<?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: Supplemental Paranoia</title>
	<atom:link href="http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/</link>
	<description>Growth For Persistent, Intelligent People.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:57:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kirk M</title>
		<link>http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-3077</link>
		<dc:creator>Kirk M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:23:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-3077</guid>
		<description>Hi Court,

One of the hardest things I've had to learn is SEO. Although I'm quite knowledgeable in the matters of maintaining my Wordpress install, my blog is a fairly popular &lt;i&gt;personal&lt;/i&gt; type blog that I find is the hardest type to pin down as far as SEO is concerned. I'm trying out the All-In-One SEO plugin in hopes I can feel like I have a modicum of control in this area.

Now it's moving some of the pages out of the supplemental index and I'm missing one essential (you gotta' be kidding me) item in your list.

You see, it's always the simplest things that get by me (I'd solve the Cold Fusion conundrum if it wasn't for overlooking a blown fuse) so perhaps you could help a guy out...

How the heck to do you make sure the archives and category pages show only excerpts?

Sorry for the newbie type question but I'm old...er...I mean I'm having one of those blank moments here. :P</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Court,</p>
<p>One of the hardest things I&#8217;ve had to learn is SEO. Although I&#8217;m quite knowledgeable in the matters of maintaining my Wordpress install, my blog is a fairly popular <i>personal</i> type blog that I find is the hardest type to pin down as far as SEO is concerned. I&#8217;m trying out the All-In-One SEO plugin in hopes I can feel like I have a modicum of control in this area.</p>
<p>Now it&#8217;s moving some of the pages out of the supplemental index and I&#8217;m missing one essential (you gotta&#8217; be kidding me) item in your list.</p>
<p>You see, it&#8217;s always the simplest things that get by me (I&#8217;d solve the Cold Fusion conundrum if it wasn&#8217;t for overlooking a blown fuse) so perhaps you could help a guy out&#8230;</p>
<p>How the heck to do you make sure the archives and category pages show only excerpts?</p>
<p>Sorry for the newbie type question but I&#8217;m old&#8230;er&#8230;I mean I&#8217;m having one of those blank moments here. <img src='http://courtneytuttle.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Court</title>
		<link>http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2091</link>
		<dc:creator>Court</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:02:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2091</guid>
		<description>So true Dan! In all reality they should be concerned with pages in the supplemental index - it just isn't as big a deal as most people think.

You made a great point about keeping a 'long-term' point of view. Those pages will come out as long as you keep working on building links (some pages might need additional content) while staying away from doing things that are reckless.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So true Dan! In all reality they should be concerned with pages in the supplemental index - it just isn&#8217;t as big a deal as most people think.</p>
<p>You made a great point about keeping a &#8216;long-term&#8217; point of view. Those pages will come out as long as you keep working on building links (some pages might need additional content) while staying away from doing things that are reckless.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Court</title>
		<link>http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2090</link>
		<dc:creator>Court</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:58:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2090</guid>
		<description>You're welcome Tay! If you do it will definitely make a big difference. ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re welcome Tay! If you do it will definitely make a big difference. <img src='http://courtneytuttle.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Court</title>
		<link>http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2089</link>
		<dc:creator>Court</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:57:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2089</guid>
		<description>I'm with you where you say if there's a quicker way, do it. There are definitely things that can be done to help that don't require removing a bunch of pages from both indexes.

Duplicate content can play a role, in your case did you have your copyright and disclaimer on every page? If so it would take a lot more unique content to not trigger duplicated content.

With enough link weight you could get away with it even with say 30% duplicate content.

It doesn't sound like you're paranoid at all, you didn't say anything about axing a bunch of pages just to save some others.

Well said!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m with you where you say if there&#8217;s a quicker way, do it. There are definitely things that can be done to help that don&#8217;t require removing a bunch of pages from both indexes.</p>
<p>Duplicate content can play a role, in your case did you have your copyright and disclaimer on every page? If so it would take a lot more unique content to not trigger duplicated content.</p>
<p>With enough link weight you could get away with it even with say 30% duplicate content.</p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t sound like you&#8217;re paranoid at all, you didn&#8217;t say anything about axing a bunch of pages just to save some others.</p>
<p>Well said!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2082</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2082</guid>
		<description>One of the funny things about SEO is that people do tend to make very drastic changes when they see a small thing that they THINK they should be concerned with.  The thing to realize is that things are always changing, but in huge ways that we have to always be concerned.  Keep a long term look at it and keep trucking along.  Good analogy with ProBlogger.net, I think with that one analogy you really did hit the nail on the head!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the funny things about SEO is that people do tend to make very drastic changes when they see a small thing that they THINK they should be concerned with.  The thing to realize is that things are always changing, but in huge ways that we have to always be concerned.  Keep a long term look at it and keep trucking along.  Good analogy with ProBlogger.net, I think with that one analogy you really did hit the nail on the head!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tay</title>
		<link>http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2072</link>
		<dc:creator>Tay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:39:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2072</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the helpful information, Court! I'll definitely work harder on getting better PR for my posts and getting my site's content out of the supplemental index.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the helpful information, Court! I&#8217;ll definitely work harder on getting better PR for my posts and getting my site&#8217;s content out of the supplemental index.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don@AffiliateWatcher</title>
		<link>http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2059</link>
		<dc:creator>Don@AffiliateWatcher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:00:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2059</guid>
		<description>Good post Court!

