| This 94 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 94 ( 1  3 4 ) > > || |
|Google + Wikipedia = Higher Adwords Profits|
It seems like Wikipedia is finally starting to take over search results in commercial sectors now [e.g. "jewelry", "laptop", "cell phones", etc]. Check for yourself. I've seen continued forward movement for some of the terms I've been monitoring recently. I know that many people will disagree with me, but I am firmly convinced that Wikipedia is becoming a cornerstone in Google's strategy of keeping AdWords ctr rates on the increase. What percentage of search users typing in the keyword "jewelry", are searching for historical facts on the subject written by some juvenile, my guess is the percentage is very low. Aside from the Wikipedia takeover, the general search results look like crap these days. It's no phenomenon that the only innovation Google can come up with these days is another type of search ranking penalty, all in the name of "stopping search spam" of course. Go ahead and believe that people, just turn a blind eye each quarter they break profit records. Sheeeeesh, enough is enough!
So do you think it's true that any website that gets 38M links in 6-12 months will rank as well as Wiki? Forget about that, do you think that any other website that gets 38M links in 6-12 months will not be banned by Google for over-optimization?
Considering you saying there are no bad neighbourhoods, and that everyone knows Wiki does NOT have any unique content, you have revealed the key to ranking in Google:
1. Get links - a lot of them.
2. Get a good internal link structure.
You so crazy, of course Wiki still ranks because of human intervention, there is no math here.
|Considering you saying there are no bad neighbourhoods, and that everyone knows Wiki does NOT have any unique content... |
You may not like Wikipedia, but it's silly to claim that it lacks "any unique content." And even if you were right, how would that prove the OP's allegation that "Google + Wikipedia = Higher Adwords Profits" (which, in case everyone has forgotten, is the premise behind this thread)?
|1. Get links - a lot of them. |
2. Get a good internal link structure.
Lol, without giving away specific info that some people already know and some people can never "figure out", yep, that pretty much sums it up.
Otherwise, I suggest you start spending lots in adwords(wait, wiki doesn't spend money in adwords) or get to know someone at G to "manually" get your site to rank. :)
Is it a crutch when a search engine has to default to the same site? Or are they giving you the best result?
At what point are the search engines becoming an interface for finding stuff on wikipedia?
Let's take a look at searches that are clearly local in nature. Should Google's algo read my IP and put geotargeted maps at the top of the SERPs, or at least put a link to, "Did you mean Bay Area [local-type service]?"
I'm not convinced that wikipedia should be there more than geotargetting the SERPs for a general search for a local type service.
|Otherwise, I suggest you start spending lots in adwords(wait, wiki doesn't spend money in adwords) or get to know someone at G to "manually" get your site to rank. :) |
When did I say my site does not rank? I do rank and I rank before Wiki, where I want to rank, but it has nothing to do with internal link structure or # of incoming links, so dont even try pulling someone's chain on this one, because I have neither of those :)
|And even if you were right, how would that prove the OP's allegation that "Google + Wikipedia = Higher Adwords Profits" (which, in case everyone has forgotten, is the premise behind this thread)? |
It does. If google turns all filters off for Wiki - they must have monetary reason, I do not recall the last thing Google did which was not related to money - just because you dont see adwords all over YouTube, it does not mean Google will not try and make money out of it.
Is it going to be Adwords or something else - I dont know.
To me Wiki is just another DMOZ (which is by the way the worst directory ever - think of Google not having any updates or fresh content for years - that's DMOZ). People who talk good about Wiki, are usually editors benefiting from the traffic they have created for themselves. The fact that there is traffic coming out of Wiki's wazoo is clear indication that people who end up there, did not mean to in the first place :)
And big deal that it is non-profit - do you think I want to see Jehovah’s Witnesses every step I make, just because they are non-profit?
