I just wanted to ask you if the deadline for post and trackback was in July and not June. I was all ready to write my post, but I read your post again and it says June.
Let me know. I even installed the Greasemonkey script so I can trackback. I am so excited... LOL
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
You can have a bonus entry for spotting the typo
CyberCelt
· 2 years ago
Hi, Andy!
I just wanted to ask you if the deadline for post and trackback was in July and not June. I was all ready to write my post, but I read your post again and it says June.
Let me know. I even installed the Greasemonkey script so I can trackback. I am so excited... LOL
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
You can have a bonus entry for spotting the typo
MoneyFromHome
· 2 years ago
My take on all of this:
google wants to be the only game in town for "paid links" via Google Adwords and Adsense. And in the short to long run, this is not good!
MoneyFromHome
· 2 years ago
My take on all of this:
google wants to be the only game in town for "paid links" via Google Adwords and Adsense. And in the short to long run, this is not good!
Rob - SEO Advice
· 2 years ago
Nice post Andy
Just this morning, I noticed quite a few of my content pages on my blog have gone supp, whereas my tagged cat pages are ranking and non supplemental.
Ive just removed the cat list from the internal pages to see if it makes any difference. I thought of nofollowing them, but its just as easy to remove the loop. Home page cat list remains.
Maybe this will result in my cat pages going supp too, will be interesting to see.
Its difficult to gauge whether for me, its an authority thing. I havent gotten too many back links to many of my internal pages and the sites pr isnt exactly huge either.
I just thought it was interesting how their algo decided that my cat pages were worthier than my actual content pages. When I think that every page on the blog had a link to the various cats, then when viewed from a linkpop perspective its hardly surprising. I was effectively saying, "hey search bot, these are the pages I value the most, because i link to them more than any other".
I may well change it again and use a robots.txt file instead.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Rob - I am juggling so many things currently it is hard to decide what to do next as SEO of this site, but more likely it will be the Sandcastles approach I talked about.
That will be a much larger change than I have made in the past, but I am hoping for it to make a dramatic difference to write about.
Rob - SEO Advice
· 2 years ago
Nice post Andy
Just this morning, I noticed quite a few of my content pages on my blog have gone supp, whereas my tagged cat pages are ranking and non supplemental.
Ive just removed the cat list from the internal pages to see if it makes any difference. I thought of nofollowing them, but its just as easy to remove the loop. Home page cat list remains.
Maybe this will result in my cat pages going supp too, will be interesting to see.
Its difficult to gauge whether for me, its an authority thing. I havent gotten too many back links to many of my internal pages and the sites pr isnt exactly huge either.
I just thought it was interesting how their algo decided that my cat pages were worthier than my actual content pages. When I think that every page on the blog had a link to the various cats, then when viewed from a linkpop perspective its hardly surprising. I was effectively saying, "hey search bot, these are the pages I value the most, because i link to them more than any other".
I may well change it again and use a robots.txt file instead.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
Rob - I am juggling so many things currently it is hard to decide what to do next as SEO of this site, but more likely it will be the Sandcastles approach I talked about.
That will be a much larger change than I have made in the past, but I am hoping for it to make a dramatic difference to write about.
Billy
· 2 years ago
Long post, but managed to finish reading it. On the terms of categorizing Volusion into different categories, I think it is correct for search engines to accept one copy and place the other categories into supplemental since it is exactly the same page with only one article.
What's more fascinating in regards to your study is if you think Google did a manual removal of your reviews after you had reported them as paid for reviews. If Google does not have a true algorithm in place to handle these paid link reports, they will take forever and spend too much unnecessary resources to fight paid links.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
I agree it was a long post, and it was also lacking in images to break up the flow. It is quite technical as well and it took a lot of words to explain my reasoning.
Sometimes it can't be helped if you want to portray the full arguments, and I also find that providing detailed posts makes the comments much more interesting as well.
I would be quite happy if Google decided that a lot of my duplicate content pages should hit the supplemental results. If someone searched for "Volusion Shopping Cart Review" they might show the supplemental page rather than a "Volusion Review" page. Supplemental results are meant to be because of lack of pagerank, duplicate content typically has lower pagerank, because it doesn't have links.
I think it might have been a manual or semi-automated removal "sight unseen" - they didn't really look at the value of the page. A real algorithm would have also picked up my volusion tag page which is still indexed.
I can't see a reason that the original page was kicked out, but the volusion tag remains other than a mistake in a manual review.
Also of note, Google have said that they woouldn't be penalising the content that has the links, but devaluing the links on the page. They are not meant to be kicking my content out of the serps.
This is easpecially true because less than 1% of my original content is paid reviews. Hell I don't even use text-link-ads, and my affiliate links are mainly nofollowed, though on some I have been a little careless.
Billy
· 2 years ago
Long post, but managed to finish reading it. On the terms of categorizing Volusion into different categories, I think it is correct for search engines to accept one copy and place the other categories into supplemental since it is exactly the same page with only one article.
What's more fascinating in regards to your study is if you think Google did a manual removal of your reviews after you had reported them as paid for reviews. If Google does not have a true algorithm in place to handle these paid link reports, they will take forever and spend too much unnecessary resources to fight paid links.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
I agree it was a long post, and it was also lacking in images to break up the flow. It is quite technical as well and it took a lot of words to explain my reasoning.
Sometimes it can't be helped if you want to portray the full arguments, and I also find that providing detailed posts makes the comments much more interesting as well.
I would be quite happy if Google decided that a lot of my duplicate content pages should hit the supplemental results. If someone searched for "Volusion Shopping Cart Review" they might show the supplemental page rather than a "Volusion Review" page. Supplemental results are meant to be because of lack of pagerank, duplicate content typically has lower pagerank, because it doesn't have links.
