Comments on: Google Accounts For 24% Of All Wikipedia Traffic http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/ Updated daily with the latest news, tips, tweaks, social networking, wordpress tips & tweaks, windows optimization help and more. Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:30:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: mv3gp http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-3/#comment-67960 mv3gp Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:37:44 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-67960 I think WikiPedia results should be kept different. i think the information resource on wikipedia should have another category just like groups, web, images I think WikiPedia results should be kept different. i think the information resource on wikipedia should have another category just like groups, web, images

]]> By: mv3gp http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-2/#comment-223983 mv3gp Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:37:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223983 I think WikiPedia results should be kept different. i think the information resource on wikipedia should have another category just like groups, web, images I think WikiPedia results should be kept different. i think the information resource on wikipedia should have another category just like groups, web, images

]]> By: mv3gp http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-2/#comment-223984 mv3gp Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:37:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223984 I think WikiPedia results should be kept different. i think the information resource on wikipedia should have another category just like groups, web, images I think WikiPedia results should be kept different. i think the information resource on wikipedia should have another category just like groups, web, images

]]> By: horisly http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-2/#comment-67928 horisly Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:55:33 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-67928 agree with your point. "the Wikipedia page comes out top even if the content on the page isn’t great or isn’t even appropriate. " google is giving to much emphases to wikipedia. that is unfair to other site. agree with your point.
“the Wikipedia page comes out top even if the content on the page isn’t great or isn’t even appropriate. ”
google is giving to much emphases to wikipedia. that is unfair to other site.

]]> By: horisly http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-2/#comment-223981 horisly Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:55:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223981 agree with your point. "the Wikipedia page comes out top even if the content on the page isn’t great or isn’t even appropriate. " google is giving to much emphases to wikipedia. that is unfair to other site. agree with your point.
“the Wikipedia page comes out top even if the content on the page isn’t great or isn’t even appropriate. ”
google is giving to much emphases to wikipedia. that is unfair to other site.

]]> By: horisly http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-2/#comment-223982 horisly Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:55:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223982 agree with your point. "the Wikipedia page comes out top even if the content on the page isn’t great or isn’t even appropriate. " google is giving to much emphases to wikipedia. that is unfair to other site. agree with your point.
“the Wikipedia page comes out top even if the content on the page isn’t great or isn’t even appropriate. ”
google is giving to much emphases to wikipedia. that is unfair to other site.

]]> By: Jamdo http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-2/#comment-67919 Jamdo Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:18:19 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-67919 listikal - yeah, it depends what you are searching though. If you are looking for the history of tennis, or something general interest, then wikipedia is probably fine. If you are looking to find the state of Iran's nuclear weapons program, which type of reactors they have and an intelligent assessment of the real threat, then fas.org or globalsecurity.com (for example) should be coming up <strong>a lot</strong> higher in the results and wikipedia should be NOWHERE near the top of your keywords search IMHO. listikal – yeah, it depends what you are searching though. If you are looking for the history of tennis, or something general interest, then wikipedia is probably fine. If you are looking to find the state of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which type of reactors they have and an intelligent assessment of the real threat, then fas.org or globalsecurity.com (for example) should be coming up a lot higher in the results and wikipedia should be NOWHERE near the top of your keywords search IMHO.

]]> By: Jamdo http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-2/#comment-223979 Jamdo Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:18:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223979 listikal - yeah, it depends what you are searching though. If you are looking for the history of tennis, or something general interest, then wikipedia is probably fine. If you are looking to find the state of Iran's nuclear weapons program, which type of reactors they have and an intelligent assessment of the real threat, then fas.org or globalsecurity.com (for example) should be coming up <strong>a lot</strong> higher in the results and wikipedia should be NOWHERE near the top of your keywords search IMHO. listikal – yeah, it depends what you are searching though. If you are looking for the history of tennis, or something general interest, then wikipedia is probably fine. If you are looking to find the state of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which type of reactors they have and an intelligent assessment of the real threat, then fas.org or globalsecurity.com (for example) should be coming up a lot higher in the results and wikipedia should be NOWHERE near the top of your keywords search IMHO.

]]> By: Jamdo http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-2/#comment-223980 Jamdo Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:18:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223980 listikal - yeah, it depends what you are searching though. If you are looking for the history of tennis, or something general interest, then wikipedia is probably fine. If you are looking to find the state of Iran's nuclear weapons program, which type of reactors they have and an intelligent assessment of the real threat, then fas.org or globalsecurity.com (for example) should be coming up <strong>a lot</strong> higher in the results and wikipedia should be NOWHERE near the top of your keywords search IMHO. listikal – yeah, it depends what you are searching though. If you are looking for the history of tennis, or something general interest, then wikipedia is probably fine. If you are looking to find the state of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which type of reactors they have and an intelligent assessment of the real threat, then fas.org or globalsecurity.com (for example) should be coming up a lot higher in the results and wikipedia should be NOWHERE near the top of your keywords search IMHO.

