Well regardless of whether or not google is obsessed with wikipedia, I think wikipedia is an amazing tool. It has everything you could want and more. One flaw though, anyone watch Colbert?
Wikipedia is at least useful. I am much more annoyed by blog results. They shouldn't be friggin indexed at all. I have to sidestep all those blog-looking urls each time I search.
How about filtering eBay results? If I wanted to know what's on eBay, I'd search eBay. I don't go to a SE to get that info; it just clutters the front pages of the results.
I love you! I have been saying that exact same thing for years and nobody else seems to agree, seriously Wikipedia just keeps gathering MILLIONS for their so called "servers". Never do I see any improvements whatsoever. IT
Well if load increases you need to increase server numbers just to keep up see https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/All_servers for list of servers.
actually if you go thru their accounts alot of the money collected is not used and servers only amount to 100K, but they still ask for more.. also if they dump apache in favor of lighttpd, that would need about half less servers, not to mention mediawiki is one big load of spaghetty code no wonder its hard to update it
http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlepedia This thread is ..umm well I have been thinking the last few years that google is just getting far too big.. the wiki isn;t accurate at all,why should it be praised by google? actually.....hmm..nevermind.. Are we slowly getting brainwashed by all the big giants? I'd better shut up now... (edit: ooh i'm a grunt now lol)
actually on their image servers do, the rest is apache... https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/All_servers they can seriously cut down in that department alone
you guys are acting like google is purposely giving wikipedia preference....Wikipedia is a great site that attracts a lot of links and the internal linking structure is excellent.
I didn't expect that from a "SEO Ranter" What you are basically saying is that highly optimized and heavily linked websites should normally be ranked below Wikipedia's pages that aren't even optimized for the keywords they are ranking for. Google is PURPOSEDLY GIVING PREFERENCE TO WIKIPEDIA, because Google wants to extend "as much information as possible for a search" and thats why they chose to play it safe and started giving Wikipedia preference, since Wikipedia is heavily moderated and hardly anything there is presented in a manner deemed inappropiate, and even if it does seem inappropiate to someone, they could just edit it. Wikipedia is a great content filled website no doubt and its internal pages have some great PR but still that doesn't make those pages eligible to appear at the top of the search results for highly competitive keywords even when there are websites to devoted to the same subject with thousands of links, hundreds of pages in original content and all articles optimized for the keyword Wikipedia is ranking better for. IT
personal experience with running several dozen servers in 2 clusters, lighttpd really does help with php fastcgi and doesnt chew ram up like apache as for the code take a look yourself at mediawiki, its all whacky procedural php code http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf Year Ended June 30,2006 Salaries and wages 107,122 Internet hosting 189,631 .... total expenses 791,907 total revenue 1,508,039 thats for 2006 they recently raised another few million so yea go figure
At some level we are responsible for the growth of wikipedia, I had written some thing regarding this in my blog yesterday Giving Wikipedia a taste of its own medicine I think this is some thing all of us should start to implement if we want the internet to remain a fair and level playing ground.
I search "bulls**t information" and "false information" on Google and had funny results from Wikipedia! Blindely appliying rules like that was not the kind of quality we are used to see from Google. They are trying to use the short path with this kind of approach.