threadwatch.org/node/5061 Try searching for example fishing information. First result, and with more sized font is for Wikipedia. That will hurt some revenues.
Actually they have been doing that for quite a while. I first noticed it back in June. Personally I dont like it one bit. 1. It takes traffic away from us. 2. Wikipedia is spammy because of marketing people, people who just love to destroy articles, etc... Why would this ever be considered a valuable source for information? Things like this are all too common: http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2147680/vandals-force-wikipedia-lock Basically, why polute the wonderful google serps with wikipedia entries is my point. Sigh....
I think Google is loosing it. On too many searches there are few relevant sites at the top. Ive started using MSN for default search. This thing with wikipedia is just another example. Yes, this is sour grapes!!!
roughly 90% of my traffic comes from google, I stand at position 1 at MSN for almost all my kw, hardly anybody is using msn to go to my site, so besides using msn for searching, are you also getting traffic via MSN?
So people looking for "information" get directed to Wikipedia first- an Ad-free, up-to-date, accurate informational site? How dare Google do that! Who do they think they are!?
haha, CR, that's pretty good. I think I read somewhere, a study was done (take it for what's it's worth) that found Wiki to be just as relevant as Encyclopedia Britanica. The Wiki elves are pretty zealous about keeping the wiki on the up and up.
Well yes, one way of saying it is that the studie found Wiki to be just as relevant as Encyclopedia Britanica. another way of sayin git is that Encyclopedia Britanica IS almost as bad as wiki. The study showed that Wiki at an avarage had 4 serious faults ineach article while Encyclopedia Britanica only had 3-3.5. (I believe those where the numbers, don't remember exactly but something like that) Calling Wiki add free information is also wrong in my opinion since wiki isn't as good as they would like to believe in removing spam/useless links. personally i would trust wiki more if they added some small adds, stoped asking for money and hired people to actually check more info, keep spam under better controll. Don't get me wrong I think wiki despite all this is a good resource but I still think that it could be so much better.
An encyclopedia should not be done by random people. It should be professors and educated people. WiKi is a terrible source of information, many articles i've read have false information, and have the author's political views and propoganda slipped in. They list many false information, especially about history, because half of them only know a little about the subject and think they enough to write an article about it. Although some of it is quite accurate, it shouldn't be trusted 100%.
Wikipedia is a good resource to go for some little information, BUT is far from deserving a #1 position!!!!!! I knew Google hate SEOs, but too much?
I dont think it should be at the top. I remember a while back noticing a competitor spamming loads of links in different categories so I deleted the all Then put mine there, then they went, then theirs were back, then theirs went and on and on. Its not an authority if anyone can edit it how they like. I wouldnt like to type "medical information" (fortunately its not) and see it at the top.
I don't know too much about english version, but spanish version of wikipedia certainly is far from deserving #1 about contents and quality, but it is just my opinion.
that really sucks i hope they keep off from my keywords... soon and btw ad free my ***, they ask for donations and have gotten $100,000, id accept donations instead of putting ads for sure.... (although it says its a non profit organization) but im sure whoever is in charge does keep some profit google sucks, giving wikipedia first place for everything is just bad.