Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.25.166

Message Too Old, No Replies

Wikipedia Taking Over Google SERPs

     
9:41 pm on Aug 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

5+ Year Member

joined:June 7, 2006
posts:21
votes: 0


Anyone else getting sick of fighting for rankings with content spam and other junk articles from wikipedia? Seems like wiki is taking over Google serps, I'm actually surprised a soft filter hasn't been applied to the site. Kinda of reminds me of the surfwax com plague that hit Google a couple of years ago, thankfully they were booted eventually. My opinion is wiki needs to be pushed into some obscure corner of the net, and left to find legitimate traffic like the rest of us.
9:11 pm on Aug 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 17, 2003
posts:96
votes: 0


What!?

You mean Google is not another way to search Amazon.com and Wikipedia, Ebay and Bizrate?

9:15 pm on Aug 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 17, 2003
posts:96
votes: 0


Wikipedia is Linkbait!

Since alot of webmasters feel that linking to an authority is the right thing to do to increase their own rankings, Wikipedia has gone through the roof.

9:50 pm on Aug 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:May 31, 2006
posts:170
votes: 0


"Since alot of webmasters feel that linking to an authority is the right thing to do "
Well not waste your time delete those links if you have any.
10:38 pm on Aug 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 30, 2001
posts:1739
votes: 0


>You mean Google is not another way to search Amazon.com and Wikipedia, Ebay and Bizrate?

It's a very poor way to search Ebay, for the reasons already suggested. Anyone who wants to search amazon/ebay/bizrate but NOT alibris, probably doesn't know how to read anyway.

11:36 pm on Aug 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:May 7, 2006
posts:60
votes: 0


There are many examples in the recently released AOL search data of people searching in just these ways.
12:48 am on Aug 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 24, 2003
posts:729
votes: 0


1) What source isn't "incomplete"?

2) How many sources are "completely accurate"?


No source is complete or completely accurate this is why it is important that multiple sources can succeed. When everyone keeps linking to and referencing a couple of "Walmart" type broad spectrum sources, those sources can flood out other good sources, that then have a harder time remaining viable operations.

3) How is Google to know if a Wikipedia article is "incomplete" or "completely accurate"? It's just a robotic search engine. At best, it can "know" (i.e., predict with a reasonable degree of statistical confidence) that a Wikipedia is relevant a given search term and likely to be of value to the user.

I agree absolutly. My personal gripe isn't with Google, rather with people who keep linking to Wikipedia or reference it as their defacto go to source for everything even in matters where it isn't an appropriate source to use (e.g. science).
3:07 am on Aug 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 10, 2005
posts:60
votes: 0


Google is well aware of these sites getting priority.. believe what you want but it's not a coincidence they haven't done anything.

Maybe it's because wiki could be a future Google acquistion?


That wouldn't surprise me in the least.

shsh

4:35 pm on Aug 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


Buying wikipedia is totally pointless. There is nothing that they could get what they could not have right now. And there is nothing that could prevent others from simply forking and going away.
8:53 am on Aug 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 24, 2003
posts:544
votes: 0


Plenty of surfers visit my site when researching about the broad history of glowing widgets (it is a site with almost 5.000 self written pages), thinking wow, cool content, copies it and pastes it into an existing wikipedia article (or even worse makes a new site with my content) so he looks smart (or for whatever reason).

I have to identify those articles, delete them, it gets republished (because once it is in the wiki then it must be theirs?), gets deleted again by me, then forth and back discussion in the talk pages, a nightmare, this is an almost daily problem i have to deal with.

Isn`t it disgusting that Google actually encourages content theft by ranking my content on a different page so high?

12:46 pm on Aug 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 24, 2003
posts:729
votes: 0


I have to identify those articles, delete them, it gets republished (because once it is in the wiki then it must be theirs?), gets deleted again by me, then forth and back discussion in the talk pages, a nightmare, this is an almost daily problem i have to deal with.

Don't delete the articles, file a DMCA take down notice with Wikipedia. Then by law, they have to take the articles down. I had to do this on couple of occassions and this did make the offending articles go away permanently.
This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: 70