39 replies to this topic

[chrishirst]

You seem to under a mistaken belief that SEs are going to rank the page that was the first with the content, which is completely wrong! The page that is more important according to the SE algo will be the one that is ranked regardless of "which came first".

What is FAR more important is that real people have absolutely no idea about "nofollow" so it won't stop them clicking that link and arriving on your site.

So by pursuing the ridiculous idea of not contributing because of a silly link attribute (which nobody really knows what it means to each of the engines as it is different for each one that supports it, and even the SE engineers seem to disagree about what it means to their results ) You are throwing away something that has the potential to be far more useful than a vague idea of some dubious SE benefit in the link.

[lytebryte]

ah, i see

wiki gets to enjoy top SE positions because of the borrowed content of thousands of online sources, but to expect wiki to give SE link recognition to the source is 'link pimping'. Ok, you guys are right how could have i been so blind?

ok,

as for my not contributing to those sites who's policy i do not agree with, that's not silly. It's my right as a contributor. It's Obviouse that those site couldn't care less what was on my mind, otherwise they'd show a little more courtesy imo. there are thousands of blogs out there that use no nofollow, and as a free individual, i choose to contribute to those sites. They say in a free market you vote with your dollars, well in this case, i vote with my comments

But the topic WAS 'Why technically are wikipedia pages in top positions' I guess my response would be it is because wiki is a site based 100% on borrowed content and in turn tells the SE's not recognize the sources the content is based on.
Ah, but this is one gal's opinion and it really doesn't change anything.
This being a search engine/ranking site, i'm surprised at the level of resistance i'm experiencing on this topic. Maybe it's because wiki is a popular site and as a rule of thumb, we shouldn't talk negatively things we love.

[Jill]

as for my not contributing to those sites who's policy i do not agree with, that's not silly. It's my right as a contributor.

It absolutely is! And you should definitely not contribute to those sites.

But the only one who will lose, is you! Do you think they care if you drop your link there or not?

But the topic WAS 'Why technically are wikipedia pages in top positions' I guess my response would be it is because wiki is a site based 100% on borrowed content and in turn tells the SE's not recognize the sources the content is based on.

No, they're on top because they're the most popular. That's a huge factor in Google's ranking algo. It has nothing to do with 'borrowed' content. They're not borrowing anything. People are freely posting information there. No one is stealing or borrowing anything.

[Martin C]

, wiki says to the source, 'we don't trust you'.  

Nofollow does not say 'we don't trust you' it says 'we don't know'.

[lytebryte]

It absolutely is! And you should definitely not contribute to those sites.

But the only one who will lose, is you! Do you think they care if you drop your link there or not?

lol, they obviously do if they tell the search engines...'we don't recognize this link'. Why do blogs ask you for your website if they're going to tell the SEs not to count them in their ranking, that's basakwards logic to me...

No, they're on top because they're the most popular. That's a huge factor in Google's ranking algo. It has nothing to do with 'borrowed' content. They're not borrowing anything. People are freely posting information there. No one is stealing or borrowing anything.

i just googled the word 'apple' and the first thing to come up was a 'wiki page. There were 8 external online resources used in the page.....as well as 2 external sites for users to learn more. A majority of these resources include papers written by scholars, doctors, and others (ie the american cancer institute). Wiki contributors used these resources to create a wiki page on the word apple. That is borrowed content. 100% of wiki is borrowed content.

stealing is different than borrowing. Yes, wiki cites the references but not according to the SEs....according to the SE's all content on Wiki is their own.

Why does wiki come up #1 in the keyword 'apple' and not The Us Apple Guide? Google ranks the Wiki's apple page a 7, but the US Apple Guide, clearly a more relevant cite (and between you and me...more accurate) gets only a 5?

So now it's a popularity thing and not a relevancy issue anymore?

[Jill]

Google ranks the Wiki's apple page a 7, but the US Apple Guide, clearly a more relevant cite (and between you and me...more accurate) gets only a 5?

Are you talking about PageRank with those numbers?

That's strictly based on links, so that's why they rank them that way.

[lytebryte]

Are you talking about PageRank with those numbers?

That's strictly based on links, so that's why they rank them that way.

ahhh, we can agree to disagree all night long and people can continue not to understand the underlying points i am trying to make. But at least i take comfort in the fact that someone at wikipedia agreed with me at some point...

According to the developers themselves, the main reason for the use of the attribute is to prevent linkspam on low-traffic Wikis. Since this is the most active Wikimedia project, this is not a problem. Linkspam is, in most cases, quickly removed. Boosting the rankings of good resources is a positive thing, and encourages other sites to reciprocate in linking. A blacklist exists for persistent spam. Also, it is unlikely that, on an active Wiki such as this one, the use of the attribute will deter spammers; most will be unaware of it.
----
Vote:
A remove vote supports no longer adding "rel=nofollow" to external links in the English Wikipedia.
A keep vote supports the continued use of this attribute.
Remove: 87 (61%)
Keep: 55 (39%)

source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nofollow#Position_in_favor_of_disabling_nofollow

and then here's a good source wiki cited on the same issue i discussed: www.searchenginejournal.com/13-reasons-why-nofollow-tags-suck/4410/

I see no further benefit in continuing to commenting as this is turning into a debate when it was intended to be a discussion.

i apologize if i've offended anybody on the board

[Jill]

I don't think most of us would disagree with your premise, but the point I personally am making is basically...so what? It's out of your hands. Either use wikipedia or don't. It's their ballgame and their ball. You don't have to play there or read there if you don't like it. End of story.

It's also Google's problem to deal with. When every site nofollows every link, we'll be back to square one, which I believe Alan said earlier here, and which many of us have said in previous threads on this topic here.

[Alan Perkins]

This has been quite an interesting debate/discussion/question.

You know what? Nofollow sucks. It really does. It should be scrapped. Before you know it, the next version of IPB (the s/w that powers this board) will nofollow all links in posts by default, because they are all "user generated".

Nofollow has so much in common with the meta keywords tag. Assuming that it was designed with all good intentions (and not as a red herring as I suggested earlier), the law of unintended consequences has taken hold and it's now useless.

Why Technically Are Wikipedia Pages In Top Positions ?

Part of the answer is because the links TO Wikipedia are not normally nofollowed, whereas the links FROM Wikipedia are. What a nonsense.

[dardanella]

Wiki citings are not being recognized by many institutes of higher education these days. It is the lazy man's research tool.