Google's loving of wikipedia is going too far...

as i said earlier start one for webmasters, these people know how to get content and know that content is money

some sort of revenue sharing pedia

 

Or 1 giant big blog? rofl..

(oooh..101st post..and i'm now a beserker..lol)

 

That would be advertiseing.

That would be the korean lot. The US lot were paid for by the foundation

So far google have shown no intention of supporting wikimedia.

Have you met them? Foundation people are pretty nice.

The majority of the people in the foundation started out as standard editors.

 

u sound like you are on their payroll

nvm since ^^^ seem to work for them

whats the the story with "no follow" on the links? alot of the articles are paraphrased from other sites and books, and now its like "we took your content, but were wikipedia its ok its for good cause, and guess what we dont want to credit you"

come on its not like the info on wikipedia just appeared out of thin air it was collected from various resources and not properly linking to these sources will in the long run backfire straight back at google as searching the web will become searching wikipedia, what u think will happen when your average person will stop googling for info but will skip google and go straight to wikipedia (as is already done by using their browser search plugins

 

Wikipedia will always be limited in how much detailed information it can give you, so people will never stop searching the web for info. Plus, if a site really has useful info and is not just trying to sell something, you should have no problem adding your site as an external link on Wikipedia w/out fear of it being removed.

 

Nah most of the foundation jobs suck somewhat.

I don't think nofollow has any effect on books one way or another. Wikipedia is not interested in helping google and the like with their search rankings. That is what DMOZ is for.

There are a lot of things not on wikipedia:

Places to buy stuff
Places to play games
Forums
Porn less than 100 years old
Social networking stuff
Really indepth sites
Comics
And many other things. I don't think google needs to worry about wikipedia for a long time to come.

 

I always found the wikipedia results showing up all the time quite annoying because their results are never what I'm looking for and if I wanted an enclopedia result I would go to one instead of the google search box.

Lately though, just like banner blindness, I think i'm developing wiki blindness.

This whole "no follow" move the wiki is making is total BS. They build themselves up getting links/trust/PR from everyone on the web and now they decide to hog all the PR to themselves by implementing "no follow" on everything? Complete BS.

If you think they rank for everything now, just wait 'till they maintain all their PR and growth too themselves.

That list will definitely be shrinking...

I agree, Yes, that is the right mindset to have. If they want to send links of no confidence to everyone, then everyone should do the same back. Not just for future links, but for any links webmasters can go back and change if it means anything to them. Not only are they holding back PR but they're saying they don't trust you.

I agree that there may not even be an impact, and their definitely won't be an impact if Google has hardcoded their immunity, but it's the principal behind it.

I disagree with that attitude though, 'cause if nothing is done, nothing can change period. That's the attitude of a slave to any system, and the very reason for half the mess this world is in in general.

And who knows over time as Google's index keeps growing, it may have some effect, it may just be the thing that prevents the wiki from ranking for your top keywords someday, regardless of how competitive they are or not.

It's obvious the wiki is dominating the serps and they are going to get alot stronger now. Their is absolutely no reason to support this by continuing to link to them without the "no follow".

This change by the wiki may actually be a precursor to the change towards monetization or selling it off. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm sure google would love to get their share or see adsense on the wiki.

No point in whining, either suck it up or do your part. Whether it will impact or not, I mean, how hard is it to spread the word and start adding "no follow" to your wiki links? Fair is fair.

You've got nothing to lose only your serps.

 

Google loves wikipedia because if they rank non-profit sites in the SERP's for good 'money keywords', other websites which are for-profit, will have to buy adwords.

 

Not really unless you can show that the majority of people linking to wikipedia were thinking about page rank.

Doubful most would fall outside the foundation's mandate.

Not wikipedia is saying that is no way for it to know if a link is valid or put there by people trying to promote their website.

Wikipedia is not for sale. It is a .org for a reason.

 

Basically any generic search term on Google will have Wikipedia among the top few listings..LOL

 

Huh? It doesn't matter what people are thinking, whether it's about page rank or not. When someone links to the wiki that link counts as a vote of trust and passes PR, period.

