September 08, 2008, 10:58:09 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Add your links to our directory. Click here to add your links.
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Directory Calendar Login Register    RSS 2.0 feedAtom feed


News
Add your links to our directory. Click here to add your links.
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic:

How bad is "supplemental"?

 (Read 3203 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cloneBaby
Sr. Member
****

Points: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 298


WWW
« on: October 19, 2006, 04:42:01 »

Many pages are labeled "supplemental", but how bad is it in terms of SEO?  Are supplemental pages ranked lower?  Do they not have any trust?  Is it an indication that pages are penalized in some way?
« Last Edit: April 13, 2007, 11:08:29 by TheGodFather » Logged

get college degree online | chat about movies
think about your finance | have fun traveling


TheGodFather
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Points: 202
Offline Offline

Posts: 2570



WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2006, 12:18:17 »

Are not ranked lower but users will never reach them because are in supplemental results Smiley

Regards
Logged

cloneBaby
Sr. Member
****

Points: 2
Offline Offline

Posts: 298


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2006, 02:45:51 »

Are not ranked lower but users will never reach them because are in supplemental results Smiley

Regards
Ok, so it's far worse than getting ranked low.  How can you get out of this freaking supplemental?  Get a high PR?  Get a high TrustRank?
Logged

get college degree online | chat about movies
think about your finance | have fun traveling
TheGodFather
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Points: 202
Offline Offline

Posts: 2570



WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2006, 01:36:56 »

Just change your keywords and description meta tags Smiley

Regards
Logged

solidghost
Hero Member
*****

Points: 3
Offline Offline

Posts: 550



« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2006, 15:37:20 »

Yup, changing some words here and there would help.
I think even rearranging them could help.
Logged

mahmud16
Jr. Member
**

Points: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2006, 19:39:57 »

Just change your keywords and description meta tags Smiley

Regards

-------

Ya agree...........Thnx TGF for good infos
Logged
klaus2
Jr. Member
**

Points: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2007, 04:05:18 »

Just change your keywords and description meta tags Smiley

Regards

Indeed. I think I know why almost all my forum has gone supplemental. Default seo4smf is very dangerous. It stuffs keywords and description with too much keywords and almost the complete text of the first post on the description. Google hates that! It's the only reason I can find have been sandboxed since using seo4smf. Sad
Logged
TheGodFather
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Points: 202
Offline Offline

Posts: 2570



WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2007, 10:59:12 »

To much keywords ?
Almost complete text ? is only 150-200 chars from first post ... You have any other ideea how to manage keywords and description ?

Regards
Logged

solidghost
Hero Member
*****

Points: 3
Offline Offline

Posts: 550



« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2007, 13:03:43 »

Supplemental could be duplicate content. For a template driven forum like SMF, it means that an thread with little content could be flag as duplicate content.
To get out of supplemental index due to duplicate content, either you add more content or you can try to change your keywords and description to tell Google that the threads are different. SEO4SMF does that. But then nothing substitues for good content.
Logged

solidghost
Hero Member
*****

Points: 3
Offline Offline

Posts: 550



« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2007, 13:04:32 »

Or you could just wait for a few weeks and make sure that the old URLs are no longer indexed by Google.
Logged

TheGodFather
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Points: 202
Offline Offline

Posts: 2570



WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2007, 13:08:02 »

dnlocal is a old forum with seo4smf ... but something is happened ... I see some mistakes in description generation ... because html_encoding is doesnt support utf-8 right ... with the latest version has changed ... and I'm curios about if that was the problem or not ...

Anyway nothing will substitute good content Smiley

Regards
Logged

LinuxGuy
Sr. Member
****

Points: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2007, 14:46:23 »

The most important reason for a supplement result is it being too deep in the site and less important pages linking to that supplemental page.
I have a forum.. almost all pages went into supplemental.. lost all traffic.. but when I started linking internal pages .. things are changing now.. basically if a page is in supplemental then get only 2 backlink from it from a non-suplemental pages.. and that one will get out of that too..

SIMPLE answer..
get good linkbacks for supplemental pages and you are done.. or have a high PR for homepage.. say PR5 and done.. hardly any page will then get into supplemental.
Logged

solidghost
Hero Member
*****

Points: 3
Offline Offline

Posts: 550



« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2007, 16:22:46 »

Yes, Ricky, you are correct. Google love links.
You can even get a complete duplicate page out of supplemental index by just having a lot of links pointing to it.
Logged

Darksat
Jr. Member
**

Points: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


(<>.(<>..<>).<>)


WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2007, 02:01:18 »

Supplemental results can still rank for non competitive phrases, but just deeplink to your supplementals to pull your page out.
Logged

Darksat,s IT Forums
Your Kung Fu is no good, you have much to learn.
solidghost
Hero Member
*****

Points: 3
Offline Offline

Posts: 550



« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2007, 14:11:26 »

Yes, but it is not easy to get deeplinks from other sites. Even directories.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks

TinyPortal v0.9.7 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!