3 ms·

How do you think it got that way? Honest question, I don't know much about SEO.

notahacker 11y ago
It has a huge advantage of brand recognition, which means it's often the first result people click on and the first page someone links to if they think their readers might want a term defined. You know it's probably not the best description of the topic, but it will tend to give a text-based answer that tend to strike a reasonable balance between length and detail, be easy to navigate, have input from both sides of the debate if there is a prominent debate, and definitely won't try to install malware on your computer or play video in your face. For reasons related to the above, afaik Google has never tried to nerf its prominence in search results, unlike profit-seeking content farms. That's probably an underestimated reason for its SEO success as well.
- Kurtz79 11y ago
  Well, you are saying (correctly, IMHO) that for users doing a search, without previous knowledge of what are the best sources of information on a particular subject, will choose Wikipedia in a list of possible links for the reasons you mention. On these assumptions I don't see any reason why Google should "nerf" its results, since they effectively present what the user is most likely to be looking for :)
  - notahacker 11y ago
    That was what I meant by "for related reasons". The flip side of that is many of the commercial content farms that Google intentionally nerfed usually gave people exactly what they were looking for too. And on a related note, "what the user is most likely to be looking for" is path dependent. Unlike other content sites, I rarely bother using Wikipedia search, because I can invariably find the page by Googling from my browser. If the relevant Wikipedia result wasn't consistently on the first page of Google, I'd tend to go direct to WP when actively looking for Wikipedia articles like I do with other less search-optimised but often superior websites. And if that was the case, Wikipedia would almost never be the result I wanted when Googling subject matter, much like although I'm often interested in BBC News, finding the Beeb's take on a subject is never the reason for me using Google News.
    - Retra 11y ago
      Who wants to scroll all over a new site to find information when you already know how Wikipedia is laid out and functions? If I'm looking for sources, scroll to the bottom. If I'm looking for history, check after the index. With other sites, you often have to wade through ads and read the whole thing just to answer a simple question. And most of the time, I'm just looking for details on things I already know.

It has a huge advantage of brand recognition, which means it's often the first result people click on and the first page someone links to if they think their readers might want a term defined. You know it's probably not the best description of the topic, but it will tend to give a text-based answer that tend to strike a reasonable balance between length and detail, be easy to navigate, have input from both sides of the debate if there is a prominent debate, and definitely won't try to install malware on your computer or play video in your face. For reasons related to the above, afaik Google has never tried to nerf its prominence in search results, unlike profit-seeking content farms. That's probably an underestimated reason for its SEO success as well.

Kurtz79 11y ago
Well, you are saying (correctly, IMHO) that for users doing a search, without previous knowledge of what are the best sources of information on a particular subject, will choose Wikipedia in a list of possible links for the reasons you mention. On these assumptions I don't see any reason why Google should "nerf" its results, since they effectively present what the user is most likely to be looking for :)
- notahacker 11y ago
  That was what I meant by "for related reasons". The flip side of that is many of the commercial content farms that Google intentionally nerfed usually gave people exactly what they were looking for too. And on a related note, "what the user is most likely to be looking for" is path dependent. Unlike other content sites, I rarely bother using Wikipedia search, because I can invariably find the page by Googling from my browser. If the relevant Wikipedia result wasn't consistently on the first page of Google, I'd tend to go direct to WP when actively looking for Wikipedia articles like I do with other less search-optimised but often superior websites. And if that was the case, Wikipedia would almost never be the result I wanted when Googling subject matter, much like although I'm often interested in BBC News, finding the Beeb's take on a subject is never the reason for me using Google News.
  - Retra 11y ago
    Who wants to scroll all over a new site to find information when you already know how Wikipedia is laid out and functions? If I'm looking for sources, scroll to the bottom. If I'm looking for history, check after the index. With other sites, you often have to wade through ads and read the whole thing just to answer a simple question. And most of the time, I'm just looking for details on things I already know.