Does anyone know what "Supplemental Result" means when you do a search on google? Do a search on Google for site:www.intercomp-racing.com and the result has a Supplemental Result next to it.
Google Information for Webmasters http://www.google.com/webmasters/faq.html Why is my site labeled Supplemental? Supplemental sites are part of Google's auxiliary index. We're able to place fewer restraints on sites that we crawl for this supplemental index than we do on sites that are crawled for our main index. For example, the number of parameters in a URL might exclude a site from being crawled for inclusion in our main index; however, it could still be crawled and added to our supplemental index. The index in which a site is included is completely automated; there's no way for you to select or change the index in which your site appears. Please be assured that the index in which a site is included does not affect its PageRank.
I have some pages on some relatively new sites that are showing up in the supplemental index. I am thinking the reason they are there is because of a recent outage with my provider and google tried to spider the site but the pages were unavailable at the time.. so it moved them to supplemental but I can't be sure. I am hoping they move out of supplemental, but I will have to wait and see.
I have orphan pages that turned into suplemental, I intentionnaly cut them off and just left the pages there to see. I also saw some redirected domain do that. A friend of mine had a lot of them and fixed them by making better titles and adding content on too small content amount pages.
I had googlebot come and beat up my seriously neglected coppermine image gallery a few weeks ago. It also found quite a number of pages that haven't been updated in over a year. The pages now show up as "Supplemental". This domain was just for personal use, and I never checked to see if it had been indexed previously, but I do not think that it had. So in my case, it found a lot of old - never indexed before, but completely unique pages. Some had url data other did not. Some were .html other .php.
Did anyone read Cricket's post above with the quote from Google? It's not orphan pages, it's not that Google doesn't like you, it's not bad navigation structure, or duplicate content, or anything like that.
"the number of parameters in a URL might exclude a site from being crawled for inclusion in our main index; however, it could still be crawled and added to our supplemental index." Is the only factor mentioned. The rest is speculation on our part. In my case, there are example pages with 0 url data - so there must be something else.
mistrel, you are just plain WRONG. everyone's aws stores have these same types of issues and it's the fact that the content is duplicate. i'm not saying this is the only reason, but it's "a" reason. dup aws content will soon be de-indexed however, but supplental results are the first stage. you can't believe every word you read in those guidelines and think there isn't more to it. get out of the box. just like the propaganda that other webmasters activities can't hurt your rankings. if someone started spam blogging and referrer blogging on your sites behalf and then someone reported it to google ... guess what ... kaboom! ever here of google bowling?
Really? Show me some evidence and maybe I can be convinced. I'm rarely impressed by either Google hysteria or "I read it on a forum" though...
What do you think it is then? It is not just excessive url data. That is the only factor listed in the Google explanation.
This all started, IIRC, when Google expanded to 8 billion pages indexed... it makes perfect sense to me that in order to continue to keep pace with indexing new sites and pages Google needs a way to get pages into the index -- they brought out Googlebot 2 and the supplementary results as a way of doing that, I think... I don't believe there's anything sinister about being a supplemental result, other than that those pages may be seen as less critical by Google or, as the FAQ says, pages where they can be less strict in their criteria for indexing.
Ah, ok I can buy that. A less sensitive, more aggressive bot. Still it may be worthwhile to determine the difference between a page in the standard index and the supplemental. What factors lead to the pages being considered "less critical"? This would give us (me) some insight into things that Google values. This old website I am looking at, went from 5 pages to 2200+ (99% supplemental). It seems worth my while understand what the difference is.
One thing I just noticed on a newer site of mine (in the sig) is that Google has crawled about 100 pages (printer-friendly versions of the actual content pages) which should be "off limits" to the Googlebot based on the site's robots.txt exclusions, and put the URLs into its supplemental index. So I suppose that's one further use for their second index, to store URLs the content of which it's not allowed to index?
i guess my point here is from my experience with aws, sorry i'm not posting urls, is that supplemental results are the first whack and de-indexing is the second. it might as well be google's recycle bin before they empty it. minstrel, i'm not an all day forum poster if that's what you're saying by "i read it on a forum", i'm just not convinced that their black and white approach is so black and white.
I know this is an older thread, but I really need help with a problem. A few weeks ago, I typed in site:www.noahsanimalfigurines.com in Google's search box and only ONE of my pages was listed as an actual result. The other 2,349 pages are now listed as "Supplemental Result" and I don't know what has caused this. The pages are not duplicate content, not SPAM, not new, not bad URLs, not uncrawlable. I have my site set up with Google Sitemaps and all of the pages were crawled about a week ago. There is nothing in the reports on Google Sitemaps that indicates a problem.
There have been many problems like this after and during the Big Daddy update. I wiould not panic at this time, but keep an eye on it. for another couple of weeks. Have you also tried the site: query on various data centres?
Hey Kirchenbauer, you should try running some of those pages through http://www.copyscape.com/ I don't think you will like what you'll see.