Oh, and type "jehovah" in Google and see who comes up on #3 and #4 - just the name, not the organization...
|It does. If google turns all filters off for Wiki - they must have monetary reason, I do not recall the last thing Google did which was not related to money |
If they were letting greed dictate their editorial decisions, it would make a lot more sense for them to display sites with AdSense ads in the top positions as a matter of course. They don't make a dime off users' visits to Wikipedia.
|If they were letting greed dictate their editorial decisions, it would make a lot more sense for them to display sites with AdSense ads in the top positions as a matter of course. |
Are you drunk or something? Or are you defending Wiki so blindly you dont know what you are typing?
Have you ever searched google?
Adsense results are almost always at the top of the search results, over a blue-ish background...
Those are adwords, not adsense.
"of course Wiki still ranks because of human intervention"
The site is a popular powerhouse. It's silly to think it should not rank well for most everything. Niche powerhouses usually do beat it, and maybe it is too high for very broad topics, but for targeted ones, it ranks because it is a popular, well-respected site with fairly sensible constrcution.
Adwords and Adsense are the same thing.
I mean, type "Germany" and Wiki is the first result - Why, why, why?
"Adwords and Adsense are the same thing"
No, they're not, learn the difference.
But getting back to the subject "does Google promote Wiki to encourage adwords clicks?" No, but they did do a good job of burying Froogle to the point where it's almost worthless. Yeah, they do care about money.
As far as Wikipedia being put in the sandbox due to overoptimization, that's just ludicrous. I guarantee you that if you ever succeed in generating 38 million natural links and deep links, you won't be sandboxed either.
It IS true that once a site becomes important enough that people expect it to be in the index, Google handles banning and filtering very gingerly. It's not due to some bwa-ha-ha master plan to inflate their earnings, it's because it reflects badly on them if someone goes looking for Wikipedia and can't find it.
|they must have monetary reason, I do not recall the last thing Google did which was not related to money |
I'm not sure which one is the "last" one, but they have a pile of products that they do not monetize and the *cannot* monetize.
Scholar, images, cache, etc.
Not that there is anything wrong with making money. They have to meet their payroll somehow.
|I mean, type "Germany" and Wiki is the first result - Why, why, why? |
Uh, have you looked at their page on Germany? Seems to me like it should be towards the top of the list. I would be partial to the CIA World Factbook page myself, but that's only a few spots further down. Both pages are far more useful than the official government pages.
What pages do you think should be listed above Wiki for [Germany]? Surely you aren't suggesting that it is a commercial search.
|"Adwords and Adsense are the same thing" |
No, they're not, learn the difference.
They are two different doors to the same buiding.
For example - the same ad for "widget" shows on google (you say it's adwords) and in Comcast (you say it's adsense).
But that aside, How is Wiki an authority on Germany, France, Italy, etc.?
Did you actually visit the Germny page on Wiki? 5-6 short paragraphs and about 30-40 links out. Not to mention that it gave me headache just looking at the page.
You answer me this - you have to do a paper on Germany (and you are a college student, not in middle school) - will you get your facts and will you base your paper on Wiki's info?
Another good example - I did a search for my city - it shows as #1 and #2 and it has exactly 11 words, 6 of them - inner links.
Now how could this rank #1 out of 7,000,000 results?!?
|You answer me this - you have to do a paper on Germany (and you are a college student, not in middle school) - will you get your facts and will you base your paper on Wiki's info? |
Dunno, but exactly how does ranking Wikipedia high for "Germany" contribute to the sale of AdWords?
|Dunno, but exactly how does ranking Wikipedia high for "Germany" contribute to the sale of AdWords? |
By bringing traffic - duh.
And what do you mean "Dunno" - I tought Wiki was the best resource on the internet - and you are not even willing to base a paper on its facts? :)
|Did you actually visit the Germny page on Wiki? 5-6 short paragraphs and about 30-40 links out. Not to mention that it gave me headache just looking at the page. |
Uh, did *you* actually visit the page on Germany?
It isn't 5-6 paragraphs, It is a 234K page with around 20 sections, most of which are larger than you suggest the entire page is.
While I would not consider Wikipedia as my sole source, I can tell you for a fact that it IS an acceptable source in most college classes. I say this as a current college student that is engaged to an academic librarian.
