| 7:24 am on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|But as a SE Optimizer, I find that this is very irritating. |
and what are you thoughts about it as a user of the search engine?
| 7:34 am on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>> Personally, I have nothing against Wikipedia or its founders. I think they are great people. I am just disappointed that some of my sites could have been in the page one result but they are in page 2 or 3 because of Wikipedia.
what does this have to do with anything? isn't G supposed to bring the best pages--as they see them--upfront regardless of who made them?
| 7:48 am on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It is very frustrating that amount of leeway given to Wikipedia by Google.
I get that it is a good resource however it's painful seeing my pages being messed around by Google whilst Wikipedia remains at #1 regardless. There are several other big sites which dominate the SERP's in such a way.
I'm fine with Wikipedia articles appear near the top of SERP's (better that then some of the other spam style sites that occupy the deeper SERP's) I just wish I was given a bit more credit for my efforts (which generally go above and beyond the short Wikipedia articles that outrank me.
| 7:58 am on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think the trend is toward web domination by either very wide and shallow sites (wikipedia, amazon, ebay, about) or very deep and narrow niche sites (hopefully for some searches at least).
| 8:02 am on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I really don't mind when Wikipedia is ranked above my sites. I'm not competing with them with my products and services. Searchers may drop in to Wikipedia to learn more about the subject, then come back to resume the search to find what they're actually looking to buy. As far as I'm concerned, if Wikipedia's presence isn't competitive, then it doesn't matter.
| 8:12 am on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
As a user , the moment i see wiki link , thats the first which am going to check , and in 90% case its the first and last , if am searching for information only
| 9:48 am on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
One of my intentions for 2007 is to become an active editor at Wikipedia.
| 10:10 am on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
What is particularly irksome - both as SE user and website owner - is when the second or third spot is occupied by a site which is basically a Wikipedia clone (I won't name it but I'm sure you can think of the "answer").
What Google doesn't do well is differentiate between perceived and actual authority - "if it's Wikipedia it must be great because everyone and his/her dog links to it", even though this might mean an amateurish / incomplete / inaccurate stub pushing a truly authoritative page down the SERPs.
I used to dabble in Wikipedia, but have come to realise the time and effort is better spent creating my own authoritative site on my specialist subjects. Not just for the money ;-), but to counter what is increasingly becoming a "Wikipedia monoculture".
| 11:05 am on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
For me it is OK, as Wikipedia has great deal of usefull information and so if it has it - you don't need the other sites to check ...
BTW not only google - Yahoo and MSN beginning from this autumn shows Wikipedia amoung first 3 for most comtetitieve terms in my area also.
| 12:19 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I am interested in seo - but from a user pooint of view, when I want to know something about something - I go to Wiki. i think it is usually an excellent resource.
The idea about a special link - perhaps similar to definition (which I think goes to answers which uses wiki info anyway) - I think is an excellent idea.
I've thought for a while Google doesnt need to organise the worlds info any more - Wiki does that just fine.
| 12:22 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
For my areas wikipedia is not the definitive answer which is where my problem with their domination comes (why should a single 'stub' page on widgets outrank a full blown widgets.com with hundreds of pages of information?).
It's just annoying to see them using similar data (in some cases data from my pages) and gain the top spot so easily whilst I'm left to wait for domains to age and to swallow Google throwing my pages out of their results as they please.
I don't depend on my sites for revenue or business otherwise I would be more concerned. I guess one of the benefits of wikipedia is that if you manage to get your sites into the articles you will retain traffic even if your site takes a hit in the SERP's.
[edited by: Idris at 12:24 pm (utc) on Jan. 10, 2007]
| 12:39 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I don't fully agree about your objection to Wikipedia, but I do understand where you are coming from. Google seems to regard a small cluster of big, comprehensive sites as 'authoritative', no matter how good they are on a particular topic (think here Wikipedia or IMDB, etc.).
I have a site about a tropical island, and I am often amazed that some sites which offer virtually _nothing_ in terms of content (one is www.world66.com/, sorry to name names) are up there on the first page of results. The rationale seems to be that this is a 'great site' so put it up there regardless of actual content. Same applies to some of the big travel sites (tripadvisor springs to mind). Of course, because Google backs them it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. These sites start with nothing but gradually attract visitors because they are high in the results.
| 12:55 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I agree that for an ecom site, it's no problem that wikipedia is #1, ebay is a different story :)
However, G has to take care, that if wikipedia is always #1, ppl might go there directly one day and not using G anymore ;)
| 1:17 pm on Jan 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
As a SEO - I cannot wait for Google to buy Wiki and ruin it, so we can be done with it. Yes, I know it's cruel, but I am too tired of Wiki being ranked everywhere, regardless of actual content.
As a user - I dont find Wiki all that good - there is always a complete website dedicated to that specific topic with much more comprehensive information than the one some bozo cut-and-pasted to get a link back. So what if the website sells products or run adsence? Even better - they would have at least researched the content - where I could go right now and make up some info about almost anything on Wiki, and as long as I dont mess with the external links, chances are, that post will be there for a long, long time.
Just another Dmoz if you ask me - good idea, but now everyone is trying to become an editor (with "credentials") so they can post long-term links.