View Full Version : Google and Wikipedia
MissMandy
07-07-2007, 10:58 AM
Every time I do a search on Google these days, nearly always Wkipedia comes up in the number one position. I am mostly able to find the info Im looking for then on wikipedia. Over time, I have noticed I just go straight to Wikipedia now. So In effect, 90% of my searches are now Wikipedia, thats a big loss of searches for google. It made me think that others are doing the same. Even worse, I lost a few top positions to Wkipedia as well this year. In the long run, wikipedia and any similar sites might end up affecting my own sites in a negative way. I wonder where this will end up. Anyone else being negatively affected by Wikipedia?
I still beat out Wikipedia on most key phrases that I am aware of and/or care about. The thing is I'm finding Wikipedia showing up more and more for other searches I conduct and when I do visit the Wikipedia pages they are frequently stub pages and/or are not what I'm looking for. Really, I'm beginning to think that Google needs to deemphasize Wikipedia for lots of search phrases. While Wikipedia is really popular, it also is not very relevant for many searches it ranks really well for.
Chris
07-08-2007, 06:46 PM
My problem with wikipedia is that they have rel=nofollow on all external links, even vetted ones. This alone allowed them to skip past me on quite a few terms. I still get a lot of traffic from them though since they have me as a reference.
Cutter
07-11-2007, 11:21 PM
I have Wikipedia added to the built in Firefox search. If I want to read content and learn about a subject I don't even consider using Google anymore.
I have Wikipedia added to the built in Firefox search. If I want to read content and learn about a subject I don't even consider using Google anymore.
Then you are seriously cutting off your sources of information.
The problem with Wikipedia becoming so powerful in the SERPs is that it fosters mediocrity. People have a "it's good enough" attitude about Wikipedia and thus habitually reference it rather than looking for better, more authoritative, niche sites on the subject in question. Anyone who publishes a website is helping to sign their own death warrant in search results every time they link to or reference Wikipedia.
MissMandy
07-13-2007, 01:25 PM
The big problem is that in my own case Im finding Wikipedia is the best source in 99% of cases. And they are constantly improving. Ive posted several articles over there and im amazed at how quickly more experienced Editors input into what Ive done. They are helpfull, experienced and are able to turn what Ive often wrote into something more special. Fact is, they offer an excellent product. The worse part for us is how rapidly their improving that product.
MissMandy, you would be better off spending time developing content for your own site than for Wikipedia. Personally I find that Wikipedia is typically incomplete for for my needs when I have used it AND frequently it does nothing more than parrot/consolidate information that others first researched and published on the Internet elsewhere. Simply put very little in Wikipedia resulted from researching offline sources.
I'm like a few others, I rely on Wikipedia a lot now. If I need to find something out and wikipedia isn't in sight for a term, I'll just make a new search with that tagged on at the end. While some of it is inaccurate, the fact is that its an easy way to get information. To consider deemphasizing it would be ridiculous.
Todd W
07-17-2007, 06:54 PM
Wikipedia pisses me off mostly because they think since they have the info on their site you should link to them.
A # of times in the past years I've had info on my site way before wikipedia and then they add it to their site and e-mail me saying I have to link to them since they have it on their site... bunch of BS :flare:
Wikipedia pisses me off mostly because they think since they have the info on their site you should link to them.
A # of times in the past years I've had info on my site way before wikipedia and then they add it to their site and e-mail me saying I have to link to them since they have it on their site... bunch of BS :flare:
I'm not quite following you.. can you elaborate?
Wikipedia actually emails you saying you _have_ to link to them?
???
Wikipedia pisses me off mostly because they think since they have the info on their site you should link to them.
A # of times in the past years I've had info on my site way before wikipedia and then they add it to their site and e-mail me saying I have to link to them since they have it on their site... bunch of BS :flare:
I've had to file DMCA take down notices with Wikipedia three times over the past few years. I really wish someone with deep pockets would take them on for habitual copyright violations.
Todd W
07-18-2007, 08:25 PM
I'm not quite following you.. can you elaborate?
Wikipedia actually emails you saying you _have_ to link to them?
???
Yep, they send out e-mails saying you have to link to the "source" which they claim is them. (For all public domain stuff.) They also have a forum where they discuss sites in violation of their rules, and this is how I've found out before about some of my sites too.
-Todd
wtf @ both Todd and Ken's posts... :\
wtf @ both Todd and Ken's posts... :\
The really stupid thing about this is that both Todd and my issues could be avoided by Wikipedia if they took a proactive approach and used an automated process similar to Copyscape to flag new edits that are possible plagiarism from existing sites. I even suggested this two or three years ago after having to file my second DMCA take down notice.
The thing is, I don't really think they care. They seem to do what they can to avoid responsibility for their own copyright violations (trying to figure out how to file a DMCA take down notice is really hard).
Cutter
07-19-2007, 09:33 PM
Then you are seriously cutting off your sources of information.
I should be more specific, I use it as a starting point. If I want in depth or specialized knowledge, definitely not.
As for its problems, they should be well documented and then disseminated to the print media. Wikipedia is a hot topic and still has lots of skeptics.
My instances of plagiarism did happen some time back and the evidence of it is no longer there. I have seen over the years a few articles dedicated to the issue of plagiarism on Wikipedia but they didn't gain much traction. I don't think most website owners use services like Copyscape to track down plagiarism and thus people don't realize just how big of an issue this is. I'm sure if the majority of website publishers used services like Copyscape, as I do, we would be seeing a much bigger outcry about Wikipedia.
MissMandy
07-20-2007, 11:25 AM
On the issue of copyright, I find most people who steal from my site are in India and Indonesia. This makes things more difficult as I find they completely ignore my emails, their hosts which are usually hosted in similar also ignore me, the only thing that has worked good these days is if they have adsense on their site and I threaten to contact adsense. I had one women in the states stole 180 pages from my Site. When i emailed her she basically told me to go to hell. Interesting her host was in Germany, when I phoned them I had problems as they refused to do anything. I started scanning her site with copyscape and came up with numerous violations of some bg sites so I just emailed those sites and let them deal with her. A few weeks later the site was gone!
I once chased a site that had stolen some of my content from web host to web host on a global trek. I'd get it shut down on one web host in one country and a few months later I'd catch them on another web host in a different country. The final country I found them in was Israel and after I got them shut down there, I never saw them again.
Recently I had someone send me some really belligerent emails because of the copyright notices I place at the bottom of each of my pages stating I take legal actions against anyone who steals my content. I can only guess they wanted some free content and took offense to my not being willing to let them steal my content.
cooluks
09-10-2007, 08:43 AM
My problem with wikipedia is that they have rel=nofollow on all external links, even vetted ones. This alone allowed them to skip past me on quite a few terms. I still get a lot of traffic from them though since they have me as a reference.
I agree wikipedia uses the rel="nofollow" which means definitely nofollow have no value or weak whatsoever in Google...:yawnb:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.