| 8:33 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Depends on the SE - English Wikipedia uses "no follow" tags for links, so SEO value is generally not very high...some articles send real traffic, though, so that might make more sense for you.
| 8:46 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
wikipedia links are useful when your site is new, to get your site indexed by the search engines, and, like he says, they can deliver some decent traffic.
so they are not to be sniffed at.
but don't expect any ranking benefit though.
| 9:11 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Wiki links (and most other links) get picked up by other resources too. :)
| 6:05 am on Jun 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I am now completely fed up with trying to get a link to my site via the most popular wiki site.
Three years ago, I scoured every category that would relate to the site I had just created, added some useful information, and added a link to my site. No problem.
Now that I've built a new site that's in a much more competitive arena for keywords, I've found that any edits I make in this wiki are deleted. Sometimes in less than ten minutes.
It's the same people who remove any links to my site. My guess is that they're competitors in my niche, and don't like competition. Or maybe they're just little people presiding over their own little fiefdoms.
I have some pretty comprehensive, hand-written articles about topics in my niche. But I'll be damned if I'm going to spend an hour or more preparing them for the wiki format, only to have some #*$!le-faced punk delete one or all of them because I added a link to my site.
If I had the time, I'd engage in a bit of guerilla warfare with these punks. Could be a lot of fun.
| 6:40 am on Jun 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I guess not. What about "acne?"
| 9:48 am on Jun 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
wikipedia is great for new site and for searching information. Wikipedia link will help bring traffic for a site if you post unique and fresh content and with your link.
| 10:23 am on Jun 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Actually, I think all the Wikipedias now have no follow. This is certainly the case with the Hebrew, French and Swedish ones.
| 11:32 am on Jun 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If there is a nofollow for a link then I think there no value addition to the link as the link is ignored by the search engine bots.
| 10:09 am on Jul 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
but they provide GREAT traffic.
| 12:19 pm on Jul 5, 2007 (gmt 0)|
On January 23rd, Matt Cutts commented about Wikipedia adding (again) nofollow to all their links, and wrote: "I don’t expect this change to affect Google’s rankings very much, but it’s good to see the Wikipedia folks paying close attention to link spam".
So, the arguably biggest authority on the web adds millions of nofollow and Google's rankings don't change very much? Hmmm....
| 1:50 am on Jul 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I put a transmission repair advice link there and "only" there about 6 months ago. (it has nothing to do with my main site) But the info is good...so they keep it...Plus I link back.
It was also picked up by a bunch of "about type pages" and gets TONS of hits.
But if your links is crap it won't last...
| 9:59 am on Jul 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
after reading a lot on this what I am able to make out is that links from wikipedia does fetch us a lot of traffic but I doubt whether search engines give then high value
| 9:08 pm on Jul 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|It's the same people who remove any links to my site. My guess is that they're competitors in my niche, and don't like competition. Or maybe they're just little people presiding over their own little fiefdoms. I have some pretty comprehensive, hand-written articles about topics in my niche. But I'll be damned if I'm going to spend an hour or more preparing them for the wiki format, only to have some #*$!le-faced punk delete one or all of them because I added a link to my site. |
First of all, the people making edits probably aren't your competitors, but regular contributors monitoring the "recently edited" list. If you're looking for a red flag, then link to a site with a noticeable amount of Adsense ads, Amazon.com affiliate links, or sites that are commercial in nature. Then, count on someone cross-checking your other edits to pages and then systematically removing those links as well, if they seem even remotely spammy in nature. A link has to contribute to the encyclopedic value of an entry, if it doesn't, it should be removed.
There's a right way to get your links to stick, assuming your site isn't an MFA or pushing retail products or services. Every link I've ever added to Wikipedia over the years is still there, but I added them for the right reasons and nothing about them can be red flagged. If someone removes a link unjustly, I replace it and request that a page be protected to prevent what I consider vandalism.
| 8:29 am on Jul 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Though links in Wiki are nofollowed, still having your site listed on Wiki proves your authority on the topic..which in turn may result in other webmasters on similar topics linking to you.
Wiki links also get you good visitors if they are on important pages. Mainly on the latest trends and technology pages.
| 6:10 pm on Jul 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Wikipedia has the highest TRUST RANK in Google. I will be very proud if I gain a link there.
However, Wikipedia use 'no follow' for all outgoing link, so it may have nothing for SEO.
| 5:09 pm on Jul 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I have a link in wikipedia that has lasted for six months. I put it in there because while the article dealt with a product that is used worldwide, the article itself had a distinct British bend to it. I put in a link to a page on my site that dealt with North American definitions of the uses and parts of this product. To the exact page, not to my index page.
It's brought a small amount of traffic but I believe the link has helped in gaining trust for my site.
| 9:35 pm on Jul 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I would rate a link from Wikipedia with high value -
NoFollow doesn't mean it doesn't pass any link juice... its no where near the amount that is passed without the no follow however you are still gaining some advantage with it
Plus you also have a relevant, content related link that could drive more visitors and spawn more links from that
I want some wikipedia links.... :)
| 5:18 pm on Jul 25, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|NoFollow doesn't mean it doesn't pass any link juice |
I've come across other webmasters saying the same thing, but how exactly can you confirm this?
| 3:00 am on Jul 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
> how exactly can you confirm this?
