That's because the Wikipedia is an authoritative source on those keywords. That's the short answer anyway. The somewhat longer answer is: it's because each page 1. is "optimized" for its main keyword (has relevant unique high quality content and an appropriate title tag and URL) 2. has lots and lots (often multiple thousands) of internal links pointing at it, with the keyword in the anchor text 3. has a lot of relevant external links pointing to it.
Wikipedia has a lot of backlinks for most of its pages and many sites link to Wikipedia. So its natural that its on top results for most keywords.
Yeah!! Those are only few of the main factors.. The availability of the information also counts here.
1) Many links from external sites. 2) Many internal links and categories connecting the site very strongly. 3) Many keywords and lengthy articles on just about anything. It has so many articles (in the millions) that Google considers it an information authority 4) The layout is simple and has images and plenty of information appreciated by readers (which Google approves of).
Hey, and let's not forget: (5) lots of pointless repetition in this thread, as in most other threads in this forum, from people who only care about plugging their sig.
@Philip, I was providing useful non-repetitive information. But obviously you only care about putting your sig in here, so you decided to call people out on baseless claims of repetition.
Hmm, I should not be getting into this but what the hell, let's analyze this just this once. I wrote: Then you wrote: So let's start with your number 4. It is BS because it does not refer to any Google ranking factors. Plain misinformation. Let's now consider this half-point of yours: "It has so many articles (in the millions) that Google considers it an information authority." This is also BS and misinformation. The size of a site does not matter for any single specific Google ranking, it is not a ranking factor. Now please tell me what else you have added to what I said earlier. What value have you added to the discussion? Forgive me, I don't see any, and I would really like you to share your perspective on this. Please not that no-added-value posts are against this forum's rules.
I doubt, I may be wrong, But my opinion is, Wikipedia is owned by google and google can always make it rank on Top and to look natural may put it in 1-2-3 positions. Wikipedia helps them earn by donations and they would love to promote it obviously... Disclaimer : These are purely my thoughts and may or may not be facts.
Because wikipedia is quality site, their content is unique and informative. Therefore, many people are giving them natural backlink including the quality site
wikipedia "After all, if you can make an encyclopedia (Wikipedia) via social networking and mass collaboration, what else could you do?" or, I would say "...what else could you not do?"
You're right, you shouldn't be getting into this, your site doesn't even have a Page Rank and you're lecturing me on SEO. Incorrect. Google analyzes keyword density and flow of information. If a site has 3000 keywords in one single page, it will determine it's a spam site. If a site has 500 links in one single page, Google will determine it's a link farm. Wikipedia has useful information, with scattered keywords, with proper grammar and spelling--Google DOES consider this (even if they did not admit it themselves). Yes, it could be a bit of speculation, but sites with more images, properly written easily flowing content, do get better search engine ranking in my experience. It's not baseless, I've had pages that had a few spelling mistakes years ago, and a similar page with similar keywords a few months later that was better written---guess which one ranked better? In fact, Google does consider it an authority, which is also why it's ranked so high. The main reason being, it has so many articles. This is in fact, a factor. It goes along with age. But how do I know that tons of articles = good page ranking? I've had a client with website that have maybe 12-14 articles, and the site is incredibly old (2001), and yet, it doesn't rank well on anything, maybe 5 people visit a day (Google doesn't consider it an authority because it hasn't been updated much and has too few articles; showing that the age factor isn't helping him). In contrast, I've had a client with website that has 130 articles, not updated as often either, but it receives 200-300 unique visitors a day from Google alone (it's 2006), and yet because it has way more articles, Google considers it an authority on certain keywords and ranks it high even with incredibly low backlinks (competition has more backlinks; proving that a site with a lot of content makes a difference). More proof of course is the fact that when Wikipedia launches a new page on an obscure person or subject, it ranks at the top, even if there was other adequate sources available in the past. This is because the wikipedia domain is valued and trusted by Google as a good information source; they don't even need backlinks sometimes. I've shared tips (adding more articles), (adding more images, simpler layout with more content), which were not shared by yourself. This added great value to the discussion, and I'm sorry you failed to see that.
Hello friend, Wikipedia is an authorized site.It is a strong and Faithful site and it has high PR for its all pages and ots of backlinks of all other pages.It has the appropriate information,so most users trust and often click on wikipedia links.
I agree. I too am disgusted with all the garbage thrown around by people who have no idea what they are talking about.