Comments on: Wiki Jacking

By: Paid Wiki with a Free Twist

Paid Wiki with a Free Twist — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:16:01 +0000

[...] If you have not heard of wiki jacking, it’s when you … well just watch this video. [...]

By: vmarketics

vmarketics — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:41:55 +0000

its really cool Vmarketics“

By: The Credence Dot Com

The Credence Dot Com — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:09:09 +0000

Doesn’t make much sense. Why waste time for nothing ? are you getting anything when your competitor or not making any money ? If NOT, than no point in even thinking of doing such things

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:57:39 +0000

I’ve seen this tactic happen before but it seems like Wiki has a very good volunteer staff that re-edits the page quite quickly. Is there any way around this so that the “link” stays on the page? BTW, I have no intentions on doing this. haha

By: Brian Turner

Brian Turner — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:20:38 +0000

Interesting idea –

“babies do this. freakin just plain stupid.”

Nah, it’s trying to manipulate how Google deals with content, nothing more nothing less. Business and all that.

By: Wes

Wes — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:04:06 +0000

I don’t think Wikipedia needs this help at all. I have seen its pages rank highly and often times are very useful so that even if one is lower down the page or on the second page of results search I will still go to it because I know most of the time its up to date.

By: Michael Bailey

Michael Bailey — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:34:27 +0000

#4 stated, “they appear to already be prioritized by the algos of Google, Yahoo and MSN.”

Here’s a fact of life that will put many SEO’s out of work.

THE SERPS cannot detect good content. There is no algorithm for it.
What they CAN do, is detect bad/bogus/gamed stuff, and filter it out.

The net result is that the “good” stuff floats to the top.

Think about it logically – if there were an algorithm for “good” = soon everyone would game it, and “good” would no longer be “good”.

That is all, now go make some good content.

By: Leon

Leon — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:00:52 +0000

Shameful. Some people will do anything for a little link juice.

By: Wakeless.net

Wakeless.net — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:16:10 +0000

Google, Wikipedia and no-follow…

The whole concept of the no-follow tag is definitely interesting, it’s effectiveness is questionable and as far as comment spam goes, it hasn’t helped. (Thank God for Akismet) As far as it’s use in day to day operations of the web, it…

By: ihero

ihero — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:20:34 +0000

ok — yet another grumble for Google.
Does an “objective” search engine exist — one that ranks based content — not one based on money or tricks?

Check out my new site — googlegrumble.com……..just kidding Michael

By: David Mackey

David Mackey — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:09:18 +0000

I would still think it worthwhile, if you have a real link to add it to Wikipedia. There is a decent bit of natural link clicking that occurs.

By: Textbook Case

Textbook Case — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:24:29 +0000

Duncan, that may be the case for one particular query. But if that’s a major hit… You’ve got bigger fish to fry than worrying about Wikipedia. The other thing is, you can control your own title text and explain your site better than Wikipedia can, you can overcome your position to some degree.

I’d love for my competitors to spend their time doing this– it means they are concentrating on my position on a particular term, while I am generally exploring ways of placing myself for multiple others. In the meantime, the competitor, to some degree, is taking the eye off of making their product better.

It’s flattering, it’s worthless for the person doing it, and it’s not sustainable– they have to continue to work on Wikipedia if they want to assure that ranking.

I wouldn’t call it white or black hat, but dunce-hat SEO.

By: Blog Opinion

Blog Opinion — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:26:26 +0000

Wikipedia pages are on the top of the search results. I agree with “Web” seo specialist at live journal.

By: Aaronontheweb (AjaxNinja)

Aaronontheweb (AjaxNinja) — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:57:45 +0000

Very informative (the bits about trusted domains, internal linking, and internal anchor text)…. Just goes to show you how powerful a trusted domain really is.

But like the guy said, it’d be foolish to vault a wikipedia page to the top of the search rankings if you’re also competing with the “enemy” at the #1 spot.

By: Duncan Riley

Duncan Riley — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:31:30 +0000

Keith
It’s not really Google bombing because the exercise isn’t knocking sites off Google, but substituting them with Wikipedia pages.

Web (comment 4)
Um…yes it does. Traffic from the first result in Google is as good as it gets. Second is ok, but not as good as first. However I do agree that Wikipedia gets a unfairly good run. Google could kill 90% of Wikipedia’s traffic tomorrow if it banned the site from its SERPS.

By: Keith Casey

Keith Casey — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:15:11 +0000

Blackhats call this Google Bowling. Sure, you may not be in a position to promote yourself/your customer, but sometimes bumping off the other guy can be just as good.

By: Web

Web — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:13:41 +0000

It really does not matter who is at the top of Google Serps for a particular query – it the page does not satisfy the expectations of the surfer.

The only outcome would be to return back to Google Serps and go to listing #2.

Wikipedia pages do not need an artificial SEO push – they appear to already be prioritized by the algos of Google, Yahoo and MSN.

Wikipedia pages have many factors in their favor:

they are informational pages
they mostly receive non reciprocal links
the mostly receive quality backlinks from other informational pages
they are apart of a domain that has a high trustrank
they are updated fairly frequently

By: Patrick Altoft

Patrick Altoft — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:52:13 +0000

I think the intention is for Wikipedia to start ranking for so many terms that Google has to take a stand and put a stop to it.

By: Chris Malumphy

Chris Malumphy — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:22:06 +0000

I think this points to some disturbing weaknesses, perhaps intentional, in the Google algorythm and a terrible trend that increasingly raises only the largest sites to the top of the Google ratings, regardless of which sites provide the most authorative or complete information on a subject.

By: Allen Stern

Allen Stern — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:19:10 +0000

So the net result of this video is:

if i can’t have the traffic, i don’t want you to have it either.

babies do this. freakin just plain stupid.