Just for the irony factor, this is what you'll find at the Wikipedia entry on nofollow in regards to interpretation by search engines [en.wikipedia.org]:
Google takes "nofollow" literally and does not "follow" the link at all. [...]
Yahoo! "follows it", but excludes it from their ranking calculation.
MSN Search supports "nofollow" as regards not counting the link in their ranking [...]
Ask.com does not support the attribute at all.
The above is based on two references, one fom December last year & the other from April this year (so the info is relatively current, if not correct).
I, and obviously others, question the official party line from Google, regarding nofollow, as tests show otherwise. I question it, if only because of Google's stated purpose - to index all info. If Google does completely honour nofollow, that would mean that they have absolute faith in my opinion that the OBLed page has no place on the Internet. So what about the lady that linked to that page, but without nofollow? Who's right? And what about me? I thought the link important enough to add to my site for my visitors, but I don't think it's valuable enough that it should actually be on the 'net? Huh?
Wikipedia may not pass any link juice, but they do pass something FAR more important - traffic. Which would you prefer, #1 with no traffic, or #950 with people viewing your ads? Plus, can anyone say with certainty just how Wikipedia links are treated internally at the SEs? Sure, the link may be nofollowed, but at the same time, it is a link from a trusted authority site that is actively editted & monitored by "a large number" of vigilant editors who hold the "purity" of Wikipedia at heart.
I've never been so bold as to scrape my own content and add a link to myself in Wikipedia - I let others do it for me. Those links (across the various language-specific Wikis), while they may be in some of the "backwater" edges of the Wikipond, do bring in a surprising amount of traffic. And that traffic is something very important - pre-qualified & sticky. The visitor knows exactly what they're getting when they visit my Elbonian Widgets page from the Wikipedia Elbonian Widgets page, and since my site is about widgets from the Greater Elbonian Region, the visitor stays longer than the drive-by visitor doing a search on "elbonian widgets" (who was actually looking for a particular WebmasterWorld thread).
Are people really using Wikipedia to get their new sites indexed? Gee, to me that seems a little desperate, especially given that Google does find & index sites that have no IBLs.
| 11:22 am on Jul 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
balam, you make some interesting observations, but nothing to really support the idea that a link with a nofollow tag passes any link juice. It's pretty obvious that its beneficial to have an inbound link that generates human traffic, I've noticed that even obscure wikipedia pages can produce a surprising amount of traffic. You're right in saying that traffic is traffic, but there's still no evidence to support that any link juice is passed along. You mention "tests", but I've never read about anyone conducting a conclusive test here on WW.
I have a nonprofit authority site on a particular subject that ranked exceptionally well for its target keywords, that was at a time when it had a number of inbound links from Wikipedia. Wikipedia implemented nofollow tags, and the site plummeted in the SERPs within weeks. So while the inbound links still provide some traffic, the site still lost about 50% of its overall by losing rank. So in that respect, the link juice was more valuable than having people click on Wikipedia links. So your reasoning may apply to some sites, but not all.
| 12:12 pm on Jul 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Nofollows did use to 'leak'a bit of benefit which is why so many people still bothered with blog spam etc.
But, according to Matt Cutts the other day, Google has fixed the loophole now.
| 6:22 pm on Jul 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
> interesting observations, but nothing to really support the idea that a link with a nofollow tag passes any link juice.
Here's an observation: Only GYM support nofollow. (Well, as far as I know.)
The implication of that statement is that other SEs - ones that ignore nofollow and use linking as part of their ranking algorithm - will pass juice.
So, if one sees Google (or GYM, for that matter) as the be all, end all, then lament in the fact that you'll receive no Wikilove. But if you realize there's more than the Big 3, then rejoice than you're getting some love. wolfadeus, in the first reply in this thread, hit the nail on the head: "Depends on the SE."
> You mention "tests", but I've never read about anyone conducting a conclusive test here on WW.
Nor have I. See references #8 & #9 in the Wikipedia article I linked to previously for more information.
> I have a nonprofit authority site [...] that ranked exceptionally well [...] Wikipedia implemented nofollow tags [...] the site plummeted [...]
Please, I don't mean to sound offensive, I'm just making an observation, but it sounds like your site wasn't really much of an authority if it was relying on the strength of Wikilinks for its ranking. (Or not "relying on," but "receiving from.") FWIW, my (personally-considered) authority site didn't even notice a blip the times Wikipedia has implemented nofollow. As you note at the end of post, YMMV.
| 12:59 pm on Jul 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
As far as I'm concerned, there's little value of showing up in search engines outside of Google, Yahoo and MSN.
"but it sounds like your site wasn't really much of an authority if it was relying on the strength of Wikilinks for its ranking."
It's an authority site, it also gets about a million page views a month. But for many competitive searches it competes against a number of significant websites with countless inbound links (Time, MTV, AOL, IMDB, etc). If it were an authority site on a specific product, or even dedicated to a single person, it would be easier to compete. My site in particular covers a wide variety of people and things that share a common thread. As an authority site it will always rank #1 for its target keywords, but not necessarily for searches related to a particular person or event found on the site (and that's where Wikipedia helped).