Is there any rhyme or reason to Google supps?

[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

[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.