C’mon Google WTF how can you possibly say that Wikipedia deserves to above Delicious for the search term [delicious] screen shot because the ridiculous ness of this SERP is mind boggling inept
Sponsor:: Need help with Social Media? Check out my SEO Services page for more information.
Related PostsI’m Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: unranked [?]
Wikipedia ranks #1 in Google for SEO, public relations, and marketing. What would it take to displace Wikipedia from a #1 ranking if you were in a field that bloggers, designers, and web developers generally had a distaste for, hated, or misunderstood?
If only Google, Wikipedia, and a couple other sites outranked you for SEO, what would you do to push past them? Could anything short of an act of God or a hand edit move you past them?
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by randfish
Biased manipulation runs wild on Wikipedia, and the extent to which it influences the pages of that site will probably never be known. In the field of SEO, where every link counts, Wikipedia’s reference links at the bottom of articles and their external links in the body text of articles were once considered search engine ranking gold. Early this year, Wikipedia moved to institute nofollow on all outbound links, and many presumed the controversy would die there. It hasn’t.
Popularity: unranked [?]
The Wikipedia ranks for a lot of competitive keywords because they are cited everywhere while acquiring the back links to be envious of. They also keep most of their link juice by linking to their internal pages and placing no-follows on external links.
I found out recently that they rank for competitive key phrases on Google such as:
Popularity: unranked [?]
In a recent post about paid links, Danny Sullivan wrote about how Google’s army of engineers are going to start hand editing PageRank scores if they think you are selling links, which is a move that wreaks of desperation.
Google is only decreasing the PageRank for a subset of the sites they actually know about. …
Popularity: unranked [?]