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!

 

M_Bison




msg:3226424
 1:54 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

What percentage of search users typing in the keyword "jewelry", are searching for historical facts on the subject written by some juvenile

I don't know, but what I do know is that Google's algorithm will demote and promote sites based on their click-throughs.

mirrornl




msg:3226429
 2:00 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

explain please?

(thats what i've been thinking also)

europeforvisitors




msg:3226440
 2:16 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Actually, a lot of people searching on terms like "jewelry" are searching for information, not to buy something. Now, if they're searching for a specific jewelry product--such as "widgetco chronograph--maybe that's a different story.

If you read Google's mission statement, it becomes clear that, in cases of doubt, Google should err on the side of information, not some retailer's product listing. (After all, Froogle exists for people who want to shop.)

BigDave




msg:3226444
 2:21 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Wow, this reads just like one of the posts I read when I first joined WW. the only difference was that it wasn't Wikipedia back then.

**yawn**

AndyA




msg:3226484
 3:38 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think people who are searching for information type in what they are looking for: "jewelry" or "widget".

If they want to BUY something, they type in "buy jewelry" "jewelry sales" or something to that effect. Perhaps not, but after using search engines a few times, people figure out that they need to be a bit more specific when they search, or they get too wide of a range in the results to dig through.

simey




msg:3226487
 3:55 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

I just typed in "jewelry" and only one site out of the 1st 10 looks non e-commerce. (wikipedia as mentioned before).

And at the bottom of the page:

Searches related to: jewelry
Clicking on one of those options leads to mostly e-commerce sites.

koan




msg:3226516
 4:49 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Like BigDave said. We've heard it before. Yawn.

MThiessen




msg:3226530
 5:12 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

[webmasterworld.com...]

As per the above thread, it seems wiki is using "no-follow" so kiss the PR boast from it goodbye.

That being said, well placed, no spam links in wiki WILL generate you a decent amount of traffic.

I had lots of fans put me in there, never entered myself there, not even once, but I see it in my logs, it is a respectable amount of traffic... Just don't expect any PR from it anymore, at least for a while. They have caught on that spammers are using it, so as the world responds to the parasite spammers, so we must all suffer...

pgrote




msg:3226540
 5:33 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

BigDave ... what site(s) was it in the past?

frup




msg:3226547
 5:51 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

People used to complain about Amazon coming up for everything.

The wikipedia thing is a hell of a big deal for a lot of industries.

Look at it this way. Let's say I have a mainstream blog, and I want to mention an "iffy" subject. I won't like to an "iffy" website, I'll like to Wikipedia for more information on this "iffy" topic. In fact, it's kind of cute and funny to do so. So for the "iffy" topics, wikipedia is very quickly dominating the top of the SERPs. The way Google works, this effect is likely to intensify over time, not lessen. It's not old news, it's something completely new and annoying as all get-out.

whitenight




msg:3226580
 6:23 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm all for conspiracy theories and hate agreeing with Dave and EFV,;)
BUT
i think the fact that wiki has 31 MILLION backlinks has more to do with their rankings for every term (since they literally have a page on EVERY term) than anything else.

If anything, it's in G's self-interest to NOT let wiki rank for anything.
Certainly no adsense on any of those pages....

atlrus




msg:3226585
 6:38 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yeah, but the real question is:

Why Google's algo has not banned Wiki?

Surely, any other website which gets so many links so quickly, and links out to soooo many spam websites would have been banned a long time ago, I mean, if you search around, there is software for re-posting your links on Wiki, and the spammers are using it. So, if Google stays true to what has been said, and the websites rank according to the algo - why is Wiki still around? It's clear that Google manually has turned off all kinds of filters just for Wiki, so they must have a good financial reason to do so.

I could probably get a million link to my website by the end of the year, but would Google let me roam around like that? I dont think so - that's Net Un-neutrality at its best.

I personally think that it's stupid and un-google-like to have one website ranking in the top 10 for EVERY page they have.

europeforvisitors




msg:3226607
 7:56 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

It's clear that Google manually has turned off all kinds of filters just for Wiki, so they must have a good financial reason to do so.

Or maybe they just think (as a lot of people do) that Wikipedia is a genuinely useful site, nd they know perfectly well (as any rational person does) that Wikipedia isn't running a spam network.

