Comments on: Supplemental Results and WordPress http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/ WordPress news and updates from around the web. Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:09:01 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: jan weidenbach http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-152502 jan weidenbach Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:50:55 +0000 http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/#comment-152502 @14 that's a good question @14

that’s a good question

]]> By: roberto http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-151958 roberto Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:12:16 +0000 http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/#comment-151958 Just a question... If a page is a supplemental result, would it be a supplemental result for anyone who want to exchange link with that page? Just a question… If a page is a supplemental result, would it be a supplemental result for anyone who want to exchange link with that page?

]]> By: Mark87 http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-151838 Mark87 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:56:47 +0000 http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/#comment-151838 Hi, just wanted to say you have a very nice blog, am gonna add it in my website in the blogs section, but i think you should replace your background with a better one.. but this is just my opinion :) cheeeers. Hi, just wanted to say you have a very nice blog, am gonna add it in my website in the blogs section, but i think you should replace your background with a better one.. but this is just my opinion :)
cheeeers.

]]> By: Carthik http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-151244 Carthik Tue, 15 May 2007 16:40:09 +0000 http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/#comment-151244 Lorelle, the thing is - my archives are not "supplemental" and my posts are in the supplemental index! So the point is that things seem to be strangely inverted. I agree that it would be natural to have the posts in the main index and the archives, both date- and category-based in the supplemental index. Lorelle, the thing is – my archives are not “supplemental” and my posts are in the supplemental index! So the point is that things seem to be strangely inverted.

I agree that it would be natural to have the posts in the main index and the archives, both date- and category-based in the supplemental index.

]]> By: Lorelle http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-151242 Lorelle Tue, 15 May 2007 14:36:58 +0000 http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/#comment-151242 If you really dig into this issue, you would find that archives, categories, site maps, and similar pages are considered "normal" supplemental pages and not penalized as duplications. A lot of people freaked out and took this too far when it first came out without reading the fine print. They spend a LOT of time on this issue, like you, for something they really didn't have to worry about. It's easy, if you are fully hosted, to remove all those date archives from the header and rely upon categories and site maps, which some did, but it won't hurt you. Normal blog content isn't penalized. The issue of duplication comes from splogs using duplicate information on one or more of their web pages and duplicate, <em>already published</em> content from others. Those who use more blockquotes than original content might be penalized if the issue of duplication is really taken seriously by Google. If you really dig into this issue, you would find that archives, categories, site maps, and similar pages are considered “normal” supplemental pages and not penalized as duplications. A lot of people freaked out and took this too far when it first came out without reading the fine print. They spend a LOT of time on this issue, like you, for something they really didn’t have to worry about. It’s easy, if you are fully hosted, to remove all those date archives from the header and rely upon categories and site maps, which some did, but it won’t hurt you.

Normal blog content isn’t penalized. The issue of duplication comes from splogs using duplicate information on one or more of their web pages and duplicate, already published content from others. Those who use more blockquotes than original content might be penalized if the issue of duplication is really taken seriously by Google.

]]> By: Jonathan http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-151232 Jonathan Mon, 14 May 2007 21:25:15 +0000 http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/#comment-151232 I changed my archives format to <code>/foo/</code> rather than date-based archives. I 301 redirect all date requests to the site map, where I have a link to every page and post on my site, including the categories. That seems to work <em>very</em> well, as I'm now getting my top referals [sic] from various Google sites (Google Images is almost always in second). I changed my archives format to /foo/ rather than date-based archives. I 301 redirect all date requests to the site map, where I have a link to every page and post on my site, including the categories.

That seems to work very well, as I’m now getting my top referals [sic] from various Google sites (Google Images is almost always in second).

]]> By: David http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-151226 David Mon, 14 May 2007 14:54:34 +0000 http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/#comment-151226 It would be swell if WordPress had a field for a meta description (and possibly keywords) that would apply to an individual post or page and override the generic blog description tags when the individual post/page is indexed. I have a few "feature" pages on my site that I run through WP, but I use a custon template for only that page. Those invariably get better search results than general blog posts. And like you, I've definitely noticed plenty of search hits landing in category or archive pages instead of on the actual page the person wants. It would be swell if WordPress had a field for a meta description (and possibly keywords) that would apply to an individual post or page and override the generic blog description tags when the individual post/page is indexed.

I have a few “feature” pages on my site that I run through WP, but I use a custon template for only that page. Those invariably get better search results than general blog posts. And like you, I’ve definitely noticed plenty of search hits landing in category or archive pages instead of on the actual page the person wants.

]]> By: Lisa http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-151224 Lisa Mon, 14 May 2007 13:32:43 +0000 http://wordlog.com/archives/2007/05/14/supplemental-results-and-wordpress/#comment-151224 Whether the statements by Google are true or not, they are certainly partial: "A supplemental result is just like a regular web result, except that it’s pulled from our supplemental index." And you have to look for a very long time to find any supplemental result in the SERPs. "Please also be assured that the index in which a site is included doesn’t affect its PageRank." Which again is meaningless- it's the results, not the (Toolbar) PR, that matter. Oh, and I was under the vague impression that PR applied to a page not a site.... Whether the statements by Google are true or not, they are certainly partial:

“A supplemental result is just like a regular web result, except that it’s pulled from our supplemental index.”
And you have to look for a very long time to find any supplemental result in the SERPs.

“Please also be assured that the index in which a site is included doesn’t affect its PageRank.”
Which again is meaningless- it’s the results, not the (Toolbar) PR, that matter. Oh, and I was under the vague impression that PR applied to a page not a site….

]]>