Comments on: Ouch. I think I’m feeling wikipedia’s nofollow. http://www.seoloser.com/2007/02/09/ouch-i-think-im-feeling-wikipedias-nofollow/ ...a loser among losers Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:05:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: SEOLoser http://www.seoloser.com/2007/02/09/ouch-i-think-im-feeling-wikipedias-nofollow/#comment-512 SEOLoser Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:07:02 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/02/09/ouch-i-think-im-feeling-wikipedias-nofollow/#comment-512 Very sorry about this, I was out of the country visiting my Dad and we were on the road nonstop with little or no internet access... I hope I haven't lost ya :) I was going to make a quick post letting people know I'd be away for a bit, but decided not to because I really want to try to have most of my posts contain something substantial/informative/interesting. Now that I'm checking up on so many blogs myself, I've learned how annoying it can be to go through a bunch of posts that don't really say anything--so that's what I'm trying to avoid. Very sorry about this, I was out of the country visiting my Dad and we were on the road nonstop with little or no internet access… I hope I haven’t lost ya :) I was going to make a quick post letting people know I’d be away for a bit, but decided not to because I really want to try to have most of my posts contain something substantial/informative/interesting. Now that I’m checking up on so many blogs myself, I’ve learned how annoying it can be to go through a bunch of posts that don’t really say anything–so that’s what I’m trying to avoid.

]]> By: maxD http://www.seoloser.com/2007/02/09/ouch-i-think-im-feeling-wikipedias-nofollow/#comment-395 maxD Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:25:12 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/02/09/ouch-i-think-im-feeling-wikipedias-nofollow/#comment-395 No writing for a month. Blogging is pretty pants really? I thought this would be a good one to come back to. As with most blogs it is hard to find time when you are too bust making money. Oh well will stop bye in the future perhaps. No writing for a month. Blogging is pretty pants really? I thought this would be a good one to come back to. As with most blogs it is hard to find time when you are too bust making money. Oh well will stop bye in the future perhaps.

]]> By: Aaron Pratt http://www.seoloser.com/2007/02/09/ouch-i-think-im-feeling-wikipedias-nofollow/#comment-260 Aaron Pratt Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:24:15 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/02/09/ouch-i-think-im-feeling-wikipedias-nofollow/#comment-260 Kris - Sites with little linkage but the wikipedia links are appearing in Google groups complaining about "going supplemental" which happens when you do not have enough pagerank BUT both Adam Lasnik and Matt Cutts claim Wikipedia was already devalued for not using the nofollow tag. In other words, they claim that Wikipedia had already lost it's ability to pass pagerank anyhow. I am not so sure. Kris - Sites with little linkage but the wikipedia links are appearing in Google groups complaining about “going supplemental” which happens when you do not have enough pagerank BUT both Adam Lasnik and Matt Cutts claim Wikipedia was already devalued for not using the nofollow tag. In other words, they claim that Wikipedia had already lost it’s ability to pass pagerank anyhow.

I am not so sure.

]]> By: Carsten Cumbrowski http://www.seoloser.com/2007/02/09/ouch-i-think-im-feeling-wikipedias-nofollow/#comment-230 Carsten Cumbrowski Mon, 12 Feb 2007 06:49:57 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/02/09/ouch-i-think-im-feeling-wikipedias-nofollow/#comment-230 Yep, Wikipedia Back-links are gone. It's sad, but I was arguing for it. I hope that this will be a temporarily thing and that the search engines will start ignoring the nofollow attribute (and not Wikipedia removing it). I stated the reasons for my opinion all over. See SEJ for example. I did multiple posts to that subject. Heads up and I am sure you will manage! Yep, Wikipedia Back-links are gone. It’s sad, but I was arguing for it.

I hope that this will be a temporarily thing and that the search engines will start ignoring the nofollow attribute (and not Wikipedia removing it).

I stated the reasons for my opinion all over. See SEJ for example. I did multiple posts to that subject.

Heads up and I am sure you will manage!

