Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
If you wait until you see such a stub page for your site and then gradually fill in the details, you'll stand a much better chance of not being deleted.
RandomDot, branding is also about noticing and participating in the conversation about your company. Wikipedia is part of that conversation.
[edited by: tedster at 8:50 pm (utc) on Oct. 1, 2007]
You'll just get them deleted by the mods. dont bother
Not neccessarily. It depends on the topic and on the quality of your content. The key is that Wikipedia will only allow sites adding to the article with more information.
I have two of my sites in Wikipedia for 5 months and no mod has tried to remove them. It is too early to tell if being on Wiki does me any good but it gives me some 10 - 20 visitors each day, targeted visitors, I would say.
On the other hand, Wikipedia hasn't helped me to rank higher with Google. In fact, I don't see how it could - it uses NOFOLLOW on all external urls.
It is easy to get in wikipedia, but staying in is a different story. One reason is because the mods are quite able to see if you are there for links, spamming, or site promotion, so if you take the approach of joe schmo and contribute to existing articles, edit what you think is a spam link and so on, you will gain a little rep from the people that hawk wikipedia articles and they would be less likely to remove or edit something you have done.
Its also a good idea to lay low with your own personal pages and links if mods are watching you. I would say every 30 days the person thats deleting your stuff stops watching as closely and then you can start up again. Just go a little slower and even out your additions between your personal links and pages with existing articles you think need improvement.
Also, you can file an AMA if someone is constantly deleting your stuff. When you do that you are getting a mediator to be the go between and if you are the one that startes it, they think you care enough to defend your honor.
All in all Wikipedia has been OK for biz sales when it comes to branding a name, but where most people fail is when they only do something in wikipedia to brand their name only.
Wikipedia: Association of Members' AdvocatesThank you for expressing interest in joining the AMA!
Unfortunately, at this time the Association is undergoing a major revision, so new membership is discouraged.[en.wikipedia.org...]
FWIW, "nofollow" isn't just a Google attribute. Yahoo and MSN also honor it.
Google has redefined the original purpose of the attribute. Given their market position and the redefintion, there are strong grounds to consider it a Google attribute.
Shucks, you can read about this very issue on wikipedia ;)
Given their market position and the redefintion, there are strong grounds to consider it a Google attribute.
I suspect that Yahoo and MSN would disagree. :-)
We could cite the original authors (Matt Cutts and Jason Shellon) and their intent "to submit this specification to a standards body with a liberal copyright/licensing policy..." That might make it sound like a Google attribute that is licensed by MSN and Yahoo (but not Ask or other SEs), given the authors' affiliate with Google.
As far as redefining the attribute, the original abstract of the spec reads, "RelNoFollow is an elemental microformat, one of several microformat open standards. By adding rel="nofollow" to a hyperlink, a page indicates that the destination of that hyperlink SHOULD NOT be afforded any additional weight or ranking by user agents which perform link analysis upon web pages (e.g. search engines). Typical use cases include links created by 3rd party commenters on blogs, or links the author wishes to point to, but avoid endorsing."(Emphasis added)
You will note that the original spec gives the "author" of the content the discretion to use the tag on links they want to avoid endorsing.
Are G's statements suggesting using the attribute on paid links consistant with the original spec?
Seems to me that if one holds the copyright, and one redefines the original usage, then one is displaying some sense of "ownership".
Yep, it's a Google attribute...
so while the nofollow seems to be treated as though the website its on is not endorsing the link there is nothing in that attribute to me thats says google has to treat it the same way. If they apply their own trust criteria to it there is no reason to believe weight will not be given.
my view is formed by watching all the major sites who employ the big seo gurus and other biggies switch to nofollow for all external links...
So, is using nofollow to manipulate the flow of page rank any different than selling links or spamming blogs to manipulate page rank?
BTW, Wikipedia shot to the top of G SERPS across thousands, or hundreds of thousands of terms very shortly after implementing nofollow on all external links. That might serve as a clue to how G is implementing nofollow.
So, is using nofollow to manipulate the flow of page rank any different than selling links or spamming blogs to manipulate page rank?
yes. It's to tell a search engine its not an important page and dont bother spending time on this. Its also clearly a message from whoever controls the actual originating site. Theres no question of the validity of who posted the nofollow. Its totally opposite to the others.
BTW, Wikipedia shot to the top of G SERPS across thousands, or hundreds of thousands of terms very shortly after implementing nofollow
you counted that many? All i can say is wiki was sailing close to top of the serps in all the areas i watch, and thats where it was after the implementation too. I saw no difference in the immediate aftermath.
