Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Is this true?
Moreover, do search engines and especially Google obey No Follows?
I just saw a site that came out of nowhere to the top in SERPs for a competitive two-word phrase. I checked Wiki. There is an external link on Wiki with the exact anchor text of the two-word phrase . . . which just happens to link to the web page of the Wiki Spammer with the title of that exact phrase.
That's not exactly conclusive, though. For all we know, that site's jump in ranking could be the direct result of blog and forum spamming, link exchanges, etc. I've got one site with a few dozen links from wikipedia (referencing useful articles, nothing spammy). It takes a lot more than a few Wikipedia links to push someone to the top of the SERPs, especially for a competitive keyword.
The only conclusive way to determine Wikipedia's link value is to find a site with inbounds only from wikipedia and from no other site, and see how it performs in the SERPs with only wikipedia providing its backlinks.
and some of them don't use nofollow ;-)
This is a very good move and Wikpedia have earned at least a modicum of my respect for doing so. Now if they would start vetting the authors/editors, they would gain all my respect.
<added> Yes, all external links are still "no follow".
[edited by: Liane at 10:38 am (utc) on April 8, 2007]
Personally, I couldn't be more pleased that Wikipedia are now using the no follow tag. Perhaps the quality of the material will finally improve since the spammers who masqueraded as editors will have little or no reason to "contribute" any longer!
Wikipedia's use of nofollow tags will only do the following:
1. Ensure that an incredibly small number of spammers "in the know" will cease adding links, but the vast majority will continue to keep adding links for clickthrough purposes or because they still think they'll gain PR value.
2. Punish the sites of those people who make meaningful contributions by not passing on any link value.
If you honestly believe that wikipedia's use of nofollow is going to stop most link spammers, you obviously haven't noticed that blogs are still being spammed like crazy. I consider Wikipedia's actions completely futile.
Ensure that an incredibly small number of spammers "in the know" ...
There is no such thing as a "spammer" who isn't in the know. They make their living from knowing how to game the system.
Punish the sites of those people who make meaningful contributions by not passing on any link value.
But is that the purpose of Wikipedia? Is "link value" the reason Wikipedia exists? I thought those who made "valuable contributions" were doing so for the betterment of the internet and the altruistic purpose of sharing information! To find out that many editors are actually site owners who contributed to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of gaining link value to their own sites is shocking! Hehheh! ;)
Though the flow of information to Wikipedia will most certainly slow down, perhaps now the information submitted will be less one sided, more multifaceted and (more importantly), more accurate!
I have no problem with website owners submitting articles and information to Wikipedia. I am just glad that they may now do it for informational purposes rather than for PR purposes. Hey, its not as though you lost everything ... you will still get the click throughs! :)
[edited by: Liane at 10:09 am (utc) on April 12, 2007]
There is no such thing as a "spammer" who isn't in the know. They make their living from knowing how to game the system.
If that were true, spam posts to blogs with nofollow tags would be nonexistent, yet we still see them. There are white hat and black hat SEO experts, many have the same knowledge, but each elects to go about getting results differently for whatever reason. Were it not for the fact that there was a thread dedicated to wikipedia using nofollow links here on WW, I wouldn't have known about it, and I could have just as easily have been a spammer. As evidenced by the abundance of non-optimized sites, only a minority of designers utlize adequate SEO techniques. Of those that are black hatters, you're not going to convince me that even half of them are fully aware of what will get them sandboxed or what seems like an effective way to get links but isn't. They do what is rumored as effective until someone definitely says "that doesn't work" and its echoed on every webmaster or SEO forum they frequent, rather than hypothesized about. And they're not all on Matt Cutt's mailing list.
I thought those who made "valuable contributions" were doing so for the betterment of the internet and the altruistic purpose of sharing information!
I'm under the impression that most people who use their sites as references or external links do so for those purposes. But its not unreasonable to mutually benefit from such an arrangement, either. I take the time to improve an article, to provide citations for questionable sections that required verification, and I can't benefit from an inbound link because the powers that be can't find a better solution to prevent spamming?
... perhaps now the information submitted will be less one sided, more multifaceted and (more importantly), more accurate!
Why's that then?
Because I believe fewer "fly by night" contributors will bother adding their two cents any longer if there's nothing in it for them.
Somebody who decides they want to contribute an article about car racing or dog grooming or whatever ...may actually take the time to link to sites which offer good information about car racing, dog grooming or whatever and not just their own! (Less one sided.)
Perhaps they will take the time to really explore the topic in depth instead of providing the minimum amount of information acceptable. (More multi faceted.)
I believe anyone who contributes to a project like Wikipedia and does so for nothing (or very little) in return is far more likely to check facts and at least make an honest attempt to be accurate.
Webmasters/web site owners with an ulterior motive don't always bother to check their facts to ensure accuracy. They throw a few paragraphs together, find information (right or wrong) wherever they can (leaving out any serious attempts at real reseach) and just throw it up on Wikipedia so they can add their links or their client's links. For webmasters and website owners, it is generally just a means to an end and the content itself is very much a secondary concern.