]]> By: SEOLoser http://www.seoloser.com/2007/02/09/ouch-i-think-im-feeling-wikipedias-nofollow/#comment-219 SEOLoser Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:28:24 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/02/09/ouch-i-think-im-feeling-wikipedias-nofollow/#comment-219 Alright, I'll try to reply to this wacky comment with my nice cap on. :) "Indeed Wikipedia has had no direct contact with Google. Quite apart from the two orders of magnitude that separate the volume of traffic to the two sites, remember Wikipedia is managed by volunteers in their spare time; getting hold of Google would be pretty difficult, unless the Wikimedia Foundation were involved (and it would be tricky even then)." Your mention of differing orders of magnitude between the two sites has absolutely no bearing on anything related to the discussion. It's like saying Google couldn't get in contact with Urchin (analytics prior to the acquisition) because Urchin's site was less trafficked. Moving along... Wait a second--I thought dmoz was run by volunteers? Oh that's right, it is! :) I also thought Google used their data to power their own directory... Oh yeah, they do! Apparently that volunteer-based site didn't have too much trouble getting a hold of Google ;) Second, I in no way indicated that I'm relying on Wikipedia 'article spam.' In fact, I'm not even sure you read the post I made, in which I described the links we had from Wikipedia as "all valid and longstanding, based on contributions we had offered." I'm pretty sure that's what wikipedia WANTS you to do :) They depend on this kind of help, and encourage referencing (i.e. linking) when appropriate. Finally, I in no way indicated that I was relying on Wikipedia. I really think you missed the point of the post. I wasn't advocating anything you seem to think I was. Instead, I was sharing what I thought was an interesting, observed corrolation between a decrease in SERPs and the reintroduction of nofollow on Wikipedia for a site that had some of its best links coming from Wikipedia. Alright, I’ll try to reply to this wacky comment with my nice cap on. :)

“Indeed Wikipedia has had no direct contact with Google. Quite apart from the two orders of magnitude that separate the volume of traffic to the two sites, remember Wikipedia is managed by volunteers in their spare time; getting hold of Google would be pretty difficult, unless the Wikimedia Foundation were involved (and it would be tricky even then).”

Your mention of differing orders of magnitude between the two sites has absolutely no bearing on anything related to the discussion. It’s like saying Google couldn’t get in contact with Urchin (analytics prior to the acquisition) because Urchin’s site was less trafficked. Moving along… Wait a second–I thought dmoz was run by volunteers? Oh that’s right, it is! :) I also thought Google used their data to power their own directory… Oh yeah, they do! Apparently that volunteer-based site didn’t have too much trouble getting a hold of Google ;)

Second, I in no way indicated that I’m relying on Wikipedia ‘article spam.’ In fact, I’m not even sure you read the post I made, in which I described the links we had from Wikipedia as “all valid and longstanding, based on contributions we had offered.” I’m pretty sure that’s what wikipedia WANTS you to do :) They depend on this kind of help, and encourage referencing (i.e. linking) when appropriate.

Finally, I in no way indicated that I was relying on Wikipedia. I really think you missed the point of the post. I wasn’t advocating anything you seem to think I was. Instead, I was sharing what I thought was an interesting, observed corrolation between a decrease in SERPs and the reintroduction of nofollow on Wikipedia for a site that had some of its best links coming from Wikipedia.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.seoloser.com/2007/02/09/ouch-i-think-im-feeling-wikipedias-nofollow/#comment-217 Anonymous Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:42:50 +0000 http://www.seoloser.com/2007/02/09/ouch-i-think-im-feeling-wikipedias-nofollow/#comment-217 Indeed Wikipedia has had no direct contact with Google. Quite apart from the two orders of magnitude that separate the volume of traffic to the two sites, remember Wikipedia is managed by volunteers in their spare time; getting hold of Google would be pretty difficult, unless the Wikimedia Foundation were involved (and it would be tricky even then). If you're relying on Wikipedia article spam to draw in your traffic, then you have a flawed model – regardless of whether or not you consider the links to be appropriately placed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a web directory. Please figure out other ways to bring in visitors. Indeed Wikipedia has had no direct contact with Google. Quite apart from the two orders of magnitude that separate the volume of traffic to the two sites, remember Wikipedia is managed by volunteers in their spare time; getting hold of Google would be pretty difficult, unless the Wikimedia Foundation were involved (and it would be tricky even then).

If you’re relying on Wikipedia article spam to draw in your traffic, then you have a flawed model – regardless of whether or not you consider the links to be appropriately placed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a web directory. Please figure out other ways to bring in visitors.

]]>