<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: GoogleGuy on Supplemental Result Problem.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jimboykin.com/googleguy-on-supplemental-result-problem/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jimboykin.com/googleguy-on-supplemental-result-problem/</link>
	<description>Internet Marketing, SEO, and Link Building.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:23:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Abhilash</title>
		<link>http://www.jimboykin.com/googleguy-on-supplemental-result-problem/#comment-1327</link>
		<dc:creator>Abhilash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:57:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jimboykin.com/googleguy-on-supplemental-result-problem/#comment-1327</guid>
		<description>While that's definitely a pertinent question, it can be (grudgingly) answered with words like "tweak" or "glitch".  I agree with you though, because pages both old &#38; new went into the supplementals--*entire sites* (except homepages &#38; occasionally sitemaps) went into the supplementals.

There is another material point that has taken up several pages on the WMW thread, regarding many of the pages that went supplemental and the fact that quite a few of them were ranking very well before this entire debacle took place:  When the pages come back, is there any hope that the original rankings will come back with them?  Most tend to believe that there's just no way that the rankings can be regained, unfortunately.  This Google "glitch" has come at the expense of some &#38; to the benefit of others.  

Shame on Google for making a mistake.  How dare they.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While that&#8217;s definitely a pertinent question, it can be (grudgingly) answered with words like &#8220;tweak&#8221; or &#8220;glitch&#8221;.  I agree with you though, because pages both old &amp; new went into the supplementals&#8211;*entire sites* (except homepages &amp; occasionally sitemaps) went into the supplementals.</p>
<p>There is another material point that has taken up several pages on the WMW thread, regarding many of the pages that went supplemental and the fact that quite a few of them were ranking very well before this entire debacle took place:  When the pages come back, is there any hope that the original rankings will come back with them?  Most tend to believe that there&#8217;s just no way that the rankings can be regained, unfortunately.  This Google &#8220;glitch&#8221; has come at the expense of some &amp; to the benefit of others.  </p>
<p>Shame on Google for making a mistake.  How dare they.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Halfdeck</title>
		<link>http://www.jimboykin.com/googleguy-on-supplemental-result-problem/#comment-1312</link>
		<dc:creator>Halfdeck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:13:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jimboykin.com/googleguy-on-supplemental-result-problem/#comment-1312</guid>
		<description>I think Dayo_UK pretty much summed it up with his post at WMW:

"The question that people should be asking themselves is why Google are now not listing there pages in the normal crawl as theses have disappeared rather than the pages going supplimental (as a supplimental copy was probably already there)"

I first wondered if there was some drastic tweak in the dup content filter algo that turned all freshly cached pages into supplementals.  Now I don't believe that's the case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Dayo_UK pretty much summed it up with his post at WMW:</p>
<p>&#8220;The question that people should be asking themselves is why Google are now not listing there pages in the normal crawl as theses have disappeared rather than the pages going supplimental (as a supplimental copy was probably already there)&#8221;</p>
<p>I first wondered if there was some drastic tweak in the dup content filter algo that turned all freshly cached pages into supplementals.  Now I don&#8217;t believe that&#8217;s the case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: &#187; Dies und das</title>
		<link>http://www.jimboykin.com/googleguy-on-supplemental-result-problem/#comment-1308</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Dies und das</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:28:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jimboykin.com/googleguy-on-supplemental-result-problem/#comment-1308</guid>
		<description>[...] Nach 2 Tagen krank im Bett hab ich mich grade mal durch Bloglines gekämpft. Ist aber nichts wirklich spannendes passiert. Ein paar Meldungen die ich ganz lesenswert fand: US-Markt für Online-Werbung wächst um 30 Prozent Safeguarding yourself when purchasing a site for AdSense The big secret to Ranking #1 in Yahoo Google plant Laufwerk &#8216;G:&#8217;? Google GDrive Makes the Network Your Computer GoogleGuy on Supplemental Result Problem. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Nach 2 Tagen krank im Bett hab ich mich grade mal durch Bloglines gekämpft. Ist aber nichts wirklich spannendes passiert. Ein paar Meldungen die ich ganz lesenswert fand: US-Markt für Online-Werbung wächst um 30 Prozent Safeguarding yourself when purchasing a site for AdSense The big secret to Ranking #1 in Yahoo Google plant Laufwerk &#8216;G:&#8217;? Google GDrive Makes the Network Your Computer GoogleGuy on Supplemental Result Problem. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