I could probably get a million link to my website by the end of the year, but would Google let me roam around like that? I dont think so

Yes, but what kind of links would those be? How many of those links would be "natural" citations (say, from schools or information sites)?

For most of the searches that I do (and I use search a lot), any Wikipedia page that comes up in the top 10 is likely to be a page with real information and--as a bonus--with citations that link to other Wikipedia pages or to useful third-party sites. Should Wikipedia pages be penalized simply because there are so many of them?

BlueLeaf




msg:3226644
 10:38 am on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Actually, a lot of people searching on terms like "jewelry" are searching for information, not to buy something.

This thread is about the poor usability factor of Wikipedia for certain search terms, not information as a whole, reread. Are you suggesting that most people searching for the keyword "jewelry", are interested in finding historical facts on the subject? Having worked in the online jewelry industry for the last 5 years, I beg to differ. According to 5 years worth of referral stats from Google, generic words like "jewelry", "bracelets", "necklaces", "pendants", etc, have an insanely high conversion ratio. AdWords rates for these generic terms back my claim up 100%. I can say conclusively that most people typing in the keyword "jewelry", are looking to buy. I have virtually zero keyword referrals from Google like "buy jewelry", etc. I get thousands of visitors per day, so the traffic spectrum is there to further suport this point.

Now, if they're searching for a specific jewelry product--such as "widgetco chronograph--maybe that's a different story.

According to Google trends and OVT reports, obscure widget + generic based keywords searches [e.g. widegetco + pendants] are not used much in this sector, expect for well known brands like Tiffany. In the case of jewelry, most search users are not search savvy, and tend to search for broad based generic terms, again my referral stats back this claim.

If you read Google's mission statement, it becomes clear that, in cases of doubt, Google should err on the side of information, not some retailer's product listing.

Google should "err" on the side of relevance + usability, regardless of whether or not the page is informational or commerce based, in the case of wikipedia, they do not. For some searches, wikipedia has a high usability factor, for others such as ecommerce type terms, it does not. I think your point of view is biased because you sell information.

(After all, Froogle exists for people who want to shop.)

I know hundreds of non net savvy users that make regular online purchases, not one of them knows Froogle even exist. These people also make up the majority of internet users if you do your research.

[edited by: tedster at 8:36 am (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]

europeforvisitors




msg:3226783
 3:45 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

This thread is about the poor usability factor of Wikipedia for certain search terms, not information as a whole, reread.

Actually, this is about "Google + W]ikipedia = Higher AdWords Profits," which you also expressed as:

I am firmly convinced that Wikipedia is becoming a cornerstone in Google's strategy of keeping AdWords ctr rates on the increase.

Google should "err" on the side of relevance + usability, regardless of whether or not the page is informational or commerce based

It isn't that simple, because "relevance" and "usability" are in the eye of the beholder. Plus, if you've been around here any length of time, you should understand that the concept of user "votes" (as expressed via PageRank) has been part of the Google algorithm since day one. If PageRank and subsequent concepts like TrustRank give more credibility to large information sites like Wikipedia that have millions of legititimate, "natural" inbound links, that's just how Google is supposed to work. It's unrealistic to think that Google will shed its mission or its fundamental principles, just because its SERPs aren't delivering the results that you or other merchants consider to be relevant.

I know hundreds of non net savvy users that make regular online purchases, not one of them knows Froogle even exist. These people also make up the majority of internet users if you do your research.

Are you suggesting that Google should change the focus of Google Search just because Froogle isn't used by enough people (or sending you enough traffic)?

[edited by: tedster at 8:36 am (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]

jimbeetle




msg:3226843
 5:53 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

I can say conclusively that most people typing in the keyword "jewelry", are looking to buy.

Yeah, and Google knows exactly the same thing, probably in much more detail. That's why it returns mostly sales sites.

But, according to you, if Google throws in one informational result -- one -- for the few folks who aren't looking to buy and you see this as "a cornerstone in Google's strategy of keeping AdWords ctr rates on the increase"? I think that's a pretty long reach. Sound more like G is trying to satisfy the broadest possible user base.

Google has a little knob it can turn (not sure what color this one is), that adjusts the mix of types of sites returned for a query. If as you say the overwhelming majority of searches for "jewelry" are for buying, then it appears that G has this knob set just about right.

