Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
When i'm looking for a product or service I often see wiki in the top 5 results. Especially in my niche of computer something.I don't want to see wiki's in the search results for products and services and I don't want to compete with them for eyeballs when trying to sell my products and services.
Just out of curiosity, how do you define "search results for products and services"? A search on "buy windows vista" or "widgetco d100 camera review" is pretty clearcut, but a search on "windows vista" or "widgetco d100 camera" could be be an information search or a shopping search. Are you saying that Wikipedia comes up in the top 5 when you're doing obvious shopping searches?
That is, I suspect, true -- at least, of the portion of the elephant one of the blind men saw. If you are thinking of a site in terms of SERP tools, not information (which is like thinking of an elephant in terms of its capacity for supporting ticks), yes.
But if you're thinking in terms of information, neither community wants to build what the other wants to build -- this feeling is srong enough in Wikipedia to have led to some major changes in linking recently; and it's old enough in the ODP to predate my time.
Wiki is like an encyclopedia. The ODP is like a card catalog. Both have valuable places in a library. Neither one can in any way substitute for the other, and neither community wants to try.
This should have been clear to anyone who reads this thread. It is NOT the ODP editors who are complaining about competition from Wikipedia. (In internal forums, we're discussing ways we can compete with Wikipedia. We're even discussing ways we can PROMOTE Wikipedia!)
I don't think Wikipedia will ever replace websites from the kind of genuine authority who has personal real-world respect from his international peers for his expertise -- and of course I'm happy to promote those sites also. An ODP category (or Google search result) with a couple of Wikipedia articles and a half-dozen Google Print (or Project Gutenberg) books is off to a great start.
But Ebay does a better job of the first one than Google COULD do. And in any case I agree that people shouldn't be using Google for catalog searches. It CAN'T possibly do a good job in an ideal world -- and in this one there are just flat too many people working to subvert it.
And Wikipedia has a site search already, which people are welcome to use.
People who know enough to want those those two searches, know how to get them -- and they're not at Google.
Here are two examples off the top of my tin foil hat:
<popular desktop database> programmer
<popular desktop database> programming
wiki comes out 6 or 7 on these but those are just the first two I tried... likely there are better examples.
If Google did not show any results from these it would be failing in it's mission.
By giving them their own space OR by limiting them to only a single entry (not a whole load from different pages / subdomains) in each page of results it would allow a broader selection of sites to be offered to a searcher.
Anybody that seriously thinks that these sites should be excluded is plainly mad.
Wikipedia is THE information resource bar none. Sure it may not be right but no matter what site you run it does not have as much information as wiki. Your site may have more accurate detail but from a three word search term wiki is very likely to be a better fit for most searchers.
EBay is exactly the same for e-commerce. There is no bigger online shop with as much choice.
If either of these were not popular with users they just would not have got to where they are now.
I don't like it either and it will only get worse if something constructive can't be done. Maybe the algo will sort out the multiple listings in a set of results thing sometime soon and that is all I think that it is reasonable to ask for.
But I have a war story from a real user. She tried to find something to buy (details don't matter, but it was a very specific item) on Google. Found nothing except some (strictly informational) content I had contributed. Wrote me asking for help.
I directed her to a commercial catalog aggregator (details don't matter, but eBay is not the only really-top-drawer CCA!). That site offered 8 sources for what she wanted.
There is no way on earth that Google could have done a good job of offering searches on up-to-date catalogs on other sites. If those catalogs HAD been in the Google database, there would have been a dozen or so hits, NEARLY ALL OF WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN IRRELEVANT, because catalogs of one-off items are so dynamic.
Since that's true, (1) Google should try their best not to show such pages (because they are too dynamic), and (2) Everyone who shops should be using eBay or another CCA that has direct access to current database searches, (3) Anyone who wants to help surfers, or to help make the online economy more efficient, would accomplish that best by helping Google (on the one hand) and shoppers (on the other) clear online catalogs out of the Google database.
(Possibly into ANOTHER Google database -- Froogle or the like -- but that's not the issue. The issue is, a general web index can't work for shopping catalogs.)
Or google will cut a deal with them and pay their bills.
Either way, wiki is going to go no where and continue to grow and stomp on the MFA sites.
As students begin their online research, they could view the prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy and reliability of the source. Given the search exposure and sheer volume of data available on the site, they might fall into the trap of relying on a single source for their education. Hopefully their research projects won't involve elephants or professional golfers
Taken from [time.com...]
Bloggers eh? Yea good source. They will not close, someone will purchase them and put adsense on the site.
Possibly but the socialist rich kids and bored government employees won't take well to that. It kinda destroys the kick they get to do something supposedly good and they would join the evil army of commerce.
Sdditionally the price would jump up as any form of donation would seize. But maybe pocketmoney for Google.
The most realistic option is that G or Yahoo gonna fight for it. As far as I know, Yahoo already did pay them some squids caches in Asia.
