boost their linkage and that many SEOs rely extensively on irrelevant lnkage to make Web pages look relevant to the algorithm.

    The real issue has always been that Google allows pages to pass link anchor text. When they stop playing that silly game, the problem will be completely resolved for them.

  • http://searchengineland.com Danny Sullivan

    @Halfdeck, agreed — “so being in the supplemental index isn’t necessarily the kiss of death.” That’s how I meant it :)

    But I don’t buy your specific example because some URLs show up as both supplemental and non-supplemental, depending on the query.

    My understanding was that a URL is either in the supplemental or not, not in both places. If that’s correct, then…

    “Notice your second screenshot doesn’t show a ‘supplemental results’ label.” is correct, since I was doing it after the announcement came out, when Google said the labels would be going away, and not using a command that make that label trigger on.

    If I’m incorrect, point taken!

  • http://www.seo-theory.com/wordpress/ Michael Martinez

    Danny: “My understanding was that a URL is either in the supplemental or not, not in both places. If that’s correct, then…”

    Different crawlers, different indexes. A page can be in both at the same time. I’ve watched Google snatch pages for Supplemental and then for Main Web.

    Whether they have a system in place to remove pages from the Supplemental Index after they hit the Main Web Index is not something I can determine — and they haven’t said anything on the topic that I’m aware of.

  • http://www.igorthetroll.com Igor The Troll

    Danny, what did Matt recommend? Export Dogs and Import cats?

    That’s against Google policy, because they clearly state in the Googler rules of conduct that Google Inc. is a dog company. :)

    Okay jokes aside and a bit Thumbs up to poor old Matt, Google supplementary are more fresh and relevant than before. And thanks for finally getting rid of the persecution of Websites!!!

    A search for a medium tail keyword phrase gets great hits on the SUPs

    So Google is doing its thing…I just learned from Vanessa that she is slow but sure. :)

    Looks like Google is too…

    I actually got that phrase from my nice Thai friend Am…we always joke, “Slow but sure!”

    But when there are no results, it goes, “Slow and not sure!” Sort of American joke as we like to say in Japan, if it goes over someone’s head…

    Thanks for the tip of how to get the SUP’s from the WMF people…

    I found some people saying that the query does not work because it brings strange results…

    Well I checked it against my method that shows results of exSUP’s and its right on the money…

    So searchengineland.com has 3,676 main + 304 SUP’s + 14 skeleton URL’s =3994 total
    the site: 3,980

    Danny boy, what are you hiding in your closet?
    :)

    Okay, the Skeleton urls are the ones that are left over after you do a URL removal request and someone still links to it, probably some proxy sites…

    It would be nice if Mr. C can suppress them as he did the SUP tag…we do not want to show our skeletons Matt.

    Okay so this was my little contribution to the Google melting pot…I am of to China on Tuesday…and will give it a break from the social networking…I hope Adam does not miss me. :)