homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.180.223
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 94 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 94 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >     
Google + Wikipedia = Higher Adwords Profits
BlueLeaf




msg:3225056
 4:48 pm on Jan 19, 2007 (gmt 0)

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!

 

jomaxx




msg:3227773
 5:47 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

... 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.

fischermx




msg:3227781
 5:52 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

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.

Not in many topics that I'm aware off, and those are computer science related. Not only poorly written, they even have misconceptions.

Gissit




msg:3227812
 6:08 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Misconceptions or difference of opinion?

fischermx




msg:3227823
 6:11 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Misconceptions or difference of opinion?

I was trying to be soft. I meant errors, mistakes.

BlueLeaf




msg:3227826
 6:14 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

According to recent reports by the BBC, Wikipedia is certainly not always an accurate source of information, and it's something to be read with that in mind.

Again, according to Google I guess wikipedia is a better source of information then the CIA, NASA, and the Official German Tourism Office. See the ranking combos below. If you actually read what is on some of these "ultra authority" Wikipedia pages, the experience can be extremely hilarious when cross comparing the two.

"Ice Cream"
[#3] wikipedia.org
[#5] Baskin Robbins

"Germany"
[#1] Wikipedia
[#2] Offical German Tourism Site

"Insurance"
[#3] Wikipedia
[#5] Allstate

"Aeronautics"
[#1] Wikipedia
[#2] NASA

"Watches"
[#2] Wikipedia
[#7] Timex

"Solar System"
[#4] Wikipedia
[#5] NASA

Russia
[#1] Wikipedia
[#2] CIA

"United States"
[#1] Wikipedia
[#3] CIA

Also, anyone tried typing in any slang or expletives words. You guessed it, Wikipedia has a monoply on those topics too, even really vile ones. Try it and see for yourselves.

[edited by: BlueLeaf at 6:17 pm (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]

jomaxx




msg:3227845
 6:25 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

The specific accuracy of w.r.t. authored encyclopedias is beside the point. Wikipedia's high ranking comes out of Google's algorithm -- a result of the site's inbound links, PageRank and authority status. The pages appear to be pretty well laid out from an SEO perspective as well. But I find it very hard to believe that Google is doing a manual override specifically to make Wikipedia pages rank higher than they would naturally.

BlueLeaf




msg:3227862
 6:34 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

jomaxx, I never stated that Google is giving Wikipedia a "manual" ranking priority. The question is whether or not is should be penalized, or in some cases removed completely from the serps.

[edited by: BlueLeaf at 6:36 pm (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]

BigDave




msg:3227868
 6:38 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

better source of information then the CIA, NASA, and the Official German Tourism Office

It is more readable than the CIA page. What does NASA have to do with Germany? The wiki page covers a MUCH broader cross section of information, and is more readable than the official tourism page.

If you want to disparage Wiki, show us where the Germany page is *wrong*.

I have no problem with Wiki ranking above commercial entities for generic search terms like [ice cream] or [watches]. Does it beat timex for a search on [timex] or baskin-robins for a search on [baskin-robins]?

I've got news for you, the vast majority of searches on the web are informational in nature. Even with searches on [jewelery], just because the people that click on your link are interested in buying does not mean that everyone doing a search on that keyword are shoppers. Lots of people actually take a look at the titles and snippets when deciding what links to click on. Maybe those that are looking for information click on wiki instead of your site.

BlueLeaf




msg:3227873
 6:42 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

BigDave, how about Jesus? There aren't any stronger informational sources on the subject then Wikipedia? Just because some hack can write an article about any subject, good reading or not, does not make it an informational authority. Unless of course the wiki editors are priests, rabbis, scientists, and scholars, all of which who have better published information right below Wikipedia results, including the whole staff at NASA.

[edited by: BlueLeaf at 6:49 pm (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]

fischermx




msg:3227880
 6:53 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't like Wikipedia ranking like this for everything, as I stated before.
But it does rank because it have tons of backlinks and the links are natural.
Why it should have to be penalized?
Let's learn to live with it.

Take a look in yahoo:
[search.yahoo.com...]

[edited by: fischermx at 6:56 pm (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]

BlueLeaf




msg:3227881
 6:55 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Ok, so lets learn to live with spam, is that what you are saying? I appreciate coming across "authority information" in Wiki like "Robert is a turd", when I'm reading an article about a religious figure. That's pleasant.

As far as search commands go to filter out Wikipedia which is an option, ask your mailman if he knows how to do that.