Pico_Train




msg:3226858
 6:16 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Wikipedia does dominate a lot of queries and in my niche it does dominate like I would love to. It's hard to compete against a site that has editors and page creators ad nauseum and that's something we all need to accept as we move forward. Especially if Wikipedia picks up those passionate editors that eat, sleep and drink their respective subjects, then it's gonna be a tough hill to climb, nevermind the sheer number of links and references that will be made to those articles.

When it becomes too dominant, which I don't think it is just yet, almost but not quite, then we should worry.

But in the meantime, given that they are starting their own little search engine, I don't think they'll be in such high regard for too much longer and we can all find the next goat to whip.

<if domain in (yahoo, msn, wiki)>
< pr(adjusted) = pr - 1 >
</if>

[edited by: tedster at 8:37 am (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]

BlueLeaf




msg:3226872
 6:32 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

EFV

Wiki's article titled "jewellery" showing up in the 4th position for the keyword "jewelry" isn't appropriate, and it's undeserved. It's search spam at it's best, and it's just one example out of many. Millions of people have linked to the domain wikipedia.org because the site covers every subject known to man, and has millions of web pages. Just because they have some established trust for certain topics, doesn't mean they are an authority on every single topic conceivable. Implying this is ridiculous. Google could correct this problem very easily, but they choose not to. The question is why. If not for financial gain, then what?

I'm a Google search user, and I'm tired of hitting wiki articles for every search phrase I enter, and the problem isn't getting any better, it's getting worse. I'm not competing with wiki at the moment for any search terms, I am raising this issue strictly from a search users perspective. Wiki at best is a collage of half fact, half misinformation. Why does Google continue to propagate this sort of thing if not for their own strategic interests? If this sort of observation / question equates to pushing the common sense envelope, then I think you are extremely disillusioned.

Ask yourself a very simple question, if wikipedia commercialized their website, how tolerant would you then be to their presence on the net? Just because there aren't adsense ads slapped on each page, doesn't mean it isn't spam.

Pico_Train




msg:3226873
 6:32 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

And besides arguing whether or not Google are pumping them up to the top of search results to pump AdWords revenue is a waste of time. Yes or no, you actually have no idea, so why bother arguing about it. Only Google really knows and unless they are the new Big Tobacco, I seriously doubt it.

Wiki is actually pretty useful too for the odd bit of research and blabber about a subject I want to know more about. My friend is even in there...now how to get myself in.

Fly a balloon on fire across the Atlantic?
Swim the coast of Southern Africa with 2 dead fish attached to my legs?
Compose a 6 hour No.1 hit on Rock radio?

Hmmm, where do I start...

BlueLeaf




msg:3226877
 6:39 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

I certainly agree that wikipedia does have some valuable information, but they've thrown a million darts at the board to make sure they hit the bull's-eye. It's out of control, and bad for search.

BlueLeaf




msg:3226886
 6:51 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

I also the loved the Wikipedia article entitled: Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence

"Wikipedia, the online, reader-edited encyclopedia, honored the 750th anniversary of American independence on July 25 with a special featured section on its main page Tuesday...

The special anniversary tribute refutes many myths about the period and American history. According to the entry, the American Revolution was in fact instigated by Chuck Norris, who incinerated the Stamp Act by looking at it, then roundhouse-kicked the entire British army into the Atlantic Ocean. A group of Massachusetts Minutemaids then unleashed the zombie-generating T-Virus on London, crippling the British economy and severely limiting its naval capabilities..."

atlrus




msg:3226910
 7:34 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Or maybe they just think (as a lot of people do) that Wikipedia is a genuinely useful site, nd they know perfectly well (as any rational person does) that Wikipedia isn't running a spam network.

Yes, but what kind of links would those be? How many of those links would be "natural" citations (say, from schools or information sites)?

That does not matter, the fact is that even though Google says that its search results are not manipulated by humans, and rely 100% on the algo, it is clear that it's not true.

It is unfair to give a website an advantage - if Wiki is a good website - let them compete just like any other website, and let them feel the burn of getting banned.

Nestle is a great company with many good products - but do you want all food products in the world to be made by Nestle?

