9 replies to this topic

[DJKay]

Hi Jill, Debra & the gang,

Hope you are well.

In the process of analyzing one of my competition's back links, I have found that one of my competitors has two links in wikipedia under two different, albeit related sections. One section describes a technical standard for an industry and the other section describes that industry.

I am left wondering if this competitor's site is afforded more cache (i.e. higher ranking under a certain industry keyword phrase) because they have links in both of these sections.

I am really kind of miffed about the whole thing because my company's products are also compliant to this standard & in the same vertical as the other company's. I tried to go in and put in our link, and Wikipedia deleted the link because they said you cannot put up commercial sites.

The thing is that the sites up there in the wikipedia section that gives information on the industry's standard are companies that sell the same types of products and services my company does. And for that matter, there is a whole lot of other companies that are sell the same type of product that is compliant to the standard too, so we should all be there.

The reason why I am curious about this is because this competitor is ahead of us in the rankings under this particular term. Our site is W3C compliant, does a good job with on page factors & has way more links than this competitor that is head of us in Google under this specific keyword phrase. We have the (1) Serps page results for for this KWP on Yahoo & msn & we are ahead of this competitor there as well for this phrase.

So I am left with a bunch of questions:

1) Am I just chasing the wind here with this hypothesis or is there any merit to my thinking? I could see where the combination of the information found in both of these sections when put together might signal to Google 'WOW, this site is more of an authority on this type of stuff.' I say this because the product & industry I market & work in is complicated & very technical, so two sections for good info on related topics for this type of thing may be a big sign to them or am I wrong here?

2) Is there any one out there that can share some experience with this type of thing?

3) Does anyone have any pointers they can give me for working with Wikipedia (other than what is in there guidelines on their site, help files & forum) on this? I have already sent them an email about this scenario once already. I just want to get our link up in this other section, that's all.

4) Maybe I am just getting to be a crazy chick about this, but I really want to get on the (1) Serps page for this one KWP in google. Yes, I have other phrases in my product set on the (1) Serps results in google and other engines, Yes, I have long tail phrases in Google and the other engines, and yes, I have a pretty consistent link building executions strategy that I have been working now for over 2 1/2 years. My industry is very competitive. Its a mature technology vertical, and there is lots of competition for the kwps in my product set.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Best Regards,

Mary Kay Lofurno, aka DJKay

[Michael Martinez]

If you want Wikipedia links, just sign up with the service and create a user profile page that links to your Web sites. This will work for now, until enough people abuse it that the search engines decide to devalue Wikipedia user profile pages.

[jehochman]

I joined Wikiproject Spam to help prevent the kind of problem you describe. If you post or PM the page that concerns you, I'll have a look at it.

[sweepthelegnate]

Wikipedia is a lot like anything else...(directory editors, forum members, social linkers, etc.)

Link dropping is pretty much frowned upon, but you can get away with it if you have some history. Pretty much every time you sign up for an account and add a few links as your first edit...someone is going to come along and remove them as spam.

Get some other quality edits under your belt, pat the right backs and you're much more likely to find a sympathetic ear when you add some external links.

[Jill]

I am left wondering if this competitor's site is afforded more cache (i.e. higher ranking under a certain industry keyword phrase) because they have links in both of these sections.

Sure, 2 links from an authority site are generally better than 1.

[DJKay]

Martinez-Thanks for your post. Sure, I could do that, but isn't really better to have the company's link around good content that is the industry/standard specific, instead of on my own personal page in wikipedia. And in fact, that's what I am trying to do.

The subject matter is very technical and the corresponding high tech vertical is mature. Its a technology standard that has been backed by government and our industry the last 15 plus years. The standard was developed by the government. So what I am trying to say here is that its not like being an SEO expert & working that kind of perspective [please no value judgement here, just speaking in terms of positioning & strategy].

Maybe I could do that with a few of the folks I have here that I have established and marketed as experts in our industry at our company. So thanks for the suggestion.

sweepthelegnate-The point you make is a good one, and maybe I need to do what Martinez says above with the experts I have marketed and branded at my company first on their own individual pages in wikipedia, then go back and put our link up there. Thanks, I appreciate it.

jehochman-I will look at the link you gave me & may email you off line. Thanks

Last but not least, Jill- Okay so you are confirming my hypothesis, that for any industry & accompanying technical standard like the one I work in, wikipedia is perceived as an authority site. --Cool! Thanks.

Any other comments are suggestions are always welcome. Again, Thanks so much.

Best Regards,

DJKay

[Jill]

Last but not least, Jill- Okay so you are confirming my hypothesis, that for any industry & accompanying technical standard like the one I work in, wikipedia is perceived as an authority site. --Cool! Thanks.

No, I'm just stating my opinion.

I have no idea other than it makes good common sense that it could very well be perceived as an authority site.

But why does it matter? Either way, the 2 links are better than 1.

[DJKay]

Got it, thanks, Mary Kay

[Michael Martinez]

Martinez-Thanks for your post.  Sure, I could do that, but isn't really better to have the company's link around good content that is the industry/standard specific, instead of on my  own personal page in wikipedia.  And in fact, that's what I am trying to do. 

Don't take this the wrong way, as I don't mean it to be a personal reflection upon you, but you're subscribing to one of numerous [url=http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15499]Seo Myths[/url]. I'm speaking about the "relevant links" myth, a myth which I have helped to promote in the past.

As with all things touched upon by the SEO community, people have taken a minor concept and run it into the ground.

Relevant linkage is worthwhile for various reasons, but not the reasons you're thinking (or that are generally advocated by the "Relevant Links" crowd).

Your reply implies that you don't want a non-relevant link. Well, let me put it to you this way: do you want worthwhile links?

Relevance does not equate to worthwhile.

And it's your user profile anyway. If you want to publish a dissertation there, do it.

But don't get hung up on "Relevant Links Only". You're shooting yourself in the head by doing that.

[George]

I found that *other* users were linking to our sites as authorities from Wikipedia. True niche stuff (you'll see me say that a lot...), but what fascinates me is that we were #23 for a specific author when Wiki linked to that page.

Our CPM for that type of page is tiny -- about $1.50. We used AdSense to track by the page by URL and found that we were getting no traffic from Wiki -- averaging 3 visitors a day. Hardly worth the effort, but I was curious to see if they differed from our visitor profile at that site so I checked analytics.

The bounce rate was about 10% better, but we are seeing no revenue.

Maybe there is some cachet about being listed there, but I suspect all that will happen is that we will be listed in the bibliography of a lot of book reports.