Supplemental, o why not;)

[remcov]

My new site that started to rank a little bit went almost totally supplemental a week ago. I have tried to change the non www listing to a www listing with 301 redirects and the setting in the webmaster tools. It took some time but google is indexing under www but not as many pages as it is indexing in the non www. Could this be a reason to be in the sups?

I am not using any black hat techniques,i think.
I do have some backlinks but not yet counted by google.
The site is about a month old and did get a ranking for 'insert non disclosed search term here' but dissapeared into the depths of the supplementals and can not be found anymore.

[stymiee]

It's hard to say why you went supplemental. Do you have duplicate content on your site? Or is it all original? What is the topic of your site? Do you have unique <title>s for each page?

[remcov]

No duplicate, and i wrote the whole thing myself.
Titles were non unique for a while but that has been fixed for some time now, little bug;)

It is o so strange, but i hope i get out of it.

[Harry smith]

I think you shouldn’t have to use redirect so early, redirects should be use wisely, if anything went wrong over here your site may get banned.

What is happening over here is that spider is getting same page for two url. when you apply redirect you should delete all the content of your old (moved) page, It takes nearly 2-3 months to reflect the change in index.
You can also submit re-inclusion request at google.

[stymiee]

No duplicate, and i wrote the whole thing myself.
Titles were non unique for a while but that has been fixed for some time now, little bug;)

It is o so strange, but i hope i get out of it.

What is your website about?

[russianzio]

Same here. Can somebody help me? I have 1330 pages and only 10 of them are not supplemental. It is really strange, all of the forum and auction are supplemental.

[Dani]

You're probably not going to like my answer, but what about emailing Google with your question? Not so much as whining but a simple inquiry where you are just looking for feedback and not for them to do anything about it for you (because that would come off as whining): "What can I do to get my site out of your supplemental index? What am I doing wrong? Is my site banned?"

[russianzio]

Hi Dani. Thanks for the answer.. Actually i couldn't find a google contact e-mail for the specific "supplemental resuts" matter. I wrote to [e-mail] it might be the wrong one )))

[russianzio]

That is so interesting... Those GOOGLE technologies that everybody talks about are worth nothing!! All the sites with original content but extensive header and footer have lost most of their pages to suplemental sesults. I am having big problems with my auction site and GUESS WHAT, E-bay has lost 90% of its pages too.

[stymiee]

Google's technologies are not worth nothing. They're by far the very best.

The only time people complain about it is when it is their sites not ranking well. Then all of a sudden Google is evil and incompetent. Google serves the most relevant results by far and revolutionized search.

[russianzio]

I agree that they send free traffic... We all have to say THANK YOU!! But how do you know their technologies?? If they are so good and relevant and fair?? Do you work for them brain-washing people? Now google has become some kind of a GOD/religion for every site owner...(look at them poor things waiting and guessing the next PR update) Are you kidding me?.... I am sorry i am not trying to be rude... but if google did not exist, all the traffic would be coming from other SEs. I don't agree google have gone 10 years ahead of yahoo... It's a myth!!! They have the power of money and brains thats all ))))

[russianzio]

And please try to read my previous post and if you can, coment on it insdead praising the lord of google... "All the sites with original content but extensive header and footer have lost most of their pages to suplemental sesults"

[Dani]

Well a company with "money and brains" should be leaps and bounds ahead of another company that doesn't :) DaniWeb has a very large header (the dropdown menus with links to every forum we cover) and very few supplemental pages for me.

[russianzio]

Yes Dani, i just checked your site ) but would you be just a little dissapointed if things looked different. Google has taken all the hits from it's competetors. Big fat monopolist with money to develop more. Who knows what kind of a monster is going to grow out of it? There are ways to regulate this in industry but not internet. ))) Just a thought ))

[russianzio]

In "money and brains" , by brains i also ment people: "(look at them poor things waiting and guessing the next PR update)" )))

[russianzio]

I did work on television, i know how they brain-wash people... We all know how KGB worked in my country.).. For google it was so smart to sponsor a dosen of web related forums or send trained people there who would go and post 10 google's comentments, make people belive in them. )))) I am just lauphing i am not such a nerd

[stymiee]

Google was about 5 years ahead of Yahoo and MSN. The gap has closed a bit but they still have a huge lead in technology. And it shows. Google's results are better then Yahoo and MSN. Period.