<added>Wiki is not considered to be an acceptable source on its own, but if you verify the information, it is acceptable to cite wiki. Since Wiki requires contributors to cite sources, it is useful just for the links to citations</added>
If you were up to speed on reliability of resources, you would know that wikipedia ranked higher in accuracy than brittanica when it came to major information pages. It only lost accuracy when it came to the more obscure pages that were ignored by the editors.
So far I would say that wiki's article on Germany has a better record for accuracy than your characterization of wiki's germany page.
What I really like about the Wiki page on Germany, is it tells me where to go to find more useful information. The sort of thing you look for as a college student when you are researching a paper.
[edited by: BigDave at 7:10 am (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]
"They are two different doors to the same buiding."
Did you name all your children George? This is silly. They are completely different business models that don't even need the other to exist at all.
These Wikipedia rants are so five years ago. Big, popular sites rank well. Get over it.
A circular path has no end...
|Did you name all your children George? This is silly. They are completely different business models that don't even need the other to exist at all. |
No, but they all have the same family name and belong to the same family. Do you get it now?
|They are completely different business models that don't even need the other to exist at all. |
Without Adwords - there will be no Adsense. It's the same ad, but on one side is the person paying for it and on the other the person publishing it. How are they not two different doors to the same building?
|What I really like about the Wiki page on Germany, is it tells me where to go to find more useful information. The sort of thing you look for as a college student when you are researching a paper. |
So basically to find information you follow the path:
Google -> Wiki -> The Source
That's a stupid concept and anyone with "things to do" would be glad to skip Wiki on this one, thus coming back to the original reason Google exists:
Google -> The Source
"Without Adwords - there will be no Adsense."
Without bicycles there are no iguanas.
|Without bicycles there are no iguanas. |
You are Wiki editor, arent you? :P
Wikipedia doesn't sell jewlery, so where's the problem.
My observation of the recent forward movement of wiki articles in commercial keyword niches and my conclusion, are just that, and observation and a conclusion. I'm not an executive at Google, so I will never be able to present solid proof that Google is profiting off of the wiki presence in it's search results, no need to state the obvious. But, I do believe that it is profiting off of the wiki presence, and I have a great deal of knowledge with regard to visitor traffic patterns and contextual advertisements. Any online advertising expert knows that visitors to any website can be manipulated into prioritizing certain traffic patterns. Aggressively shepherding visitors is very easy to do both ethically, and within the confines of all ppc networks terms of service agreements. And most importantly, it's very easy to do so without the users knowing that they are being shepherded. So, what I believe, is that high ranking wikipedia articles within very competitive commercial keyword sectors, are acting as adword shepherd. That is, they do not present the majority search user with what they are looking for, therefore increasing the likelihood that this user will click an adwords advertisement. Sounds like a Google dream come true. You will be hard pressed to argue to the contrary that this is not the case when these scenarios occur. EuropeForVisitors believes that if Google were to manipulate it's search results purely for financial gain, they would do so by blatantly giving priority ranking to adsense advertisers. Actually it's to the contrary. By shepherding visitors to it's own adwords advertisements, it's cuts out any publisher commissions, and therefore in all practical thinking, it is their number one strategic interest. So, is this a theory, yes. Can it be proven, not conclusively. But I certainly will not buy into the propaganda that all of the chaos that has surrounded the Google search results for last 2+ years, is because Google is swamped by search spam, and suffering from data storage shortages. People, they are breaking profit records every quarter. Buying into this cooperate propaganda is absurd, unless of course you believe that search technology is regressing, when we all know that it isn't. Google, MSN, and Yahoo, are all manipulating their search results to a certain percentage to shepherd visitors towards their own advertisements. Allthough search users and webmaster interests are still a piece of the pie, it's certainly starting to feel as of recently that that piece of pie is steadily shrinking. This supplemental fiasco is the same thing, oops technical issues at the G Complex, ignore our quarterly earning reports. Sure......
