Wikipedia tops Google for search engine optimization

Google has an interesting new algorithm, apparently relatively fewer BackLinks from Related Websites that are non reciprocated can be as powerful as having many reciprocated links or non reciprocated links from non related websites.

WikiPedia Backlinks

Google Webmaster Back Links​

 

Nice find, but I think most of us knew this already.

 

Given the amount of people that still think reciprocal links are the basis of SEO, I think it's good to repeat this. I have very often been the only one in a thread to say that reciprocal links is not the best of ideas.

 

he he, I didn't know this Thanks

 

Links are not that important for Wikipedia like very big site, but for small sites like ours, still one of main SEO, only 2nd to the content.

 

How do you get backlinks?

1) Create an informative site people want to link to freely. This should get you the best benefit for your links.

2) Buy links, spend lots of money. An effective strategy as anyone willing to shell out big bucks on their site is serious.

3) Get reciprocal links. The worst method next to no backlinks as they can be spotted easily by the SEs and get discounted in SERP value.

4) No backlinks. Find a new niche or find a new job.

 

Wikipedia comes up so often in the serps BECAUSE so many people link to them. Links is a very important part of SEO for any website. But some websites are so good, they create buzz without trying much. And buzz = links.

 

i want to have half of this

 

good articles thank you for posting

 

My personal internet marketing trainer still says that 2way links still good(dummy)..but it really does make sense..If your website is based on two way links doesnt it means that you are trying to affect page rank? It can be just like cheating...Websites which are cheating get to the top and websites with good information get to go down to the bottom..

 

I have been saying reciprocal links are dead but it just seems to fall on dead ears.

 

umm

Results 1 - 10 of about 420 linking to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization


Results 1 - 10 of about 534 linking to www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35291

 

you can't really use google backlinks to compare 2 sites, they use a random sample and its never the same percentage.

With msn:

http://beta.search.live.com/results...&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE&go.x=0&go.y=14&go=Search
5.9k

link:www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35291
1.5k

with yahoo

http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.co...tion&bwm=i&bwms=p&bwmf=u&fr=sfp&fr2=seo-rd-se
4.3k

http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.co...&bwm=i&bwms=p&bwmf=u&fr=sexp-rd&fr2=seo-rd-se
935

 

I'd say reciprocated related deep links are still powerful, and always will be.

 

IMO Wikipedia ranks well for all those phrases due to it's insanely massive internal linking structure. Have you had a look at how many pages reference SEO or Search Engine Optimization?

That's without even looking at the external backlinks. Google is crap for looking at this you can't base your assumption without looking into all the links.

Use yahoo for this:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization%20-site:en.wikipedia.org

Tells a different story?

 

Sure they are. But they should not be the only links on either site. The reason they are still valuable is because they are related links and deep links. So the focus should not be on finding reciprocal links, but on finding related links and deep links. In some cases it makes sense to have those links also be reciprocal, but in most cases that does not make sense.
Even on related deep links - if the links to a page are all reciprocal I still think google will flag them as suspect.

 

This was a really bad example of the "change" in Google. That page in WikiPedia has a ton links.

 

Now WikiPedia is both #1 and #2 for SEARCH ENGINE MARKETING
and #2 for SEO on most DataCenters.

It is doing as well in Yahoo too.

 

I knew this, but nice post anyway