| 7:50 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good point, only Wiki is not quite as "open" as DMoz. For a company Google's size, you'd think they'd just dedicate some of their own resources to creating a quality directory.
| 7:56 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've seen pages on Wiki (PR4,5 +6) that rocket you up the serps (sometimes only for a short while, though) if you have a link.
| 8:27 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You are talking about 2 totally different monsters.
Seperate them as such.
Spammers and bloggers do love this wiki chit but dmoz is now a spam directory in their own right.
Any money making service category in dmoz is controlled by people that will make sure their part of the directory will make them money while maintaining their part of the dmoz directory looking honest.
This wiki chit is being spammed by all walks of websites and is an open field for any type of spam that you can think of.
In my opinion, do not worry about either website when promoting your own.
| 10:21 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm certainly not talking about spam here - I'm only talking about relevent links from a source Google seems to like.
| 11:24 pm on Jul 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One of my sites have just link from DMOZ and just one more link from my other site and it don't have traffic at all. It is not indexed in any search engine. So much about that DMOZ myth ... traffic boost.
At #*$! some people are complaining that that it is so difficult to enter link into Wikipedia... it is deleted within 30 minutes. In fact almost each article has at least one editor who will fight link spam. For ecomerce sites it might be very difficult to enter Wikipedia.
Although, I haven't seen that Google valuate Wiki links much.
| 12:39 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
yes, wikepedia editors fight spam, but its just as easy to write an article, place it on your site, then publish the article on wikipedia, with a link to your own site stating the link is required for permission to use the content.
| 12:48 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You can get a link from Wiki if your site is non-commercial (on the whole) and a resource site of sorts.
| 12:52 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Nice to see you on this forum :).
"Although, I haven't seen that Google valuate Wiki links much."
I think if you type in any word in Google Wiki is there!
I just did "robert the bruce" and "flowers" - both times - Wiki there! Google loves Wiki - no doubt.
Just another check - "predator" - oh look - there's wiki again.
My site was pulled into the top 10 of 1 billion results for a keyterm via wiki - Wiki stuck - mine disappeared after a few days. There is a definate impact for a short time - and who knows - perhaps you can bounce back into the serps later - we'll see.
Surely Wiki is one of the easiest ways to get links from high PR pages on the net - even with spam policing (which is why Google must love it).
| 1:50 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 1:53 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'll challenge you...)
| 6:05 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 7:54 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The Wikipedia is definitely not the new DMOZ, but the contrary. In fact, it is the enemy of all content pages. Wikipedia intrinsically does not want to link to other sites, but wants to incorporate, often by stealing, the relevant content from other sites. This has happened to me several times, especially in the german W., and will happen again.
Of course this problem does not affect the large recycled-boilerplate-affiliate-text fraction in this forum, but only those producing the real content. Alas, many of them have not yet realised the gravity of the situation - one of the strongest sites on the net starting out to make all other content sites obsolete for their lefty FFA BS. Capturing the knowledge of the world - what a crap.
| 8:01 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've never given a lot of weight to wikipedia's political/cult/religious overtones. They're a site with pages, and I run a site with pages. What frustrates me to an extreme is seeing pages I KNOW are extremely valid to a query buried by G, and essentially a Wikipedia placeholder showing up as the #1 or #2 result.
What is particularly infuriating though is seeing my content re-phrased and re-worded on Wikipedia. Some of that data took days, months and even YEARS to compile.
| 8:13 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I know this situation. Watch the relevant Wikipedia articles, analyze who has rephrased your content, and when. Then have a look in your raw logfiles, block the IP range, and display a dedicated error message. I've recently done so with a region in eastern Germany: in this case, the parasite in question was kind enough to proudly write about himself and his location on his user page. They steal your content - but do no even think about giving you a link. Remember: it's always them, often the unsuccessful in real life, who have invented all that Wikipedia content ;) ;)
| 9:02 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|"Although, I haven't seen that Google valuate Wiki links much." |
I think if you type in any word in Google Wiki is there!
You're missing the point. Wikipedia pages might rank well, but that's not the same thing as saying that out-bound links from Wikipedia are valuable. Google doesn't have to PR0 a directory to devalue it's OBLs.
| 9:44 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Both are authoritative.
Wikipedia is a better source of traffic than dmoz, but both have value in being in. On one competitive topic wikipedia is my best non-se referrer. Traffic quality is good, too.
| 11:56 am on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the good advice, bull.
I simply don't have the manpower to play the add/delete/erase/ban wikipedia game I hear so much about (sounds like so much fun, endlessly modifying wiki articles and seeing them revert back) so I think I'll try your route...