That's laughable. Since the wiki ranks for almost everything already, they must have the biggest mandate in google. Not only that, the wiki may control it's own optimization but it cannot control everybody's sites content and anchor text people use to link to the wiki which can also make the wiki rank for almost anything.

Well maybe they should come up with a better solution. If they want to use rel=nofollow on all links then so should everyone else in return, fair is fair.

Either a link counts as a vote of trust and passes PR or it doesn't, there's no in between unless manipulated by google.

Whether the link is placed by wiki or people doesn't matter, using rel=nofollow tells google your not vouching for the link/content which means don't trust it or send PR.

Any webmaster can test this on a new site or site with little trust and PR, adding rel=nofollow to pages on your site tells google you don't trust pages on your own site and is a great way to send them straight to supplemental hell.

 

hmm wonder if google honors the nofolow to wikipedia

 

Wikipedia provides information, It deserves to be there, but without many Inbound links, this exceptional site ranks number to many keywords, Googz must have changed their algo to fit such sites. In fact its not an algo its a manual twist ), google has no algo, a bunch of Workers who visit sites and copy paste ) =))

 

I guess it’s futile to talk sense into some people, go on keep linking to Wikipedia the way you normally do and soon you will be starting another thread, Wikipedia took the ranking for my favorite keyword and I am not getting any traffic!

Come on people it is time to stand up and dash out the treatment that is being handed out to you.

Using a nofollow is in simple words saying I don’t trust you!

What is so hard to understand?

If they wanted to keep spammers at bay they could have found some other way or probably got more editors to keep a track on all the editing taking place, but no they choose to say all links in Wikipedia are crap, regardless of the fact that a link might be to the source of Wikipedia’s own article.

We already know that Wikipedia doesn’t produces any content, it is produced by people like you and me and then “stolen” by so called “experts” at Wikipedia who blatantly copy our work and place it in Wikipedia and then they have the audacity to say your site is not trust worthy?

But I guess its all good because they are .org and don’t have advertisements so I guess they don’t come under copy right laws and common decency that one should follow and can dish out what ever they want and we should just bend backwards take it.

Yeah google has a different algorithm for Wikipedia, another for amazon, another for digital point, so on and so forth.

 

I know wikis are the devil ; P

 

Creating the no follow tag is annoying; however, for some people, the fact that Wikipedia is ranking as the first listing in the search results can mean free organic traffic anyway. If you have a quality site that manages to remain as an external link on a Wikipedia entry, then you will get traffic anyway when people scroll down and visit the external links--now more so since Wikipedia is always showing up as the first search result. For new sites, it's alot easier to get traffic that way than trying to do SEO and get a high PR.

 

However the intention is normally to say "go here". And since they put the link there there is a fair chance they know if that is a valid request or not. On the other hand most people turn nofollow on in blog comment sections and the like.

Not really:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement

Eh wouldn't some of the stuff Google has put in place against Google bombing stop that beyond a certain point?

Yeah well apparently arranging for a few people who add vanity links to suffer high profile deaths and painful is unethical.

No because if you link to somewhere logicaly you must trust the link enough to want to send people there. The wikimedia foundation though has no control over where people link to.

Well no given the number of people adding vanity links there is no real way know from a centeral position if any given link can be trusted.

 

No useing nofollow is a way of saying I can't control the content of this part of my website. Google guidelines would recomend wikipedia being nofollow.

Wikipedia is not interested in being DMOZ.

Where from?

Copy and paste would be copyvio. Copyvios are not that common on wikipedia.

You think the authors of the relivant papers object to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biaxial_nematic

Copyright problems should be reported to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CP

Or marked with {{db-copyvio|url=whatever.com}}

 

Basically you search anything you want, Advertising, Marketing, Search, Dictionaries, Books, DSP, Electronic commerce anything its there in top listings.
:-s

 

What's your definition of a vanity link anyway? If the link goes to a website with useful information about a product, but the link was added by the publisher of that site, does that count as a vanity link? Because Wikipedia seems to have no problem with vanity entries, as the long as the entry is about someone or something the editors deem to be "famous enough." Wikipedia is a great place for corporations and others to promote themselves. It's free publicity. So if these corporations get to have entries promoting themselves, I don't see what's wrong with someone adding a vanity link if the link actually has useful and pertinent information.