Has Site-Sift caught the bug?

[Patient]

Since many directories have started to be deindexed by G I have started to research their indexed pages more thoroughly before submitting.

I know therefore that site-sift was well indexed/cached when I submitted my site on 18th Jan.

Now it looks poorly indexed/cached.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sit...&sa=N&filter=0

supplemental from page 5.

Is anyone close to getting a handle on this problem yet - directories will be getting a bad reputation if this continues.

[smindsrt]

Originally Posted by Patient

Since many directories have started to be deindexed by G I have started to research their indexed pages more thoroughly before submitting.

I know therefore that site-sift was well indexed/cached when I submitted my site on 18th Jan.

Now it looks poorly indexed/cached.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sit...&sa=N&filter=0

supplemental from page 5.

Is anyone close to getting a handle on this problem yet - directories will be getting a bad reputation if this continues.

You really need to look at the URL for the supplemental results. It is dynamic and hasn't been used since early OCT. There are no links pointing to it and this is why it shows up in the supplemental results.

We made a decision back in early OCT to change to URL from dynamic to static which is better for everyone.

So to answer your question Site-Sift has not caught a bug.

[smindsrt]

Oh.... I get it you think that because your are seeing supplemental results I have the same thing BF has..

NOT TRUE. All my supplemental pages are dynamic URL's that were changed to static.

[Patient]

Originally Posted by smindsrt

Oh.... I get it you think that because your are seeing supplemental results I have the same thing BF has..

NOT TRUE. All my supplemental pages are dynamic URL's that were changed to static.

Hi smindsrt

Its not so much the presence of the supplemental pages as the shortage of non-supplemental pages. It is certainly not my intent to be critical of you - just to try and figure out whats going on.

I guess I would have expected those associated with bluefind and sevenseek to have figured out a solution by now. The fact they haven't probably demonstrates that this is going to be a difficult nut to crack.