I think it might have been a manual or semi-automated removal "sight unseen" - they didn't really look at the value of the page. A real algorithm would have also picked up my volusion tag page which is still indexed.
I can't see a reason that the original page was kicked out, but the volusion tag remains other than a mistake in a manual review.
Also of note, Google have said that they woouldn't be penalising the content that has the links, but devaluing the links on the page. They are not meant to be kicking my content out of the serps.
This is easpecially true because less than 1% of my original content is paid reviews. Hell I don't even use text-link-ads, and my affiliate links are mainly nofollowed, though on some I have been a little careless.
All Comments
I just wanted to ask you if the deadline for post and trackback was in July and not June. I was all ready to write my post, but I read your post again and it says June.
Let me know. I even installed the Greasemonkey script so I can trackback. I am so excited... LOL
I just wanted to ask you if the deadline for post and trackback was in July and not June. I was all ready to write my post, but I read your post again and it says June.
Let me know. I even installed the Greasemonkey script so I can trackback. I am so excited... LOL
google wants to be the only game in town for "paid links" via Google Adwords and Adsense. And in the short to long run, this is not good!
google wants to be the only game in town for "paid links" via Google Adwords and Adsense. And in the short to long run, this is not good!
Just this morning, I noticed quite a few of my content pages on my blog have gone supp, whereas my tagged cat pages are ranking and non supplemental.
Ive just removed the cat list from the internal pages to see if it makes any difference. I thought of nofollowing them, but its just as easy to remove the loop. Home page cat list remains.
Maybe this will result in my cat pages going supp too, will be interesting to see.
Its difficult to gauge whether for me, its an authority thing. I havent gotten too many back links to many of my internal pages and the sites pr isnt exactly huge either.
I just thought it was interesting how their algo decided that my cat pages were worthier than my actual content pages. When I think that every page on the blog had a link to the various cats, then when viewed from a linkpop perspective its hardly surprising. I was effectively saying, "hey search bot, these are the pages I value the most, because i link to them more than any other".
I may well change it again and use a robots.txt file instead.
That will be a much larger change than I have made in the past, but I am hoping for it to make a dramatic difference to write about.
Just this morning, I noticed quite a few of my content pages on my blog have gone supp, whereas my tagged cat pages are ranking and non supplemental.
Ive just removed the cat list from the internal pages to see if it makes any difference. I thought of nofollowing them, but its just as easy to remove the loop. Home page cat list remains.
Maybe this will result in my cat pages going supp too, will be interesting to see.
Its difficult to gauge whether for me, its an authority thing. I havent gotten too many back links to many of my internal pages and the sites pr isnt exactly huge either.
I just thought it was interesting how their algo decided that my cat pages were worthier than my actual content pages. When I think that every page on the blog had a link to the various cats, then when viewed from a linkpop perspective its hardly surprising. I was effectively saying, "hey search bot, these are the pages I value the most, because i link to them more than any other".
I may well change it again and use a robots.txt file instead.
That will be a much larger change than I have made in the past, but I am hoping for it to make a dramatic difference to write about.
What's more fascinating in regards to your study is if you think Google did a manual removal of your reviews after you had reported them as paid for reviews. If Google does not have a true algorithm in place to handle these paid link reports, they will take forever and spend too much unnecessary resources to fight paid links.
Sometimes it can't be helped if you want to portray the full arguments, and I also find that providing detailed posts makes the comments much more interesting as well.
I would be quite happy if Google decided that a lot of my duplicate content pages should hit the supplemental results.
If someone searched for "Volusion Shopping Cart Review" they might show the supplemental page rather than a "Volusion Review" page.
Supplemental results are meant to be because of lack of pagerank, duplicate content typically has lower pagerank, because it doesn't have links.
I think it might have been a manual or semi-automated removal "sight unseen" - they didn't really look at the value of the page.
A real algorithm would have also picked up my volusion tag page which is still indexed.
I can't see a reason that the original page was kicked out, but the volusion tag remains other than a mistake in a manual review.
Also of note, Google have said that they woouldn't be penalising the content that has the links, but devaluing the links on the page. They are not meant to be kicking my content out of the serps.
This is easpecially true because less than 1% of my original content is paid reviews. Hell I don't even use text-link-ads, and my affiliate links are mainly nofollowed, though on some I have been a little careless.
What's more fascinating in regards to your study is if you think Google did a manual removal of your reviews after you had reported them as paid for reviews. If Google does not have a true algorithm in place to handle these paid link reports, they will take forever and spend too much unnecessary resources to fight paid links.
Sometimes it can't be helped if you want to portray the full arguments, and I also find that providing detailed posts makes the comments much more interesting as well.
I would be quite happy if Google decided that a lot of my duplicate content pages should hit the supplemental results.
If someone searched for "Volusion Shopping Cart Review" they might show the supplemental page rather than a "Volusion Review" page.
Supplemental results are meant to be because of lack of pagerank, duplicate content typically has lower pagerank, because it doesn't have links.
I think it might have been a manual or semi-automated removal "sight unseen" - they didn't really look at the value of the page.
A real algorithm would have also picked up my volusion tag page which is still indexed.
I can't see a reason that the original page was kicked out, but the volusion tag remains other than a mistake in a manual review.
Also of note, Google have said that they woouldn't be penalising the content that has the links, but devaluing the links on the page. They are not meant to be kicking my content out of the serps.
This is easpecially true because less than 1% of my original content is paid reviews. Hell I don't even use text-link-ads, and my affiliate links are mainly nofollowed, though on some I have been a little careless.