Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion The skinny on the supplemental index
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Rick1  
View profile  
 More options Nov 13 2006, 5:53 am
From: Rick1
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 02:53:40 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 13 2006 5:53 am
Subject: Re: The skinny on the supplemental index
Thanks for posting this Adam.  I'm hoping you'll be good enough to
address a few things in detail.  First, WHY goes G even have to have
something as useless and hurtful as this?  Being in supplemental in
ITSELF **IS a penalty**, you're as good as deleted because no one will
ever find you!

Please explain what exactly is meant by: "*the number of parameters in
a URL* might exclude a site from being crawled for inclusion in our
main index"?  Is the "number of parameters" meaning what's physically
IN the URL, like hyphens, dashes, number of words, etc.?  If so, what
is too many?  Why would G be THE ONLY SE that penalizes people for
trying to use USER FRIENDLY and EASILY product-IDENTIFIED URL's?

And:

> 2) Freshness?
> You can expect to see a fresher supplemental index in the coming
> quarters.  By the definition of "supplemental," however, I don't foresee
> it becoming as comprehensive or frequently updated as our main index.

That is only seriously hurting people, in particular, your "Mom & Pop"
places (of which you indicated you are so fond).

> 3) Cure?
> Get more quality backlinks.  This is a key way that our algorithms will
> view your pages as more valuable to retain in our main index.

Ok, so HOW, is anyone supposed to get hundreds of people to link to
*ALL* of your pages?  Does G think everyone is Amazon.com??  That's not
only impractical, it's impossible.  That also is ruining Mom & Pop and
small business places!  Now hopefully, you're talking about IBL's to
one's HOMEPAGE....right?  If not, that criteria is just plain insane.
Like another said, you'd have to go out and bribe/pay hundreds of
websites to link to all of your pages.  No, the "quality" or "need" of
the pages has nothing to do with it.  You just can't get people to link
to every product's sales page unless it's a PERMANENT product on your
site (which no one has unless they've INVENTED the products), have the
cheapest price on the planet, and a massive amount of the population
needs it!  That's just screwing people trying to make ends meet,
catering to the multi-million $ monopolies, and ruining the very
backbone of the (American) economy-small privately owned business.

You, nor anyone, will address WHY, WHY pages are placed in the sup
index.  Please tell me, why webpages that are: unique, one-of-a-kind,
white-hat, well-linked-from the main or a main webpage; AND were FIRST
on the FIRST page of results for searches, get deleted from the main
index??  That is just totally senseless.  If this is a "bug", then
please say so.  If it is not a bug, then please say so, and *why* G is
insistent upon doing it.

You *should* know, that all is this is just making G only a shadow of
its former self.  One used to be able to find ANYTHING on G, now, that
is no longer the case because so many pages....ARE IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL
INDEX!

PLEASE address these points, I'm only one of millions that need to
know.  Thank you for your time.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.