If you search for Kiwi on google, there's a split in the page. The first half gives results for Kiwi from Wikipedia and Youtube. The other half gives results for 'kiwi fruit' from various other websites. What is this? Is google favoring youtube and wikipedia? Or is this just a way Google is now serving results to match what the user is searching for?
I just wrote this...why is Wikipedia so highly favoured for EVERY possible search query. It's ridiculous.
Well, wikipedia has such high authority. But even at that, why are the pages split and only serve youtube and wikipedia results? Aaron wall kind of talks about this. He says that: http://www.seobook.com/archives/002143.shtml
Not to be picky; but what he says reads to me like a whole lot of nothing. Can you break it down in a way that actually makes sense and not this generic mumbo jumbo
He's just saying that Wikipedia is rocking the internet because all other information on the web blows.
Oh man, I was hoping there was more to it Do you believe that? Wikipedia is good but it ranks too high in too many instances. To say there is nothing better is untruthful in my opinion. How can single pages rank above sites entirely devoted to that particular query?
If it continues there will no longer be a need to use Google. Just go straight to Wikipedia and search there. It's not that everything else sucks compared to wikipedia. It's just that Wikipedia is so large, has so many backlinks, and is considered a major authority (because of its backlinks). Everything else sucks at obtaining enough backlinks to compete. This type of skew for sites like Wiki and YouTube does not serve internet users well. In many cases I can see a use for the Wiki results being there, but YouTube? The majority of searchers are not looking for some crapy mashed up video that is mildly entertaining for a minute or two. This was discussed earlier here in regards to You tube being #2 for SHOES So are YouTube's results more quality and relevant content to everything else out there? Does eveything else suck in comparison? No, YouTube's relevancy sucks! They just happen to have so many backlinks giving them authority status.
Just Yes There are more and more pages around internet, but always you can find top ten, amazon, shopping, wikipedia and youtube.... Jakomo
I think also that search intent needs to be fixed. Google doesn't know if a person searching for "shoes" is looking to buy shoes, to look up kinds of shoes, to find shoe related humour, etc. Right now you can refine the results by searching "buy shoes" or "shoe shopping" or "shoe sites" or what have you, but currently the generic results are still not distinct enough.
Well I see this only as a problem for people with information only sites. Personally I love Wikipedia, if Im searching for a person I already know the format and u cant blame Google for showing what people want to see.
wiki pedia is very much reputed and also the quality of the articles at wiki is pretty nice. they don't accept just another article, and that is why they are so highly reputed!!
wiki and youtube get a lot of links and Google still relies on links so yes, they are favoring those two but they favor all other sites that have a lot of incoming links. p.l.u.r.
see google will not make special changes in algo to put them in Search ranking. but both sites are old and have fresh content on it.and one more thing they got lots of links with high pr. google considering both sites highly reputed that might be the reason of it.
They're old, yes. Fresh content because any visitor can edit the page and put whatever they want on it. Not all pages are moderated as heavily as you think. In my opinion, wikipedia should be a great resource for a lot of people, but can't be trusted as much as Google is trusting them now.