As far as the cult of Google you refer to, that's not their fault or problem. It's easy for newbies to get into website publishing and as a result you get newbie reactions to things Google does since they are the 800 pound gorilla of search. But who cares? Newbies raving about PR updates has nothing to do with my rankings and my work. It has nothing to do with Google's results (they certainly don't influence them). So who cares if people worship Google? I don't. Anyway, they are clearly marketing geniuses. Every company, and I mean every single company that exists, wishes they had the exposure that Google has. They get people excited about them and talking about all in the process of doing their every day work. That is amazing and should be respected as such.

And Google can do anything they want with their results. It's theirs to do with as they please. If they continue to serve up relevant results then they're doing a good job and deserve to gain marketshare. If not, it hurts their business and they risk losing marketshare. If it's at my website's expense it's still not their concern. You seem actually expect them to rank your site well. They owe you nothing. Anything they give to you you should be happy with.

And your common header and footer theory is incorrect. That's just more newbie misinformation from people who would rather make up excuses then work harder trying to improve their website. (Not saying you made it up).

[russianzio]

I was not expecting any other answer than that.... But which secrets did they let you in? Yahoo... 5 years ... gap... period and all that.. I always got better results in yahoo, but i have to use google as they took all the hits away from other SEs... Reguarding header and footer, you are right it is a theory.. no maths.. as well as all you said here...

[stymiee]

Yahoo didn't start developing their own search engine until a couple of years ago. Before that they used Google to provide their search results. That's why they are so far behind. They made up ground by buying a few search engines and dedicating a larger team to their own search but they have a lot of ground to make up and Google isn't sitting on their laurels to make it any easier for them.

And if you think Yahoo gives better results use them. Using Google won't improve your rankings any so I don't understand why you wouldn't use the search engine you like most.

[russianzio]

Oh please... Read the history )))) Yahoo was the first online navigational guide to the Web, since January of 1994... Google began as a research project in January, 1996...

[russianzio]

"Before that they used Google to provide their search results." Is this one more theory????

[russianzio]

I know Sergey Brin is a nice and clever guy, but.... lol Don't mess with the russians ))))

[russianzio]

Anyways, i want google and yahoo and msn and other SE, I don't want a full monopoly, this was my point...

[russianzio]

Here is an example of how it works that companies as google become monopolists..... Lets throw some sensational news about UFO (google's super allien technology in our case as nobody knows what it is..) Hey guys!! Nubies from the forum... Google is good, it's the mightiest, in the end even google loves you if you respect it's rules ))) Ok......... The result.. all, not only web masters and SEO guys start using this cool search engine... Oh my god.. I lost my visitors, where are they???

[stymiee]

Oh please... Read the history )))) Yahoo was the first online navigational guide to the Web, since January of 1994... Google began as a research project in January, 1996...

I think you need a history lesson. Yahoo was online first but they were just a directory. When they added search to their site they used Google, not their own. So they have only been providing their own search results for about two years or so.

"Before that they used Google to provide their search results." Is this one more theory????

No. It's a well-known and published fact.

Anyways, i want google and yahoo and msn and other SE, I don't want a full monopoly, this was my point...

They don't have a monopoly. They only account for half of the search market. They have three other sizable competitors and others keep entering the field all the time. Plus they will only maintain their position as the search leader as long as they are relevant. If the others start to give better results they will pass Google in popularity.

Here is an example of how it works that companies as google become monopolists..... Lets throw some sensational news about UFO (google's super allien technology in our case as nobody knows what it is..) Hey guys!! Nubies from the forum... Google is good, it's the mightiest, in the end even google loves you if you respect it's rules ))) Ok......... The result.. all, not only web masters and SEO guys start using this cool search engine... Oh my god.. I lost my visitors, where are they???

