searchenginejournal.com— No more Spam for wikipedia. To bad the good sites won't get value from being linked but this will surely make spammers less interested in this great encyclopedia.
Jan 21, 2007View in Crawl 4
they are important, but not everything.. I am sure that Google etc. are now working on a way to filter out good links from bad links at wikipedia and disregard the nofollow attribute for those links and give the site that is being linked to credit. :)
To WP admins :Just stop polluting search engines with thousands of "stubs" doorway pages, ans maybe people will take you more seriously when you are talking about "SEO spammers".Pillaging other websites and not giving your source the full credit (with a real link) is an unethical practice. The fact is you are trying to manipulate your PageRank and therefore your rankings in Google. Blaming others for what you are doing yourselves is a poor excuse...
@andybeard"That first first position lost to Wikipedia will mean a huge loss in revenue"So now I understand why everyone is all up in arms about this one. It's not a philosophical argument, it's not a concern about best practices on the Web, it's all about the money."whine whine PageRank whine whine" translates to "we have staked our income to the semi-opaque machinations to Google, a private company, and are now that Wikipedia seem to be saying 'we really don't care about our PageRank' we are going to lose some serious cash." Well boo hoo you've put your lot in with Google--don't expect Wikipedia to play ball just for your dodgy business plan's sake.Because in the end, why would Wikipedia care if they were "nofollowed" from every link to it on the web? Surely what they should care about is creating a useful encyclopedia and not catering to search engines.Defending against "link juice" and the like within its content seems to be within this scope, but protecting their PageRank at Google, Inc. in my opinion doesn't. Wikipedia's own search capabilities can always be used when the task is "I'll look it up on Wikipedia".So if Wikipedia does become a PageRank "black hole," the rest of the web is free to "nofollow" it in response. Wiki's mission would rest intact, and people could find something else to gripe about.One thing to remember in all of this: Google isn't the Internet, and the Internet isn't Google. That's still true, isn't it?
@andybeard"That first first position lost to Wikipedia will mean a huge loss in revenue"So now I understand why everyone is all up in arms about this one. It's not a philosophical argument, it's not a concern about best practices on the Web, it's all about the money."whine whine PageRank whine whine" translates to "we have staked our income to the semi-opaque machinations of Google, a private company, and are now that Wikipedia seem to be saying 'we really don't care about our PageRank' we are going to lose some serious cash." Well boo hoo you've cast your lot with Google--don't expect Wikipedia to play ball just for your dodgy business plan's sake.Because in the end, why would Wikipedia care if they were "nofollowed" from every link to it on the web? Surely what they should care about is creating a useful encyclopedia and not catering to search engines.Defending against "link juice" and the like within its content seems to be within this scope, but protecting their PageRank at Google, Inc. in my opinion doesn't. Wikipedia's own search capabilities can always be used when the task is "I'll look it up on Wikipedia".So if Wikipedia does become a PageRank "black hole," the rest of the web is free to "nofollow" it in response. Wiki's mission would rest intact, and people could find something else to gripe about.One thing to remember in all of this: Google isn't the Internet, and the Internet isn't Google. That's still true, isn't it?
cumbrowskiJan 22, 2007
they are important, but not everything.. I am sure that Google etc. are now working on a way to filter out good links from bad links at wikipedia and disregard the nofollow attribute for those links and give the site that is being linked to credit. :)
scezdaJan 24, 2007
To WP admins :Just stop polluting search engines with thousands of "stubs" doorway pages, ans maybe people will take you more seriously when you are talking about "SEO spammers".Pillaging other websites and not giving your source the full credit (with a real link) is an unethical practice. The fact is you are trying to manipulate your PageRank and therefore your rankings in Google. Blaming others for what you are doing yourselves is a poor excuse...
gnosajJan 29, 2007
@andybeard"That first first position lost to Wikipedia will mean a huge loss in revenue"So now I understand why everyone is all up in arms about this one. It's not a philosophical argument, it's not a concern about best practices on the Web, it's all about the money."whine whine PageRank whine whine" translates to "we have staked our income to the semi-opaque machinations to Google, a private company, and are now that Wikipedia seem to be saying 'we really don't care about our PageRank' we are going to lose some serious cash." Well boo hoo you've put your lot in with Google--don't expect Wikipedia to play ball just for your dodgy business plan's sake.Because in the end, why would Wikipedia care if they were "nofollowed" from every link to it on the web? Surely what they should care about is creating a useful encyclopedia and not catering to search engines.Defending against "link juice" and the like within its content seems to be within this scope, but protecting their PageRank at Google, Inc. in my opinion doesn't. Wikipedia's own search capabilities can always be used when the task is "I'll look it up on Wikipedia".So if Wikipedia does become a PageRank "black hole," the rest of the web is free to "nofollow" it in response. Wiki's mission would rest intact, and people could find something else to gripe about.One thing to remember in all of this: Google isn't the Internet, and the Internet isn't Google. That's still true, isn't it?
gnosajJan 29, 2007
@andybeard"That first first position lost to Wikipedia will mean a huge loss in revenue"So now I understand why everyone is all up in arms about this one. It's not a philosophical argument, it's not a concern about best practices on the Web, it's all about the money."whine whine PageRank whine whine" translates to "we have staked our income to the semi-opaque machinations of Google, a private company, and are now that Wikipedia seem to be saying 'we really don't care about our PageRank' we are going to lose some serious cash." Well boo hoo you've cast your lot with Google--don't expect Wikipedia to play ball just for your dodgy business plan's sake.Because in the end, why would Wikipedia care if they were "nofollowed" from every link to it on the web? Surely what they should care about is creating a useful encyclopedia and not catering to search engines.Defending against "link juice" and the like within its content seems to be within this scope, but protecting their PageRank at Google, Inc. in my opinion doesn't. Wikipedia's own search capabilities can always be used when the task is "I'll look it up on Wikipedia".So if Wikipedia does become a PageRank "black hole," the rest of the web is free to "nofollow" it in response. Wiki's mission would rest intact, and people could find something else to gripe about.One thing to remember in all of this: Google isn't the Internet, and the Internet isn't Google. That's still true, isn't it?
rick63Nov 23, 2007
<a class="user" href="http://www.skytabs.com">http://www.skytabs.com</a>