On a personal note, I don't even like going on wikipedia, it makes me feel kind of icky with the infighting and sycophants and well, just plain weirdos...
| 2:39 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think you missed my point - in the last 3 months i have managed to get about 10 wiki links that have stuck - and i have seen my serps improve. Google sees these pages as high pr relevent pages - I cant believeanyone would disagree with that.:)
Also - I watched as my site appeared at the very top of Google - just below the "new" wiwki article - and a week later the wiki article stuck but mine disappeared. Without wiki i doubt i would have made an impact in those serps.
I have went down both roads. I wrote an article and posted it on Wiki when it was launched - ie it was the first of it's kind in wiki - breaking news - although I am not an expert!. I created the page and linked to my site - 100% relevent.
Then some nice guy came along 3 month later - rewrote thae article and dumped my link and added his - so i removed his!
I also managed to convince editors to add my link to a few established english and foreign language pages for my sector.
It can be worth perseveering with.
| 5:12 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Wikipedia pages might rank well, but that's not the same thing as saying that out-bound links from Wikipedia are valuable. Google doesn't have to PR0 a directory to devalue it's OBLs. |
|in the last 3 months i have managed to get about 10 wiki links that have stuck - and i have seen my serps improve. Google sees these pages as high pr relevent pages - I cant believeanyone would disagree with that.:) |
I also disagree with that. Although the nofollow attribute was removed from external links (at least from the English part of Wikipedia), it seems that PR is still not passed to external pages. The benefits of external links are visitor from Wikipedia but not an improvement in the SERPs.
| 5:31 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|seems that PR is still not passed to external pages |
How can you tell that PR is not passed on? Not that I think it has anymore clout than any page with the same PR. But I can't see why Google would block Wiki links.
However I've found it is a good source for traffic at least in academic areas. Also in my field I don't find that editors delete quality links.
A while back I decided it would help me more to join them so I've written some info in my field and linked to pages of mine where appropriate. I've also linked to some other quality pages from wiki articles. But then mine isn't a competitive topic.
It does look like wikipedia is floating to near the top on many searches. It's the power of the size of the site just like those topics 'about' stuff tend to rank in the top spots.
I am convinced large content sites have an advantage. There is a lot of power in internal linking.
| 6:27 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|How can you tell that PR is not passed on? |
I have many reasons for this theory. For example, I have a new website which has several links from Wikipedia. Before the PageRank update I expected PR3 if Wikipedia links are not counted while it should be PR5 if they are counted. The pages have now PR3.
|But I can't see why Google would block Wiki links. |
There are two possibilities: either Google added some kind of devaluation of external Wikipedia links 'by hand' or Wikipedia is handled as any other website and is just affected by some part of the algorithm. (e.g. due to the removal of the nofollow attribute it might seems for Google that millions of external links are added at the same time which might trigger some kind of filter)
| 6:32 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Wikipedia is handled as any other website |
That would be my guess.
I suspect that is the case with DMOZ as well.
| 7:07 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ok Recent observation-
blue widgets - No wiki, no mysite.com (anywhere on the scope)
blue widgets - wiki no9 mysite.com 10 out of 1 billion results.
next day - wiki no9 - mysite.com gone.
A bit simplified but this is what I saw 2 weeks ago.
| 10:38 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yipee - I'm back - right bside Wiki! Although interesting only at night times. Is this some sort of testing of the serps?
| 11:43 am on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|However I've found it is a good source for traffic at least in academic areas. Also in my field I don't find that editors delete quality links. |
Yes I found this too ..
WP is mass content spam by people with obviously too much money ... [english german japan etc are the biggest wikis] still we got to live with the reality of life. Wikipedia is also the new Google human editors vs machine.
I got by now 1 link deleted in WP of about 30 .. If you can't beat them join them ..
| 3:09 am on Jul 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What's your best Wiki Tip?
Here's one to get started...
Once you do get a link in...check the links on the left and see if there are translations. More often than not, these translated pages have similar links to english language sites - add your link there too.
Effectively, you could get a few pr pages on the same subject - that won't be joined by redirects.
| 3:34 am on Jul 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I tend to make useful contributions and then add the odd link .. that's a fair deal. In my experience the english wiki doesn't take to well to German links, while the other way round it's acceptable.
I think the main thing is to make it useful then it has a longer half-life. I also got links not added by me. One on the Portal site of my subject that survived some edit wars.
| 3:56 am on Jul 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"In my experience the english wiki doesn't take to well to German links, while the other way round it's acceptable."
Is that cause we're stupid - I mean only taught one main language in primary?
| 6:57 am on Jul 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
External wiki-links are nofollow so the should not help your SERPs. Check the code on the wiki-pages, they made this nofollow a long time ago
| This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 (  2 ) > > |