Is there any rhyme or reason to Google supps?

[NobleSavage]

Two blogs started at the same time:

www.Surfcuties.com all pages listed in normal index

www.dream8teen.com all pages stuck in supplemental


Both sites are just about identical in terms of structure and linkage.

All posts are unique, no feed content, all pages have unique title, description, and meta key words


The only thing I did different with dream8teen is I used:

http://www.adultblogresource.com/submitter/

and submitted it to those directories. I didn't do this with surfcuties.

[twn]

There are many reasons why a site would go in supplemental, for example the use of the word "teen" which is a word google doesn't like, or the amount of the increase of outgoing/incoming links per scan, or a certain frequently used keyword. Like this there are over a dozen more reasons or there is just isn't a reason.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...com+dream8teen
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...com+surfcuties

As you can see they both have pages in "supplemental". But the domains don't seem to be in "supplemental".

I would recommend to get some more incoming links, but not outgoing links. So get some sites/blogs to link to you but don't link back.

[NobleSavage]

Originally Posted by twn

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...com+dream8teen
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...com+surfcuties

As you can see they both have pages in "supplemental". But the domains don't seem to be in "supplemental".

I'm not sure why you added the "+dream8teen" to the end of the site queries? That just brings up all the results wherever the domain is mentioned all over the web. If you just look at the pages on the site (site:dream8teen.com)..

With dream8teen 99% of the pages are supp.

With surfcuties it's the opposite - there are a few supp pages, but most all in the regular index.

It's making a difference in traffic by a factor of 3.

[twn]

You might also want to take a peek at your title:
"Free Nude Teens"
That are 3 keywords search engines don't like. "free" because it is often used and abused. "nude" is sits right after "porn" and "sex". "teens" sits under "child". The combination "nude teens" might trigger bells at google, cause teens relates to child and nude relates to porn, getting a result like "porn child". You get the idea.

One thing is sure it isn't the blog submitter, because just think about it, when that was true over 10.000 blogs submitted with the blog submitter should have landed in supplemental. And that hasn't happen. It is more likely the content of your blog.

I did made a filter for a blog directory ( http://www.adultblogturtle.com/ ) to filter out these bad word combination and i still have to see the results but at cozy's forum some peeps had good results with doing this.

[walrus]

Originally Posted by twn

You might also want to take a peek at your title:
"Free Nude Teens"
That are 3 keywords search engines don't like. "free" because it is often used and abused. "nude" is sits right after "porn" and "sex". "teens" sits under "child". The combination "nude teens" might trigger bells at google, cause teens relates to child and nude relates to porn, getting a result like "porn child". You get the idea.

And sometimes SE's can't be understand and do things that are not understandable. There can be dozens of reasons why something is happening.

I did made a filter for a blog directory ( http://www.adultblogturtle.com/ ) to filter out these bad word combination and i still have to see the results but at cozy's forum some peeps had good results with doing this.

A simple google search shows 2.5 million responses for free nude teens. I'm not buying into the SE's don't like these words. If that were true then the SE's have begun a level of censorship that is unparralled in American History and I'm sure there would already be legal wrangling over the issue.

Until someone can show me some proof that google or any other search engine is engaged in these types of practices (censoring keywords), I'm going to have to say BULLSHIT! No matter what other people are seeing and saying on other boards. It could be that they are seeing postive results because they are using much less popular phrases with less competition.

Noble Savage, review your posts, all of them, and look at how often certain keywords are mentioned...in total and try reducing your reliance on ones that seem to show up more than once or twice per post on average. It will take some time to see any changes that might happen so be patient.

I would edit your meta description and change "school girls" to "college girls" not because I think that the SE's are messing with you over it but because I think it puts out a wrong message about your blog.

[BadWolf]

Blogging and the Wisdom of Crowds, Pt. 2, lol.

There may be an intention to crack down on certain keywords like 'free nude teens' but it hasn't happened yet, that I can see, other than setting off software that filters for adult content.

