<?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: Old School vs. Web2.0 in Supplemental Index</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.appliedseo.com/archives/old-school-vs-web20-in-googles-supplemental-index/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.appliedseo.com/archives/old-school-vs-web20-in-googles-supplemental-index/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:09:07 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: &#187; Google Disables Inaccurate Supplemental Query</title>
		<link>http://www.appliedseo.com/archives/old-school-vs-web20-in-googles-supplemental-index/#comment-152</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Google Disables Inaccurate Supplemental Query</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 03:52:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.appliedseo.com/archives/old-school-vs-web20-in-google%e2%80%99s-supplemental-index/#comment-152</guid>
		<description>[...] I am not surprised they did this as I proved that the supplemental index query was completely inaccurate and of no real value. My guess is since it was starting to circulate within the search community, they did not want people using an inaccurate tool thinking it was accurate. Will Google replace or fix the query? I hope so. I would think the best place for such a useful query would be within their Webmasters Tools. This would allow webmasters to see pages on their site which are flagged as supplemental. The one draw back to this for SEO or marketing shops is that would be you would only be able to check the supplemental results for web sites you controlled. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I am not surprised they did this as I proved that the supplemental index query was completely inaccurate and of no real value. My guess is since it was starting to circulate within the search community, they did not want people using an inaccurate tool thinking it was accurate. Will Google replace or fix the query? I hope so. I would think the best place for such a useful query would be within their Webmasters Tools. This would allow webmasters to see pages on their site which are flagged as supplemental. The one draw back to this for SEO or marketing shops is that would be you would only be able to check the supplemental results for web sites you controlled. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
