Comments on: Should Wikipedia Be Removed From Google’s Results?

By: Peter Cruickshank

Peter Cruickshank — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:51:51 +0000

Yes, it’s a pity about the stubs outranking you. But the thing is, search engines need to provide relevant results above all, and usually the wikipedia article is the most relevant result. If I want to do a search on a general topic, the wikpedia article will usually be more what I’m looking for than some blog posting.

By: Peter Cruickshank

Peter Cruickshank — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:51:00 +0000

By: Everton

Everton — Tue, 29 May 2007 22:06:53 +0000

Amen Sara

By: Everton

Everton — Tue, 29 May 2007 22:06:00 +0000

Amen Sara

By: Sara

Sara — Tue, 29 May 2007 22:02:17 +0000

Wikipedia should not have reinstated nofollow and I’m tired of them showing up at the top of the results. If I want to know what Wikipedia has to say, I’ll go to Wikipedia. When I search with Google I want smaller sites. I agree that Wikipedia and IMDB and the like are destination sites of their own. They don’t need Google for traffic. If they do, they can pay for it with Adwords.

Sara
http://www.pajamaprofessional.com

By: Sara

Sara — Tue, 29 May 2007 22:02:00 +0000

Sara
http://www.pajamaprofessional.com

By: Humayun

Humayun — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:45:29 +0000

Well, I don’t want to dig into debate about “Should wikipedia be removed from Google results or not”. But what I usually use Google’s “Exclude particular site” feature from your search results when I don’t want a particular site’s results to be included in my search.
I going to share this to those of you guys here who usually don’t like to see particular site’s results in their search.
Here, For e.g. If you wanna know about “Holocaust” and you don’t want to see wikipedia results in your search then try using this for your…
Holocaust -site:wikipedia.org
This will definitely kick off all results from wikipedia.

Thanks,
Humayun

By: Humayun

Humayun — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:45:00 +0000

Thanks,
Humayun

By: Ant

Ant — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:35:00 +0000

What I feel like saying is that for some months, Wikipedia has become a real annonyance for Google users.
Wikipedia results are generally at the top whatever you search and this dramatically decrease the usual relevancy of Google results that point to the very website you are looking for.
There should at least be an option to hide/remove/block/ban Wikipedia results from Google results.
For the moment, you can reach this goal by adding -wikipedia to your search keywords but a Firefox extension, for example, would even be better.

Thanks in advance to the programmers that would make it.

Ant

By: Ant

Ant — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:35:00 +0000

Thanks in advance to the programmers that would make it.

Ant

By: Zigire

Zigire — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:20:32 +0000

I’m not keen on how nofollow is being implemented, firstly by WordPress and now Wikipedia. It’s encouraging lazy moderating.

It’s not as if spammers will stop [see amount of wordpress spam!]

Anyway, Wikipedia will still be spammed by people trying to get easy traffic.

By: Zigire

Zigire — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:20:00 +0000

I’m not keen on how nofollow is being implemented, firstly by WordPress and now Wikipedia. It’s encouraging lazy moderating.

It’s not as if spammers will stop [see amount of wordpress spam!]

Anyway, Wikipedia will still be spammed by people trying to get easy traffic.

By: Thilak

Thilak — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 03:24:55 +0000

I don’t think they should be removed from SERP, but what they are doing isn’t good. They take pagerank from us, but they don’t give it back !

By: Thilak

Thilak — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 03:24:00 +0000

I don’t think they should be removed from SERP, but what they are doing isn’t good. They take pagerank from us, but they don’t give it back !

By: Andy Beard

Andy Beard — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:08:07 +0000

It isn’t a problem with every social bookmarking plugin

It is certainly a problem with the original sociable plugin, though I hear there is a new version in beta (I need to test it)

I write something about that a while back with simple steps to fix it.

http://andybeard.eu/2006/12/nofollow-and-pink-boxes.html

It is important also to think about how pagerank flows around your own site. Sometimes lots of Ajax and stuff doesn’t help your content.