As Walrus pointed out, you can't legally censor those keywords, anyway. Of course, we know Google tracks all of your searches so I'm sure they know they'd be cutting their own throats by doing so even if they could.

[Halfdeck]

A simple google search shows 2.5 million responses for free nude teens. I'm not buying into the SE's don't like these words.

Yeah.

Nice looking sites, but on the DC I'm hitting, I see

"inurl:http://www.dream8teen.com" -- only home page in the main index, and
"inurl:http://www.surfcuties.com/" -- no pages in the main index.

I hate to start another SEO shit storm here, but it looks to me like either 1) Google isn't in love with your inbound links or Google hasn't "cached" all your IBLs yet so you just gotta wait; and 2) you may have too many outbound links on each page.

Two known causes of supplementals are 1) duplicate content and 2) low PageRank (I'm not talking about the green bar).

One thing I would do is nofollow your ref codes. Also if a high percentage of your IBLs are exchanged links, Google may devalue some of them. One way to counter that is to have some other adult blogger write a post about your blog. Google likes links in articles.

[NobleSavage]

Halfdeck,

Why did you use the "inurl:" operator insted of "site:" ?


The results show up for me if I do "inurl:surfcuties.com". I using the non "www" version.

I think I'm gonna wait a little longer before doing any major changes... the blogs are very new.

[Halfdeck]

Why did you use the "inurl:" operator insted of "site:" ?

I use both. I use inurl: when I just want to see pages in the main index.

The results show up for me if I do "inurl:surfcuties.com". I using the non "www" version.

Yeah, same here, but you might also pull up supplementals that way - which is why I posted "inurl:http://www..." instead of inurl:domain.com.

EDIT:

Both www and non-www are returning a status 200. You need to set up a 301 redirect from one version to the other. you may be splitting link juice and creating supps unnecessarily.

And yeah, if I do "inurl:http://surfcuties.com/" I see 25 results.

[NobleSavage]

Both www and non-www are returning a status 200. You need to set up a 301 redirect from one version to the other. you may be splitting link juice and creating supps unnecessarily.

That has been on my list of things to fix...

Does this look correct:

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.surfcuties\.com [NC]
RewriteRule (.*) http://surfcuties.com$1 [R=301,L]

[Halfdeck]

Looks ok to me.

[NobleSavage]

Ok - it works, but if I request:

www.surfcuties.com/directory I get

surfcuties.comdirectory

[Halfdeck]

Yikes.

Bed time for me, but I recommend using a HTTP header checker and a test directory before making a new .htaccess live.

This is what I use:

RewriteEngine On

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain\.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [R=301]

(Yeah, www and non-www are backwards for you).

[NobleSavage]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

Yikes.

Bed time for me, but I recommend using a HTTP header checker and a test directory before making a new .htaccess live.

This is what I use:

RewriteEngine On

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain\.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [R=301]

(Yeah, www and non-www are backwards for you).

Thanks man - putting a "/" at the end of the RewriteRule fixed the problem.


And let me leave you with a question for when you wakeup tomorrow


Have you had any canonical issues with WP serving up pages in both forms:

domain.com/page/
and
domain.com/page

?

Not sure if If it's worth the trouble of trying to fix that...

[twn]

They don't have to censor (aka block/ban) the words, they can lower the sites ranking when a site uses these words. I always say: whatever i can think google can and will think of. No one knows how google rates pages and comes to a ranking, but it would be rather dumb not the rank pages on their content. And when ranking pages on their content it includes looking at the used words and given these words scores. "nude teen" could have a negative score, "women without clothes" will have a much better score. Like i said whatever i can think of the guys at google can think of.

[Halfdeck]

Have you had any canonical issues with WP serving up pages in both forms:

domain.com/page/
and
domain.com/page

?

Nope..I never had problems with that. I never even seen my blog link to pages without the final /.

