5 ms·
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 sub
by 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 agoThat 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 agoWho 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.