I have been offered exactly that advise from three different WebmasterWorld members who are/were prolific "editors" on Wikipedia. I doubt they will be or are any longer because there's nothing "in it" for them now. I think that's a good thing for Wikipedia but more importantly, its a good thing for the general public who (like lambs to the slaughter) put their faith in this online (cough) encyclopedia and tend to believe what is written on their pages.
A web site I control has been plagerized several times by at least one Wikipedia editor. I decided to have a little fun with him by putting out some sure-fire bait, chock full of errors. Within three weeks, that shark took the bait and there it was on Wikipedia ... errors and all, together with their link. He had taken the time to copy and paste it, and re-write it ever so slightly. Perhaps 10 minutes? The man has no conscience! Naturally, I fixed the errors on the donnor site, but Wikipedia still proudly displays all the errors! LOL. It's been over a year now and nobody has edited the errors which are rather glaringly evident to anyone who knows the topic.
So for his trouble, the editor now has a link to his site from some rather embarassingly erroneous, stolen material. I'm glad he gets no link value and I'm thrilled he is linked from some blatantly false information! He deserves it. And Wikipedia deserves to keep the erroneous information on their site for all eternity as far as I'm concerned because they don't bother vetting their editors in any way!
Now if his erroneous stuff wasn't there, I (or some other interested party) might be inclined to contribute to Wikipedia. But as long as the quality of Wikipedia's content is as questionable as I know it is, I have no interest in doing so.
Perhaps, just perhaps ... the no follow tag will have a positive affect on future contributions.
I believe anyone who contributes to a project like Wikipedia and does so for nothing (or very little) in return is far more likely to check facts and at least make an honest attempt to be accurate.
By that argument, anyone who contributes to a charitable organization is more likely to invest their time and energy into doing so if donations were no longer tax-deductible. You don't donate to charity just for the tax benefits, but it doesn't hurt that there's an added benefit whether you are investing time (as in charity or wikipedia) or money. Do people add one line of text just to get a reference link? Sometimes, yes. Can you demonstrate that the majority of people who add content to articles and also hope to get a link are not taking their time? No, you can't, particularly because I'm one of the people that has spent time really fixing up articles just so the information is valid.
On my tax return this year I was *forced* to claim tax back because I was *forced* to declare how much I'd given to charity and I could not refuse the rebate. I even but a note on the form to the effect that I donated to help the charitable cause, not for some tax reason and I really did not want the tax back, but to no avail.
I must be weird and almost alone on this, but I agree with Liane. It's a similar reason for not paying for blood donations in the UK and the UK having a historically much lower rate of infectious disease (HIV, Hep, etc) transmitted in donated blood than in countries where donations are paid for. The moment you pay a penny or have some other direct benefit for doing something then people's motivations are skewed out of all proportion. This is basic human psychology, not rocket science.
Rgds
Damon
Can you demonstrate that the majority of people who add content to articles and also hope to get a link are not taking their time?
No, of course not and I didn't say that all editors did not supply some very good information ... but it is impossible for Joe Blow to distinguish the good from the bad!
Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia and resource which people use to find information. Its a pretty sad situation when the single most important purpose Wikipedia really served (until recently) was as an SEO tool for webmasters to bulk up their own PR.
Until the no follow tag was introduced, the whole premise of Wikipedia was on shaky ground. Now if they would start qualifying/vetting their editors ... it would be even that much better! Maybe some day it will actually become a resource we can all trust and use regularly.
Unfortunately for those webmasters/web site owners who do supply great info, the bad apples have once again managed to spoil the bunch. Its the way of the world and certainly the internet. I contribute my time to an online directory many here like to trash frequently. I specifically opted not to edit my own category because I personally believe that would be a conflict of interest. I have no control (none whatsoever) over my own site listing and trust me, it isn't very favourable ... despite being the best damned site in the industry. ;)
If you want to give, then give! If you want to donate time to a project, then by all means do so but if you want something in return for supplying an article ... go somewhere other than Wikipedia.
[edited by: Liane at 9:12 pm (utc) on April 13, 2007]
Why's that then?I believe anyone who contributes to a project like Wikipedia and does so for nothing (or very little) in return is far more likely to check facts and at least make an honest attempt to be accurate.
There are two types of editors who get direct benefits: Those who do so for links and those who try to manipulate public opinion. It's removing the latter that makes for less one-sided and more accurate articles.
There are two types of editors...
Well, there's that to it as well. However, when it comes to facts, it is hard to site dates in order to manipulate public opinion. ;)
And I dare say there are more than just "two" types of editors. Believe it or not Oddsod, there are people who don't have an ulterior motive!
[edited by: Liane at 2:50 pm (utc) on April 16, 2007]
there are more than just "two" types of editors
However, when it comes to facts, it is hard to site dates in order to manipulate public opinion.
I'll take it the misleading half-quote was a genuine mistake.
Yeah ... actually it was. My apologies! :)