While I don't consider myself "paranoid" about G Supps, I believe if there is a quicker way of getting your pages into the main index, then do it. 

I probably spend way to much time thinking about this (remember, I'm not paranoid :))it seems G has other trigger points that decide which pages automatically go into Supps and which don't. I'm looking to find what these trigger points are. I don't believe it's just about an article being "good enough" or "popular enough". I'd say we all have good popular pages in Supps. 

To some extent, dupe content plays a role. I found out that on one of my other websites where I changed the copyright and diclaimer, it brought out several of my pages. (static html site)

What I'm working on is trying to eliminate as many of these "trigger points" as possible so my pages have the least amount of problems entering the main index. (remember, I'm still not paranoid or nothing like that)

Don</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post Court!</p>
<p>While I don&#8217;t consider myself &#8220;paranoid&#8221; about G Supps, I believe if there is a quicker way of getting your pages into the main index, then do it. </p>
<p>I probably spend way to much time thinking about this (remember, I&#8217;m not paranoid :))it seems G has other trigger points that decide which pages automatically go into Supps and which don&#8217;t. I&#8217;m looking to find what these trigger points are. I don&#8217;t believe it&#8217;s just about an article being &#8220;good enough&#8221; or &#8220;popular enough&#8221;. I&#8217;d say we all have good popular pages in Supps. </p>
<p>To some extent, dupe content plays a role. I found out that on one of my other websites where I changed the copyright and diclaimer, it brought out several of my pages. (static html site)</p>
<p>What I&#8217;m working on is trying to eliminate as many of these &#8220;trigger points&#8221; as possible so my pages have the least amount of problems entering the main index. (remember, I&#8217;m still not paranoid or nothing like that)</p>
<p>Don</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JoLynn Braley</title>
		<link>http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2052</link>
		<dc:creator>JoLynn Braley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:05:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2052</guid>
		<description>Well that's even better, good job! :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well that&#8217;s even better, good job! <img src='http://courtneytuttle.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Court</title>
		<link>http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2045</link>
		<dc:creator>Court</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2045</guid>
		<description>Many of my category pages are also in the main index JoLynn - it was a more valid point to use ProBlogger though because all of his are in the main index.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many of my category pages are also in the main index JoLynn - it was a more valid point to use ProBlogger though because all of his are in the main index.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Court</title>
		<link>http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2044</link>
		<dc:creator>Court</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:34:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://courtneytuttle.com/2007/06/26/supplemental-paranoia/#comment-2044</guid>
		<description>They pick the one that best lines up with what people search for. Each of the URLs will have different HTML titles and content. The post will probably have its title as the HTML title and the category would have its name as the HTML title.

If a person searched for 'supplemental index search engine optimization' Google would probably return my category page because that URL is a better match. (It has 'search engine optimization' in it)

If a person searched for 'what is the Google supplemental index' they would probably find the post, because 'supplemental' is in the title of the post, which makes it appear in the HTML title of the URL and in the URL itself.

If you follow what the post says you won't have 3 URLs with the same article. You'll have 1 URL with the right article and 2 URLs with a small piece of the article. Matt Cutts says that it's easy for Google to tell which one is the correct one in this case because the 2 incorrect ones link to the correct one.

I you think about it, your category page will be more relevant for some searches though, since it has different relevance. Have you considered that a person might search for something that appears in 2 different posts?

Someone found my site today by searching for 'viral chain linking search engine traffic' in Google. My post on viral chain linking comes up #1 and my category page for link building comes up #2. If there was a duplicate content issue here I wouldn't have come up at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They pick the one that best lines up with what people search for. Each of the URLs will have different HTML titles and content. The post will probably have its title as the HTML title and the category would have its name as the HTML title.</p>
<p>If a person searched for &#8217;supplemental index search engine optimization&#8217; Google would probably return my category page because that URL is a better match. (It has &#8217;search engine optimization&#8217; in it)</p>
<p>If a person searched for &#8216;what is the Google supplemental index&#8217; they would probably find the post, because &#8217;supplemental&#8217; is in the title of the post, which makes it appear in the HTML title of the URL and in the URL itself.</p>
<p>If you follow what the post says you won&#8217;t have 3 URLs with the same article. You&#8217;ll have 1 URL with the right article and 2 URLs with a small piece of the article. Matt Cutts says that it&#8217;s easy for Google to tell which one is the correct one in this case because the 2 incorrect ones link to the correct one.</p>
<p>I you think about it, your category page will be more relevant for some searches though, since it has different relevance. Have you considered that a person might search for something that appears in 2 different posts?</p>
<p>Someone found my site today by searching for &#8216;viral chain linking search engine traffic&#8217; in Google. My post on viral chain linking comes up #1 and my category page for link building comes up #2. If there was a duplicate content issue here I wouldn&#8217;t have come up at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
