| 2:17 am on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Why does Google choose to push a page on a so-called authority site with almost no information over a page full of information? |
Because it's an authority site.
Number one rule: don't contribute articles, or add very specific info, to sites that usually rank close to you for intended serps. By adding that stuff to Wiki, you made them even more of an authority. The return link (which I assume you added to "External links") wasn't enough to have you break even.
| 3:30 am on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|sites that usually rank close to you for intended serps. |
Wikipedia had nothing on this place. I created the page and the page is exactly like I showed it, just the city and state this place is located in.
|The return link (which I assume you added to "External links") wasn't enough to have you break even. |
No return link. This place is for little kids. I found it interesting that there were more of these type of places all over the world and thought I would let people know about this one. I just happen to have a page about this place. The place also has an official website. Wikipedia, for just having the name and location, outranks both the places official website and my website now. The official website is part of a large musuems website.
The fact that google considers a single page on wikipedia with 1 line of text more important than the places official website seems a little much. I could find competitor websites (not that I personally have any) and create wiki pages with their names and knock them out of top spots for their own sites.
I was just unaware that google gave such rank to a popular site for just having the words of another site mentioned. The official site has been around for over 5 years, the wiki page is about a month old.
| 3:36 am on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Another factor -- sometimes Google seems to favor the very slim page for no apparent reason. Maybe it's the sheer concentration of the keywords and the absence of surrouding noise. Put that together with the wikipedia domain's clear abundance of inbound links and you have a force to be reckoned with.
Paradoxically, more information on the Wikipedia page might make it rank lower.
| 3:36 am on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Wikipedia had nothing on this place. |
They do now.
Although they weren't competing for that exact serp before you added the info, they did have stuff on closely related topics, eh? That's where you posted the new page.
You know, you could just edit the new/added info out of Wiki....
| 3:53 pm on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe it's the sheer concentration of the keywords and the absence of surrouding noise. |
I thought they were supposed to punish low content sites, thats why so many MFA sites repeat keywords endlessly. Learn something new everyday I suppose.
|You know, you could just edit the new/added info out of Wiki.... |
I already thought about this, having creating Frankenstein's Monster, but I don't have any ads on my page anyway so it's not like i'm losing any money. I just thought the whole thing was odd. I guess at the very least others reading this might think twice before contributing to big websites.
| 4:16 pm on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Apart from its status, their biggest strength, in my opinion, is internal anchor text, all embedded in text.
My main sites internal pages can outrank wikipedia's equivalent page in most cases.
When they get beaten it is because that page has a ton of internal links all with the 2 keywords as anchor text.
| 4:40 pm on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In terms of search algorithms, the "Hubs" and "Authorities" algorithm (HITS) uses hubs that link to multiple authority sites to identify the authorties. So your wikipedia isn't an authority for your page, but rather a hub. Unfortunately, it's probably the case that most of the sites in your industry haven't been identified as "authorities" yet, so the Wikipedia page hasn't been classified as a hub thus far.
Wikipedia is both a hub and a site, depending on the page you look at. Some pages link out to lots of different websites, while others actually have useful unique content of their own. Google has a hard time distinguishing between the two types of pages. Often hub pages are linked high, even though that isn't what Google actually intends. You'll find that as your site gets more links from hub pages, Google will probably catch on and start ranking you higher. This is the case for lots of SEOd industries where a Wikipedia article on a particular industry or company will rank lower than the actually industry or company pages themselves.
So the key is to getting more hub links pointing to your site. Wikipedia is ranking because it has high site rank and good internal structure, but the siterank won't have the right anchor text and the internal links don't count as much. As you get more links from other sites, Google will notice your relevant siterank anchor text and place you above Wikipedia.
| 8:05 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yep, Wikipedia sucks if you rank No.1 it will knock you off top spot quickly, there should be some sort of source tag at Wiki so the Google can identify real website.
It becomes even funnier when it comes down to local regional search engines which place high importance on pages which have links from Wiki in there language or because they got some lucky link from local blog site - never mind the fact that they are literally blank pages (not even spam)! :-/