As students begin their online research, they could view the prevalence of Wikipedia references in Google as proof of the accuracy and reliability of the source.
So? Is Google supposed to ignore Wikipedia because some students are stupid, lazy, or badly trained?
Wikipedia itself has a whole list of caveats on its "About" page, including a section on "Using Wikipedia as a Research Tool," at:
[en.wikipedia.org...]
It isn't Google's fault (or Wikipedia's) if some students fail to read that page, which could just as easily be titled "Using Wikipedia 101."
Google will think so.......
"Bloggers eh? Yea good source."
Matt Cutts is a blogger :) But his blog is a blog so by your standards it is not a good source.
So? Is Google supposed to ignore Wikipedia because some students are stupid, lazy, or badly trained?
[lists.wikimedia.org...]
If you read closely you can find that yahoo gives them bandwidth and wiki owns common shares of stock in google.
Google and yahoo both are already in bed with wiki. Sounds more like wishful thinking by some blogger who is losing adsense revenue.
Pay attention people, wiki is going no where and will continue to grow! Look at their cash flow and assets!
People link to Wikipedia all the time.
“There are indeed only about a million dollars (760,000 euros) in the bank, but compared to previous years that is almost comfortable. It is enough for three or four months"
So they burn about $300 000 a month.
Thats cause yahoo is picking up the cost.
It is insignificant.
Acording to the financial statement:
During fiscal year 2006, the Organization also received
donated hosting services and bandwidth from two companies,
Yahoo! and Kennisnet. However, since the value of the
donated services and bandwidth cannot be reasonably
estimated, there are no related amounts recorded in the
accompanying statement of activities for 2006.
Note that almost $190,000 was paid for hosting 350(?) servers, which comes at about $45 a month per unit.
Pretty expensive for a highly supported org.
And no, they don't have one million to live from. That amount equals to all the assets of the foundation, including essential computer equipment, which btw depreciate very fast.
Off topic, but what are the Paypal fees anyway, which amounts to whooping $45,000?
Finally, I don't think 187 shares of Google stock could make any advantage in the serps.
I firmly maintain it is the 'rel="nofollow"' tag combined with their high trust factor.
Of course, 2,5 million links have its contribution too.
The massive dominance of Wikipedia in the search results should be addressed for reasons pointed out by many in this thread. Maybe the Wikipedia results could be added to the right hand "[definition]" link which shows up for many search terms?
[edited by: DumpedbyG at 7:40 pm (utc) on Mar. 6, 2007]
Couldn't that mean linking in such a manner as to manipulate results? Woulnd't this be unnatural?
Excuse me while I reason this out...
If Wiki is a valuable resource then the those outgoing links should be up-to-date, on topic, and monitored. Just like any other well done site. The nofollow tag says they don't trust those resources. Thus they don't trust editors, contributors, nor trust the information referenced in their content. Which in my mind can make their information a bit untrustworthy as a whole. If editors allow such links as "Reference" or "External Link" resources then why not pass the vote especially when their content is researched and derived from those resources as well as monitored for quality?
I understand they want to control spamming. That is fine control it. Put a nofollow on new links until an editor can review them. But return the favor for goodness sake. I don't mind my content being referenced but give me the whole bang for my time and buck. They They can't stop the spamming now since they are now a TRAFFIC resource not just a PR resource - they are equally as screwed and still have to monitor links anyway...so why not? Or is this an excuse to manipulate? If it weren't for others allowing votes to Wiki -- Wiki wouldn't be much more than a tumbleweed in the wind. Return the favor.
If this is considered manipulation then I wonder why Google isn't doing anything about it. If wiki gets away with it then what keeps any other site from doing it? What happens when everyone else does it. Blog software coding in a nofollow on all external links, new versions of CMSystems doing the same, etc. Where will this lead?
To me it should be: you link, you vote. Crappy resource or not. If Google is as smart as they think they are they should be able to tell the difference and not hold anything against the linking site nor should they allow PR to pass in certain circumstances...errrr I will just end the rant here.
If this is considered manipulation then I wonder why Google isn't doing anything about it.
Probably because:
1) Google knows perfectly well that Wikipedia is a useful resource, not a spam site, and...
2) Wikipedia is using the "nofollow" attribute as it was intended to be used: to neutralize and discourage link spam.
I agree that it would be nice if Wikipedia would find a better way to use "nofollow," but I also think the people at Google are smart enough to know that (unlike link spammers) Wikipedia isn't trying to pull a fast one for its own commercial gain.
Where were you when we needed you? When people were trying to browbeat individual ODP editors into putting nofollow tags on ODP links? Your insight would have been valuable ... then.
Same here. They are using the tag how it was meant to be used. There is no doubt about that. To prevent spam since it is publicly edited. Just one of those scenerios where the good guys get the "not allowed to own a gun" shaft because the bad guys had fun shooting up the town.
