A keyword I have been monitoring for a while just recently had wikipedia drop from the first result to mid-way down on the second page. Are there some ranking changes in the works?
I'm sure google is going to do something algo wise to stop wiki because it is not the best experience for the user to see wiki pages on all these searches.
What I really dislike with wikipedia in on the SERPs is that I search for something in English and of course the English wiki page is #1 (or sometimes #2) but then half of the first page consist of wiki pages in German, French or whatever languages, even if the non-English pages only contain a headline and has no other content they outrank quality websites.
I find it interesting that Google is giving so much weight to wiki when many perceive it as the greatest threat to Google. If everyone goes to Wiki first instead of Google, Google loses power. I also consider Wiki to be a mixed bag as any of us can go in and edit it. If you are clever you can add your own links (don't bother trying webhosting or mesothelioma or....). So rather than cursing Wiki, add some content, develop some credibility, and where appropriate add an external link and be ready to replace it when someone to edits it out. Hey how come nobody here has written up a Digital Point forums entry in Wikipedia? There is a Shawn entry.
I think it's a good thing that wikipedia is on top and it's really helpful to me most of the time! i strongly disagree that there is any incorrect data on wikipedia, though since everyone can edit to add data sometimes wanted or not some people put incorrect data there but it will get edited very fast! yes, i even remember hearing that their next project is a search engine!
Google does give Wiki unjustified weight in my opinion. I'm a regular contributor to several personal finance related topics on Wiki, and almost all of them are placed on the first page with the most competitive keywords. Are those pages good? Yes. Are they that good? Definitely not. "Content is King" is only right sometimes. But what is more annoying is .edu sites written by a few students learning HTML that have not been updated in years rank so high on Google.
I agree with this one - But here is a recent search -- vBulletin -- The wiki page now tops the offical hack site for the product (vbulletin.org) which is BS. The wiki page gives very little real info, and certainly nothing you cant learn from the vBulletin.com site. So its really a waste of a listing.
Thats the problem its "useful to me", who is me? I dont find wiki useful, if i want wiki pages i go to wikipedia and search not google. Incorrect data on wiki is a grey area. However people miss the idea of "authority" information. Books are an authorative source of information, because they cost money to make. If you take encylopedias like britanica, a lot of time and effort has gone into tracking the original author and not only verifying the information but making sure that its okay to reuse the information by getting permission from that author. This is where wiki "fails" as an information source. In acidemics only "authorative" information sources such as written published material from research institutions count. Not some page on wiki modified by everybody from a 13 year old punk, to somebody with so many credidentials they need 2 bars under there name on there door, to grandma's and grandad's. Some journalists love wiki, they also hate it. Most have categorised it as good knowlage bank for things, like triva, but not writing scientific, powerful journalism or basing new laws and consitution edits. As for your argument about it will be edited really fast. SomethingAwful forums decided to setup a few topics, geek/real topics. The geek topics, like star wars, masturbation, achne were updated frequently, but other articles to it, like girlfriends, science topics and a few others were barely touched. This shows that although the comunity does not write articles in a "biased" (argumentative point, some say it is and it can be) the topics that are chosen to be high quality are not the ones with most value to mankind. Google should do us a favor and just put a "wikipedia search" option and filter it from normal serps. I suppose you could argue that this would not be fair to wikipedia, but it has 2 side effects, people who dont know wikipedia might be interested in using it or trying it out at least once and if there first use is a positive one, they will likely use it again (afterall it is the greatest site in the world! ~not!~), on the other hand people who hate it like myself will not use wikipedia so they will effectivly get less traffic from me (only because i click a link by accident). Don't get me wrong although I am negative towards wikipedia it has its place (for triva ), but I dont want it pushed in my face every time I do a search for a product or a person, Id rather get biased reviews on what people think of them because I already know what it is if im searching directly for it by name and if I dont I want their offical website! Pierce
So you want Google to add a new command like wiki:termname which only fetches meanings and info from the wikipedia ?
well no, they have a bar the top, add "wikipedia" ? i suppose somebody smart knows a way to default a search such that it always appends -site:wikipedia.org ? Pierce
wiki is like Google. the results should not be included into SERPS. do you see yahoo or google results in its own SERPS pages. Wiki is so popular and search engine in its own right. peope go straight to it. Google is not needed to guide people into wiki.
I agree 100% on some of my sites which have high traffic I target the keywords to the max.. yet wikipedia allwasy ranks one!!! on one site I have like 20k backlinks and the wikipeida has basically nothing its such a joke... just becuase the url it self is high pr and has high link value does not mean the whole url shoudl rank well...
You think it doesn't have back-links but I saw many instances that people just copy and paste the URLs from Wiki to refer to an article and since the URLs all contain keywords, it gets high SERPs. Wikipedia is useful and because the search on Wiki is retarded (no spell check etc.) I always use Google to find articles on Wikipedia like: "Some search term wikipedia" not even site:wikipedia.com It is possible to make a website to kick Wikipedia out of SERPs but you have to be very creative About their next project, they want to make a search engine but good luck competing with Google, they have to buy more than 400,000 servers and write algos that consider more than 1,000 factors etc. etc.
Ok, lets look at this from a customer perspective. You search bathtubs. You read about them on Wiki if you want. You press the back button on your browser and you are right back at Google to go down the list. You are now educated in bathtubs and are ready to buy without any outside persuasion. I have a few sites ranked just below Wiki and I thank them for educating my customers before they buy. They actually have done a lot of the work for me.
I think it is ok, because wikipedia is just nice, lot of information for the seached keyword explained well in wikipedia.. ofcourse it is bad news for people who compete with wiki
that's the problem , who is me?! me is not an experience webmaster who is looking for ways to get higher rankings in google, me is the 7 year old who is using the google for first time. me is the guy who spends most of his time in myspace and when changes a theme there or manages to just change a font color considers himself master of the web! me is the Vietnamese guy who english is not his main language and maybe doesn't even know what bathtub means! and don't say: go to the street and ask people to see how many of them know what wikipedia is! and come on guys you got to give them some credit!you're just working in 1 niche and they have millions! and yet in 99% of time the info that they provide is great!
Wikipedia is a great resource whether you like it or not. Think about all the content they have on any given subject. I agree completely with the post above me.