Do you want every single city in the world to have Walmart - they have great prices and better selection than any other store in the town, but ...

fischermx




msg:3226949
 8:55 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't like to see the Wikipedia on the top ten for everything either.
But I do think the Wikipedia just became soo famous that the current Google algorithm is ranking them for everything. I don't think Wikipedia has any special of "manual" reputation or rank.

whitenight




msg:3226973
 9:34 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

That does not matter, the fact is that even though Google says that its search results are not manipulated by humans, and rely 100% on the algo, it is clear that it's not true

Again, you're missing the point. Wiki has NOT been "manipulated" to the top of the SERPS.

It's simply Math.

I followed the "path" of Wiki and have commented on their "rise" for several months now.

Wiki went thru the same "sandbox" filters when they suddenly had gobs of links(i think it was a million or so) pop up virtually overnight.

Soon after, all the "niche" people were complaining about wiki dominating their "long tail" searches.

Cut to 6-12 months later with 31 million links and an EXCELLENT internal linking structure and you have wiki Mathematically ranking for broad one word keywords like "jewelry".

Sorry, but it's simply math... the same math that allows spammers to rank, Amazon to rank, and your niche site to rank.

The fact that wiki IS dominating shows the impartiality of the results. Math has a way of being impartial like that. :)

[edited by: tedster at 8:39 am (utc) on Jan. 22, 2007]

egurr




msg:3227008
 10:21 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've heard other people say the same thing I'm about too, but it has happened to me as well so I'll repeat it. Blueleaf is right, Wikipedia has some really great content, and a lot of crap. I had been editing some articles, adding a link to one of my sites as payment, and I got pretty decent traffic. On one topic I ran in to a few problems, just trying to get my message across. Low and behold some teenage editor comes in and nominates it for deletion. The article was about one week old.
The problem with a wiki is some articles take time, I'm not getting paid for it, other than an occasional link. Many others feel the same way.
The big problem facing wikipedia is many of the editors in a category have no expertise in the category they manage. So they just run around the site complaining and deleting.
Then you have very long pages with tons of content, that is just garbage. Having worked with VC firms I know how they operate, Wikip articles across the board are pretty bad, and that's just one subject.
/end rant

whitenight




msg:3227022
 10:48 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Wikip articles across the board are pretty bad, and that's just one subject.

Ok so you DO want human intervention then?

I'm confused...

Bots and algos can't read nor evaluate "good" content vs. "bad" content.

europeforvisitors




msg:3227032
 11:05 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

The focus of this thread is (or was) whether Google is favoring Wikipedia to improve its AdWords profits.

I haven't seen any evidence to support that hypothesis. Has anyone? [Sorry, but merely saying that some Wikipedia pages are "crap" doesn't count. :-)]

atlrus




msg:3227046
 11:33 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Cut to 6-12 months later with 31 million links and an EXCELLENT internal linking structure and you have wiki Mathematically ranking for broad one word keywords like "jewelry".

And you have millions of links out to spammy websites - mathematically - Wiki should have been banned a long time ago, unless human intervention did turned off filters.

And on another note - how would you feel if Dictionary was ranking in the top 10 for every word?!? I mean, the page will be 100% on topic, great content etc.

Wiki is just another half-arse website trying to dominate the Internet based purely on hype. There is maybe 1% true and usefull content on Wiki, and that's a fact.

whitenight




msg:3227056
 11:45 pm on Jan 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

And you have millions of links out to spammy websites - mathematically - Wiki should have been banned a long time ago, unless human intervention did turned off filters

You seem to have bought into the Google propanganda machine that there are "bad neighborhoods" and that you get banned for linking to them.

I've never seen any proof of this.

And on another note - how would you feel if Dictionary was ranking in the top 10 for every word?!? I mean, the page will be 100% on topic, great content etc

First, it doesn't matter how i "feel". I understand the math so I can choose replicate it or not.

The reason Dictionary.com is NOT ranking for every term is the same reason Wiki IS...The math. lol. Don't know how much clearer I can make that. Give Dictionary 38 million links and they would rank too.(albeit, not as well...bad internal linking and all)

Wiki is just another half-arse website trying to dominate the Internet based purely on hype

Lol, i would say the same about G. But that has nothing to do with this discussion nor is it relevant to why they are ranking...

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