]]> By: listikal http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-2/#comment-67902 listikal Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:49:57 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-67902 24% is a huge surprise to me. It doesn't really bother me that it's results come up every time. I typically end up checking it first anyway. 24% is a huge surprise to me. It doesn’t really bother me that it’s results come up every time. I typically end up checking it first anyway.

]]> By: listikal http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-1/#comment-223977 listikal Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:49:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223977 24% is a huge surprise to me. It doesn't really bother me that it's results come up every time. I typically end up checking it first anyway. 24% is a huge surprise to me. It doesn’t really bother me that it’s results come up every time. I typically end up checking it first anyway.

]]> By: listikal http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-1/#comment-223978 listikal Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:49:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223978 24% is a huge surprise to me. It doesn't really bother me that it's results come up every time. I typically end up checking it first anyway. 24% is a huge surprise to me. It doesn’t really bother me that it’s results come up every time. I typically end up checking it first anyway.

]]> By: Ceglie Messapica http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-1/#comment-67872 Ceglie Messapica Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:14:11 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-67872 Besides Wikipedia has external links with rel=nofollow that is against Internet filosofy. Besides Wikipedia has external links with rel=nofollow that is against Internet filosofy.

]]> By: Ceglie Messapica http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-1/#comment-223975 Ceglie Messapica Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:14:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223975 Besides Wikipedia has external links with rel=nofollow that is against Internet filosofy. Besides Wikipedia has external links with rel=nofollow that is against Internet filosofy.

]]> By: Ceglie Messapica http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-1/#comment-223976 Ceglie Messapica Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:14:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223976 Besides Wikipedia has external links with rel=nofollow that is against Internet filosofy. Besides Wikipedia has external links with rel=nofollow that is against Internet filosofy.

]]> By: John http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-1/#comment-67870 John Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:08:56 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-67870 I agree it's a shame they nofollow links as it does mess with the linking structure of the web and many of the links are relevant and useful. I agree it’s a shame they nofollow links as it does mess with the linking structure of the web and many of the links are relevant and useful.

]]> By: John http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-1/#comment-223973 John Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:08:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223973 I agree it's a shame they nofollow links as it does mess with the linking structure of the web and many of the links are relevant and useful. I agree it’s a shame they nofollow links as it does mess with the linking structure of the web and many of the links are relevant and useful.

]]> By: John http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-1/#comment-223974 John Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:08:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223974 I agree it's a shame they nofollow links as it does mess with the linking structure of the web and many of the links are relevant and useful. I agree it’s a shame they nofollow links as it does mess with the linking structure of the web and many of the links are relevant and useful.

]]> By: Jamdo http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-1/#comment-67851 Jamdo Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:21:40 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-67851 Following the ethos that 20 idiots does not equal an expert, I think as Google's algorythm gets better and better at detecting quality info as opposed to info that happens to suit Google's current flawed algorythm, wikipedia will slip further down the results. Wikipedia is great, and it's community and it's all very web 2.0 blah blah blah, but in specific areas there are plenty of sites with better quality of information that rank lower on the relevant keywords. Following the ethos that 20 idiots does not equal an expert, I think as Google’s algorythm gets better and better at detecting quality info as opposed to info that happens to suit Google’s current flawed algorythm, wikipedia will slip further down the results.

Wikipedia is great, and it’s community and it’s all very web 2.0 blah blah blah, but in specific areas there are plenty of sites with better quality of information that rank lower on the relevant keywords.

]]> By: Jamdo http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-1/#comment-223971 Jamdo Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:21:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223971 Following the ethos that 20 idiots does not equal an expert, I think as Google's algorythm gets better and better at detecting quality info as opposed to info that happens to suit Google's current flawed algorythm, wikipedia will slip further down the results. Wikipedia is great, and it's community and it's all very web 2.0 blah blah blah, but in specific areas there are plenty of sites with better quality of information that rank lower on the relevant keywords. Following the ethos that 20 idiots does not equal an expert, I think as Google’s algorythm gets better and better at detecting quality info as opposed to info that happens to suit Google’s current flawed algorythm, wikipedia will slip further down the results.

Wikipedia is great, and it’s community and it’s all very web 2.0 blah blah blah, but in specific areas there are plenty of sites with better quality of information that rank lower on the relevant keywords.

]]> By: Jamdo http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/comment-page-1/#comment-223972 Jamdo Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:21:00 +0000 http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/06/14/google-accounts-for-24-of-all-wikipedia-traffic/#comment-223972 Following the ethos that 20 idiots does not equal an expert, I think as Google's algorythm gets better and better at detecting quality info as opposed to info that happens to suit Google's current flawed algorythm, wikipedia will slip further down the results. Wikipedia is great, and it's community and it's all very web 2.0 blah blah blah, but in specific areas there are plenty of sites with better quality of information that rank lower on the relevant keywords. Following the ethos that 20 idiots does not equal an expert, I think as Google’s algorythm gets better and better at detecting quality info as opposed to info that happens to suit Google’s current flawed algorythm, wikipedia will slip further down the results.

Wikipedia is great, and it’s community and it’s all very web 2.0 blah blah blah, but in specific areas there are plenty of sites with better quality of information that rank lower on the relevant keywords.

]]>