By: AndyBeard

AndyBeard — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:08:00 +0000

It isn’t a problem with every social bookmarking plugin

It is certainly a problem with the original sociable plugin, though I hear there is a new version in beta (I need to test it)

I write something about that a while back with simple steps to fix it.

http://andybeard.eu/2006/12/nofollow-and-pink-boxes.html

It is important also to think about how pagerank flows around your own site. Sometimes lots of Ajax and stuff doesn’t help your content.

By: Everton

Everton — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:38:36 +0000

whatâ€™s crazy is the amount of Page Rank social bookmarking sites get from all those â€œDigg Thisâ€ etc links â€” adding nofollow to them as well is a good idea.

I hadn’t considered that all those annoying ‘add this site’ links are only adding to the problem

By: Everton

Everton — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:38:00 +0000

whatâ€™s crazy is the amount of Page Rank social bookmarking sites get from all those â€œDigg Thisâ€ etc links â€” adding nofollow to them as well is a good idea.

I hadn’t considered that all those annoying ‘add this site’ links are only adding to the problem

By: engtech

engtech — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:33:16 +0000

I’m ok with it showing up in the search results, but only for real articles, not stubs. The easy way to handle competing on a stub would be to delete the stub on Wikipedia

The wikipedia nofollow plugin is a good idea… what’s crazy is the amount of Page Rank social bookmarking sites get from all those “Digg This” etc links — adding nofollow to them as well is a good idea.

By: engtech

engtech — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:33:00 +0000

I’m ok with it showing up in the search results, but only for real articles, not stubs. The easy way to handle competing on a stub would be to delete the stub on Wikipedia

By: Andy Beard

Andy Beard — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:36:57 +0000

I hate having to compete against Wikipedia stubs with little or no information.

I have been covering this in a lot of detail, the long term effects of this are quite frieghtening.

A good option for WordPress bloggers is to use a Wikipedia nofollow plugin. Not mine – the guy beat me to it.

http://whatjapanthinks.com/wikipedia-nofollow/

By: AndyBeard

AndyBeard — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:36:00 +0000

I hate having to compete against Wikipedia stubs with little or no information.

I have been covering this in a lot of detail, the long term effects of this are quite frieghtening.

A good option for WordPress bloggers is to use a Wikipedia nofollow plugin. Not mine – the guy beat me to it.

http://whatjapanthinks.com/wikipedia-nofollow/

By: Ryan Wagner

Ryan Wagner — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 04:43:37 +0000

I think that might be a little drastic…Wikipedia is probably just going through a phase. Let them work it out and I’m sure things will turn out fine.

By: Ryan Wagner

Ryan Wagner — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 04:43:00 +0000

I think that might be a little drastic…Wikipedia is probably just going through a phase. Let them work it out and I’m sure things will turn out fine.

By: DailyPrizeBlog

DailyPrizeBlog — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:35:23 +0000

I can understand why Wikipedia wants to get rid of the spam, but I agree… its like biting the many hands which fed it with gret SE listings to begin with.

Why not put the nofollow tag on all new links… when a reviewer goes to check the page, and the links are legit, the links would be ‘approved’ and the nofollow tag would automatically be removed.

I havent been strongly following this debate, so maybe that was already suggested or isnt feasible.

By: DailyPrizeBlog

DailyPrizeBlog — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:35:00 +0000

I can understand why Wikipedia wants to get rid of the spam, but I agree… its like biting the many hands which fed it with gret SE listings to begin with.

I havent been strongly following this debate, so maybe that was already suggested or isnt feasible.

By: TonyWilliams

TonyWilliams — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:56:12 +0000

I have to agree that it was a poor knee-jerk reaction by Wikipedia. There were so many other steps they could have taken

By: TonyWilliams

TonyWilliams — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:56:00 +0000

I have to agree that it was a poor knee-jerk reaction by Wikipedia. There were so many other steps they could have taken