[edited by: BlueLeaf at 6:59 pm (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]

europeforvisitors




msg:3227890
 7:08 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

BigDave, how about Jesus? There aren't any stronger informational sources on the subject then Wikipedia?

Maybe there are, and maybe there aren't, but you've got to remember that Google (or any automated search engine) can't make human judgments on which information source is "best." It can only use alogorithms and formulas to make educated guesses based on the available data and guiding principles such as the Google corporation mission statement ("to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible").

If X gazillion readers, schools, publications, libraries, etc. have linked to Wikipedia with relevant citations, then Wikipedia is going to enjoy the benefits of those citations/links--including a higher PageRank and "TrustRank" than, say, ernies-elbonian-real-estate-brokerage.com with its 11,000 off-topic inbound links from anybody who'll do a link exchange. Now, maybe Ernie's site is a great source of information on Elbonia. But in terms of mathematics (including statistical probability) Wikipedia has the advantage. That doesn't mean Google is trying to force Ernie to buy AdWords; it just means that Google's algorithm assigns greater weight to a site that untold thousands or even millions of authors and Webmasters have cited as an authority.

BTW, search on many travel topics, and you'll find Yahoo! Travel pages ranking high in the SERPs. If that isn't a sign of editorial impartiality that works against Google's own self-interests, I don't know what is.

dauction




msg:3227891
 7:09 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Ranking Wiki is rediculas..

Wiki IS it's own Search engine.. it is more comprehesive in it's search results based on editors input.. but the reality is wikipedia IS a search engine..
and thus should be treated as such by the other search engines as a competitor , not as it's main search results for every single freaking search!

Could you imagine every search on MSN bring up a Yahoo or Google lol

Oh wait, we dont have the answer to your search so well send you over to wikipedia lol

fischermx




msg:3227895
 7:13 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Ok, so lets learn to live with spam, is that what you are saying?

No, because I don't consider Wikipedia to be spam at all.
Again, seeing it in so much terms is a bit annoying sometimes, but "spam"? Why?

So, please start by saying why you consider the Wikipedia spam...
All are natural, relevant back links, what else can you ask?

66sore




msg:3227917
 7:29 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I hope this is on topic.....

What is the webmaster experience of editing Wikipedia entries and driving traffic to sites using it?

That is in my playbook for 2007. Is it a worthwhile project?

BigDave




msg:3227920
 7:38 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

SPAM? Wiki certainly isn't SPAM. Most of those commercial sites that you love are much more qualified to be considered SPAM.

No one is claiming that Wiki is the most authoritative source on anything.

Google never claims that they return the *most* relevant result. Their goal is to provide good enough results so that most people can find the information that they are looking for. In most cases, wiki provides a good enough answer for a large percentage of users.

That is why wiki gets all those links and why they rank well. Like others have said, it's in the math. Get over it.

BlueLeaf




msg:3227942
 7:59 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

BigDave, then what is search spam? I've seen plenty of blatantly spammy websites with more inbound links then I could hope to get in one life time, how does that factor alone exclude Wikipedia? Of course it's in the math, it's search, that doesn't excuse it though.

appi2




msg:3227946
 8:04 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Its just single keywords, you have to be a very trusted site for single keywords.

diamond rings -> no wiki
rolex watches -> no wiki
gold jewelry -> no wiki
Earrings -> wiki

Just think of wiki as a dumb user filter.

soapystar




msg:3227949
 8:08 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

can't make human judgments on which information source is "best."

of course they can. or are you saying they dont?

europeforvisitors




msg:3227955
 8:12 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've seen plenty of blatantly spammy websites with more inbound links then I could hope to get in one life time, how does that factor alone exclude Wikipedia?

It isn't as simple as "a whole lotta links = spam."

It's more likely to be:

"A whole lotta unnatural-looking, off-topic links from low-trust sites to other low-trust sites = spam," or...

- "A whole lotta natural-looking, on-topic links from medium- or high-trust sites = legitimate links."

Some links are like the Reichsmark or Confederate dollar; others are like the euro or Swiss franc. It isn't that hard to recognize each.

BigDave




msg:3228020
 9:03 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've seen plenty of blatantly spammy websites with more inbound links then I could hope to get in one life time, how does that factor alone exclude Wikipedia?

So, ever website is considered SPAM until there are factors that exclude it from being SPAM? Is that what you are trying to say?

Wikipedia has millions of pages of original content. Spam is generally regurgitated content (often copied from Wikipedia). Spammers go to all sorts of trouble to buy, beg, borrow or steal incoming links. Wikipedia gets virtually all of it's links naturally, as voluntary one way links. Spammy sites are rarely cited as a source of decent information, Wiki is.