If you market and promote your site properly you won't be dependent on one source of traffic. Especially a source that you shouldn't be depending on for traffic as it is volatile and always evolving.

[russianzio]

Can i ask you where your "facts" come from?? I know about a directory of sites in 1994... But here:

Google began as a research project in January, 1996 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin. They hypothesized that a search engine that analyzed the relationships between websites would produce better results than existing techniques (existing search engines at the time essentially ranked results according to how many times the search term appeared on a page)It was originally nicknamed "BackRub" because the system checked backlinks to estimate a site's importance. A small search engine called RankDex was already exploring a similar strategy.
Convinced that the pages with the most links to them from other highly relevant web pages must be the most relevant pages associated with the search, Page and Brin tested their thesis as part of their studies, and laid the foundation for their search engine. Originally the search engine used the website with the domain google.stanford.edu. The domain google.com was registered on September 14, 1997, and the company was incorporated as Google Inc. on September 7, 1998.

[russianzio]

In 1997 the new google system appeared, NOT SEARCH ENGINE as we know it: "the system checked backlinks to estimate a site's importance." SEs existed before google. Google took the idea and invented their "backlink nonsense" MY FACT that i was looking for a job in 1996 and used YAHOO!! Google was nowhere to be found.
"When they added search to their site they used Google, not their own." Can you tell me more about UFO's and Loch Ness )

[russianzio]

"No. It's a well-known and published fact." Published by who??? By you?? When you read magazines listen to the radio, watch television do you aware of a fact that 90% of it is made for you to believe so that someone gained more power and money? Fact from my life: Politicians and governments pay TV channels or just control them to bring their brainwashing to public. I wached FOX and other channels in your country... it is the same ))

[stymiee]

Can i ask you where your "facts" come from?? I know about a directory of sites in 1994... But here:

Google began as a research project in January, 1996 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin. They hypothesized that a search engine that analyzed the relationships between websites would produce better results than existing techniques (existing search engines at the time essentially ranked results according to how many times the search term appeared on a page)It was originally nicknamed "BackRub" because the system checked backlinks to estimate a site's importance. A small search engine called RankDex was already exploring a similar strategy.
Convinced that the pages with the most links to them from other highly relevant web pages must be the most relevant pages associated with the search, Page and Brin tested their thesis as part of their studies, and laid the foundation for their search engine. Originally the search engine used the website with the domain google.stanford.edu. The domain google.com was registered on September 14, 1997, and the company was incorporated as Google Inc. on September 7, 1998.

Did you read my posts? It's not a matter of when their websites were started. It's a matter of when they started offering search. Like I said before, Yahoo started as just a directory. That's a well known published fact. When they started offering search the used Google to provide their search results. Once again, a well-known published fact.

In 1997 the new google system appeared, NOT SEARCH ENGINE as we know it: "the system checked backlinks to estimate a site's importance." SEs existed before google. Google took the idea and invented their "backlink nonsense" MY FACT that i was looking for a job in 1996 and used YAHOO!! Google was nowhere to be found.
"When they added search to their site they used Google, not their own." Can you tell me more about UFO's and Loch Ness )

You are really confused.

"No. It's a well-known and published fact." Published by who??? By you?? When you read magazines listen to the radio, watch television do you aware of a fact that 90% of it is made for you to believe so that someone gained more power and money? Fact from my life: Politicians and governments pay TV channels or just control them to bring their brainwashing to public. I wached FOX and other channels in your country... it is the same ))

"Well known published fact" means if you look for it, and you obviously haven't, you can find find it. Go look for it. I promise, you'll find it.

[russianzio]

))))))) I quit this nonsense, just read all of my posts.. I don't care about convincing you and i will never take your knowledge or sources as facts... And write a letter to Yahoo and see what they say about using google. I am sure if we ask google they would confirm yahoo did )...