More on Google Supplemental

Andrew Goodman has a further take on Google's Supplemental Pages. I agree with him on everything in the article, hell he even references this blog, so why shouldn't I agree with him? Here's a taster:

Honestly, two-year-old posts from this blog should *never* go into supplemental. Why would they? Did something change? They were good enough to index before, so what's wrong with 'em now?

Andrew even uses Blogger, which is a Google product, and finds his pages shoved into supplemental - so what hope is there for people lek myself who use Typepad! He mentions duplicate content:

One reason content can find its way into supplemental can be "duplicate content". Sometimes we allow others to republish our stuff (though rarely). But that's not the only issue. I wish I knew what the real issue was.

Just to test how safe even Andrew's content was, I thought I would just do a quick check to see how many sites were actually duplicating the same content on Google's index. Here are the results:

www.searchnewz.com/
www.searchnewz.com/topstory/top_story.html www.searchnewz.com/topstory/news/top_story_news.html www.terrakon.com/search-engine-marketing-tips/
www.webpronews.com/?SHT=WPN-SW findory.com/source?source=Traffick&ib=1 www.susannahutcheson.com/search-engine-news.html
www.kinja.com/user/artlung
www.interwebmarketing.net/current-topics/google-supplemental/ www.lisfeeds.com/feed.php?id=128
www.voipaction.com/index.php?ch=voip&fn=google&rstr=288
google-hacking.pl/
www.seodata.com/SEO-Penalties-Sandbox/reg-1-23_default.aspx
planet-google.com/
www.ilogger.cn/myread/

In total there are 34 indexed pages on Google - and the article was only written last week!!