As for Wiki being totally written by anonymous sources, that is false.

You cannot depend on it to be totally accurate, but you can check out the history of who wrote it, and often times the contributors are experts in their fields. You have to evaluate Wiki as an information source on a subject, just as you would any other site, including .edu and .gov sites.

dauction




msg:3228038
 9:21 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'll say it again..Wikipedia is it's OWN search engine..it should not even be in Google , Y or MSN's results .

Y, G and MSN are simply advancing wikipedias brand which btw is taking (millions of daily search) search away from theY,G and MSN .

Wikipedia should be viewed as a competitor to the SE's ...not as a search result .

BigDave




msg:3228049
 9:36 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'll say it again..Wikipedia is it's OWN search engine..it should not even be in Google , Y or MSN's results .

And the reason we keep ignoring you might just be that ... you are the only one that thinks so.

Wikipedia should be viewed as a competitor to the SE's ...not as a search result .

Did you know that all the major search engines list their competitors? For a long time, Yahoo ranked higher than Google when you did a Google search for [search engine].

If google was going to remove competitors, would it make sense to remove every yahoo.com and every msn.com page before removing wiki? After all, those are commercial competitors.

fischermx




msg:3228082
 9:57 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'll be a bit off topic but on-topic, so I'll comment:


Did you know that all the major search engines list their competitors? For a long time, Yahoo ranked higher than Google when you did a Google search for [search engine].

I brought this issue to attention twice in the past year:
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]

BTW, now, Google is #1 rank for "Search Engine", and guess what?, Wikipedia is #4.

BlueLeaf




msg:3228094
 10:04 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Wikipedia cannot be trusted as dependable information, and should not be promoted as such. Time will tell were it will end up.

[edited by: jatar_k at 10:13 pm (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]
[edit reason] let's be serious [/edit]

europeforvisitors




msg:3228098
 10:10 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'll say it again..Wikipedia is it's OWN search engine..it should not even be in Google , Y or MSN's results .

Every Web site with internal search is "its own search engine." Are you suggesting that Google shouldn't list any site that has a search box?

fischermx




msg:3228104
 10:16 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

BlueLeaf, I'm reviewing all the modification to Jim Wales and I can't stop laughin, I'm almost in tears!

At this point... would they get hurt by put a freaking login page for any modification!?

I mean, I really get the idea about being openly editable, but common ....

dauction




msg:3228127
 10:43 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Every Web site with internal search is "its own search engine." Are you suggesting that Google shouldn't list any site that has a search box?

Not suggesting anything of thee sort ..

I'm saying Wikipedia has no buisiness even showing up in a G, Y or MSN search..

Look ..it's the same nonsense as DMOZ.. we dont see DMOZ or Amazon dominating the serps anymore either do we..

WE dont because thye dont beloingf inthe sertps ..they are their own form of search

Do you see Ford promoting Chevy? Coke promoting Pepsi?

Wikipedias entire purpose is for the world to search wikipedia .. rather short sighted of the SE"s to help wiki along.

BigDave




msg:3228128
 10:44 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yeah, there are lots of examples of bad changes in Wiki, and not just on Jimbo's page. Politicians are notorious for attempting to rewrite their wiki history. It's pretty rare on most pages, and usually fixed.

But why should we trust a commercial site more than we should trust wiki? You have yet to explain why the commercial pages should rank higher.

dauction




msg:3228134
 10:48 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

And the reason we keep ignoring you might just be that ... you are the only one that thinks so

could also be because half of WebmasterWorld all are editors at wiki? lol

Look we went through these same debates when half of WebmasterWorld stood up for DMOZ ..

Wiki is a very important tool for webmasters.. and please non of this no follw non-sense therefore wiki is usless to webmaster..blah blah blah

Wikepedia is a search engine ..it's the next step in search and G, Y and MSN are extremly short sighted promoting this competitor

europeforvisitors




msg:3228164
 11:13 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Look ..it's the same nonsense as DMOZ.. we dont see DMOZ or Amazon dominating the serps anymore either do we..

DMOZ is a directory of annotated links.

Wikipedia is a vast collection of encyclopedia articles--in other words, of first-hand information, not just links to sites that offer such information.

Two different animals altogether.

Wikipedias entire purpose is for the world to search wikipedia .. rather short sighted of the SE"s to help wiki along.

No, Wikipedia's entire purpose is to supply readers with information on a vast array of topics, in the form of articles with citations. And what's Google's stated mission? "To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible." Given that mission statement, it would be startling if Wikipedia didn't do well in Google Search.

This 94 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 94 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved