site: command, non-supps first - is this a good sign?

Discussion in 'Search Engine Optimization' started by nddb, Nov 24, 2006.

  1. #1
    Before when I ran "site:" I would only get supplemental results. Even if I had non-supp pages. Now I get the non-supplemental pages first. Why is this so? And is it a good sign?

    Someone told me before "you have indexing problems if the supplemental pages are above the non-supplementals." What does this actually indicate?

    Thanks!
     
    nddb, Nov 24, 2006 IP
  2. billnad

    billnad Peon

    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    I would suspect that this is because your pages are of low quality in Googles eyes. Have you made sure that you have a lot of content differences between the pages. I always try to make sure that my templates are as small as I can get them so that most of the actual content is unique between the different pages
     
    billnad, Nov 24, 2006 IP
  3. wisam74us

    wisam74us Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    168
    #3
    It depends:
    Do you still have a good part of your indexed pages out of supp
    Did your Google traffic get affected

    One of my sites (classified ads) has now about 80% of its pages as supp results and most of them come at the begining when you do site: but my Google traffic still ok
     
    wisam74us, Nov 24, 2006 IP
  4. nddb

    nddb Peon

    Messages:
    803
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    Well, I am coming out of supplemental at this point. My site was 100% supplemental. Then it was like 99% supplemental with "site:" reporting all supplemental unless you searched by "site:www.site.com www.site.com" THEN it would show the non-supplementals.

    But now, "site:www.site.com" shows non-supplementals first, I'm hoping this means google is going to start indexing me again... I hope!

    I've tried to make the content as different as possible, not very easy to do.

    Thanks for the replies.
     
    nddb, Nov 24, 2006 IP