If your blog does that though, you want to fix it. Google treats those as two distinct urls.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100...lt&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?num=100...2F&btnG=Search

[walrus]

Originally Posted by twn

They don't have to censor (aka block/ban) the words, they can lower the sites ranking when a site uses these words. I always say: whatever i can think google can and will think of. No one knows how google rates pages and comes to a ranking, but it would be rather dumb not the rank pages on their content. And when ranking pages on their content it includes looking at the used words and given these words scores. "nude teen" could have a negative score, "women without clothes" will have a much better score. Like i said whatever i can think of the guys at google can think of.

Ok, I understand what your saying now. Fonz posted a link to an article in the SE section of the board that discusses what may be happening at the G.

Basically, the article states that they believe that Google has given favor to non-porn sites that use a porn term over porn sites. In other words, unless the surfer makes it perfectly clear they are searching for a porn site, the non-porn site will rank higher for the term.

Thats a good news / bad news type of thing. It's good for people like me who are a bit verbose and have almost always used long tail combinations. Bad for those who tend to stick to single or two word phrases when it comes to keywords.

[Halfdeck]

Basically, the article states that they believe that Google has given favor to non-porn sites that use a porn term over porn sites.

That's just one guy's theory.

And thanks to people (mostly guys in mainstream) linking to that seoblackhat article

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q....y=0&go=Search

its now on the first page for "free porn"

http://www.google.com/search?num=100...rn&btnG=Search

The blog post is only one month old.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by walrus

Basically, the article states that they believe that Google has given favor to non-porn sites that use a porn term over porn sites. In other words, unless the surfer makes it perfectly clear they are searching for a porn site, the non-porn site will rank higher for the term.

I tend to believe that that is exactly what Halfdeck referred to it as - one guy's theory.

Do a search for free teens in Google. No need to use the words porn or fucking or sucking or nude or xxx. Six of the first 10 results, including the number one spot, are porn. Good SEO will always triumph over alleged filters. If mainstream sites happen to better optimized and have better linking strategies than porn sites, why shouldn't they rank high in the results? In other words, Walrus, I agree with your initial response.

[walrus]

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

That's just one guy's theory.

And thanks to people (mostly guys in mainstream) linking to that seoblackhat article

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q....y=0&go=Search

its now on the first page for "free porn"

http://www.google.com/search?num=100...rn&btnG=Search

The blog post is only one month old.

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I tend to believe that that is exactly what Halfdeck referred to it as - one guy's theory.

Do a search for free teens in Google. No need to use the words porn or fucking or sucking or nude or xxx. Six of the first 10 results, including the number one spot, are porn. Good SEO will always triumph over alleged filters. If mainstream sites happen to better optimized and have better linking strategies than porn sites, why shouldn't they rank high in the results? In other words, Walrus, I agree with your initial response.

I stand properly thumped aside the head.

[tigermom]

Just wanted to add my two cents about filtering. I don't believe in it either. It doesn't make sense. Google has one aim only - to bring good search results to its users. It will not censor porn if its users are asking for porn. Any word is impartial to Google as a word.

[NobleSavage]

I figure if Google were gona do any filtering based on "bad" words they would start with their image search first.

[Linkster]

A lot of good "theories" in here and in those articles - however none are correct - there is at least one word that Google does censor in the english language results (in the url when the &hl=en) and that word is sex. They have openly admitted to doing this starting back in 2004 (I know I had a top 10 listing and went ballistic when they did it)
When Google first started out they made that one word a "test case" - and decided they would only return PG rated results for it - they then went away from that in 2002 - and then chose to go back to it in 2004 and ever since.

There are some other words that Google will censor in their adwords programs (like liquor and smoking result keywords) - but as far as the actual search engine organic results we only know of that one word.(for sure anyway)

Do they apply a damper for some words and phrases - I doubt it based on the spam Ive seen make it into mainstream phrases - however I believe that if the McCain child protection bill makes it through congress and becomes law they will have to start - just like the hosting co.s, registrars and everyone else