And what do you know... Wikipedia is #3 for the keyword Shepherd.
[edited by: BlueLeaf at 12:30 pm (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]
Isn't it more to your point that Wiki ranking is potentially costing you visitors in your eyes rather than Google generating advertising revenue because there is less space for commercial sites?
If you just step back and take a look you might see that your whole argument is based around there being less free advertising available to people that want a free ride.
Gissit, to answer your question, no. I have no financial shortcomings because of Google, because of my rankings, etc. Stop using this argument.
Information has never been so accessible thanks to the internet, and it is in every sense revolutionary. When you think about that, you will start to realize that the search engines of today, will likely evolve into the cornerstones of advanced technological societies of the future, regardless of whether or not the brands stay the same. It's very important for the web community to keep the flow of information from becoming over commercialized and manipulated by cooperatations such as Google, and it starts by recognizing the responsibility that Google and entities like Wikipedia have, and holding them accountable. I certainly feel like the ability to publish or access "relevant" and "usable" information via search has dimensioned in the last 2 years, and I think someone needs to finally ask some questions, post some observation and conclusions, and start a dialogue within the community about why search seems to fall so short lately. Google's algorithm is a means to an end, regardless of it's complexities. It's not a free thinking creature, it doesn't have free will. It's controlled by humans, and it represents cooperate interests. It's amazing that anyone could be oblivious to that fact. Peoples problems with Google lately, whether it be user or publisher oriented, seemed to have increased dramatically in the last two years. Instead of trying to figure out the next best way to manipulate your way to the top of the search results, why doesn't anyone step back, and ask why the playing field is so tilted. Each and every time I post this type of broad question / conclusion / observation on this forum to start dialogue, the senior members here dismiss it as conspiracy theory rant, chant "Google is good and democratic", and it ends there.
Wikipedia is not living up to it's status in my opinion, and I feel like it's being forced upon me just like spam, so why should I stay silent?
[edited by: BlueLeaf at 1:24 pm (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]
Wikipedia rankings for the following subjects. If this isn't spam, then I'm not really sure what is.
[#2] Candy Bars
[#2] New York
[#6] Wedding Rings
[#1] Mobile Phones
[#1] Memory Cards
[#1] Graphics Cards
[#7] Baseball hats
[#5] Music Videos
[#8] Antivirus Software
[#1] Cheddar Cheese
Keep in mind, all of this information about these subjects is written by anonymous authors with no credentials or subject authority, which is very disturbing especially with regard to ethnic and religious based keywords / information.
[edited by: BlueLeaf at 3:28 pm (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]
More wiki Rankings:
We all know where to find a real encyclopedia when we need one, so what justifies wikipedia's authority presence on such a large scale, especially when it has been proven to be an inaccurate source of information. I don't need wikipedia to tell me what a surfboard is, that's ridiculous. Why does Google's search algorithm believe that wikipedia is a better source of information on "Geography" then National Geographic, mathematics aside that's absurd?
[#2] Porsche 911
[#2] BMW M3
[#7] Geography [which is a ranking better then National Geographic]
[edited by: BlueLeaf at 3:26 pm (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]
I may be wrong here but I seem to remember reading a recent article in a broadsheet that mentioned that Wikipedia had been judged by acedemics to be a more accurate and complete source of information than Brittanica. That sound pretty authorative to me!
As a point of fact there is absolutely no guarentee that any of the information published on the web is worth any more than the virtual paper it is printed on and so a resource that is peer reviewed by a group of interested parties sound like the best starting place to me.
Granted, some of the more obscure articles will remain unchanged for longer due to a lack of general interest but mostly the articles that are read are edited where incorrect.
In my eyes it would be no bad thing for Google give a little of it's SERPS space to Wikipedia for EVERY search (a bit like the the current sponsored listings).
... Or more like the "definition" link that already goes to answers.com. I agree, Wikipedia is becoming so ubiquitous that that's worth thinking about. It would in effect make room for an extra search result for a vast number of searches.
| This 94 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 94 ( 1  3 4 ) > > |