Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & andy langton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google + Wikipedia = Higher Adwords Profits

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

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 19, 2006
votes: 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!
11:13 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Oct 27, 2001
votes: 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.

12:16 am on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jomaxx is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 6, 2002
votes: 0

Um, I don't agree with that first part. The principle for listing DMOZ pages and Wikipedia pages should be exactly the same unless there's hand-editing going on somewhere.

In fact it's not hard to bring up DMOZ pages in Google's results if you try; one reason DMOZ is not as prevalent may be that its title tags are set up non-optimally (the title contains the entire path down to the page).

1:10 am on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:June 20, 2002
votes: 0

"If this isn't spam, then I'm not really sure what is."

That's your problem then.

A Wikipedia result may or may not be a good result for a term, but calling it spam is goofy.

It's no coincidence that complaints here have been from someone without an idea of what spam is, and another who didn't know the difference between two of Google's moneymaking enterprises.

Get out of the 20th century. Big, popular websites will rank well in search engines that are based on a PAGE rather than a domain. Wikipedia's one page on a topic surely can't compare with a niche domain with thousands of pages on knitting, but that isn't how engines rank things.

Either build a million page website recognized (rightly or wrongly) by tens of millions of people as an authority, or don't. But the future of the Internet belongs to big, powerful, dominant entities, just like the world does.

1:21 am on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 26, 2000
votes: 0

This entire thread seems pretty fruitless to me by now. The subject itself "Google + Wikipedia = Higher Adwords Profits" has proven to be untrue, so what else is there to discuss?

So I'm locking the thread now. If someone has more to contribute of a subtantial nature, let me know.

This 94 message thread spans 4 pages: 94

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members