Sorry to beat a dead horse. This is something I'm really curious about, and possibly something the rest of us can learn from. We all know Wikipedia has been falling in the serps lately. Theories range from a new algorithm at Google to a self-inflicted wound.

I noticed that while most of WP's links are nofollow, the internal links aren't. An example is if you go to the SEO article, the first link you see is to another article on SEM - here is the link code: <a title="Search engine marketing" href="/wiki/Search_engine_marketing">search engine marketing</a>. On the other hand, when you look at any link to another domain ( be it a reference, external link, on a talk page, even a user's page ) the text is more like this: <a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/28117.htm" class= "external text" href= "http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/28117.htm" >WebmasterWorld.com</a>. I bring this up because one theory has been that WP took themselves out of the rankings by nofollow'ing all their links, including from one article to the next, that they were their #1 link source, and that this crippled them.

I've done my fair share of improving Wikipedia, from writing new articles on .NET topics, to editing plenty of articles that need help, even weeding out the spam from the useful external links. Never expected anything in return, except for other people to learn, and for that to improve society as a whole. And I still believe in that, although I personally think WP is wrong to nofollow all their links out. I know other people think it's a bad solution, too, and one seo blogger went so far as to ask everyone to nofollow their links to WP. I don't think he reached many people, so it probably had very little effect.

Anyway, I wonder what people make of the fact that they didn't nofollow their own links? How does that fit in with their fall from grace, or what we know about it? Is it possible they ticked off enough people that they lost enough links to drop? Is it possible Google thinks this is an inappropriate use of their new attribute, and is punishing them for it? Or is it just a coincidence?

I can't honestly say that I haven't noticed any drop in Wikipedia rankings. For the majority of searches I do (and I do a LOT ) WP pages are still "above the fold" page 1 SERP.


The question should be of course does anybody at WP really care about their SE ranking and I believe the answer will be a resounding NO!!!!!
Only the "SEO" types who think they can manipulate something else for their benefit are the one who are rattling on about what is really a total non issue.

Now, on to more interesting things
Link exchange anyone ???

I have 3-way link X-Chng 4 u, Chris!

Seriously, I tend to agree with Chris. The people who noticed the devaluation of Wiki the most and complained/talked the most about it were the ones who used it to try and get a Mick Foley cheap pop from search engines. I did notice it dipped for a few terms I would normally find WP pages under, but that was for about a week and all seems back to normal (look up the name of any wrestler, particularly an indie, and you'll quite often find WP between results #1-3.)

I also don't think WP would care about their SE ranking because of the whole silly Wikia thing. They'll just manipulate that and put their own stuff on top.

This is the first I've heard of Wikia, but when I search for that on Google, I find: "Find out more about Wikia Search - the search engine that will change everything." On the home page I see links to "advertise on wikia" and another under Wikia highlights, "Spanking Art" under adult. I think I'll stick with Google, thanks.

I would think Wikipedia doesn't really care about their search rank, too, but I've heard they used to pay a lot for advertising and links when they started out. I have no idea whether that's true. I wasn't glad to hear it, and honestly, I'm a little disappointed to notice they nofollow external links, but not internal ones. That just seems like bad "netizenship." It tells me they care more than they let on about link juice, if they're trying to preserve theirs. ( Especially when half the spam on WP these days are WP articles about how great and wonderful a spam product is. )

Maybe I'm just groaning about nothing. I'm starting to loose respect for WP, though, and I wonder if it's possible Google is, too?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Maybe I'm just groaning about nothing. I'm starting to loose respect for WP, though, and I wonder if it's possible Google is, too?

LOL -- welcome to the Groaners Club!

Uh oh. I swear I'm not 40 yet. I'm, er, 38 plus three.

C'mon, it isn't really my time, is it? I just found the watch!

Link juice isn't the only reason for a nofollow.

A nofollow can also be used to prevent a site being perceived as linking to bad neighbourhoods, and it can also be used to allow advertisers the ability to track real user traffic vs. bots to some extent (bots aren't always detectable.)

At any rate, the real issue isn't the nofollow itself, but how it was allowed to happen IMHO. Any time a system is in place that allows any data from anyone, people will abuse it. Open concepts simply do not work online, and the whole SEO manipulation of Wikipedia just demonstrated that.

They really need to look at having moderation and other checks and balances in place. That's the bigger issue.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Link juice isn't the only reason for a nofollow.

A nofollow can also be used to prevent a site being perceived as linking to bad neighbourhoods

I'm confused. How would linking via nofollow to a bad neighborhood be different from just not linking to a bad neighborhood? Or, since that's begging for a sarcastic answer, why would a person want to have a link to a bad neighborhood, but have it not count?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Uh oh. I swear I'm not 40 yet. I'm, er, 38 plus three.

C'mon, it isn't really my time, is it? I just found the watch!

LMAO - I knew you were a "kid" ... (JUST KIDDING!) ... but, I've always respected your opinions and knowledge, even though you didn't give me a TALKUPATION -- small hint for THE KID...LMAO...

John: think Matt Cutts' blog and the number of spammy posters and things he'd rather not deal with. Or when he points out some blackhat site but doesn't want to be associated with it from a search engine point of view (reference only.)

Blog post spam is another example.

Forum signatures could be a third, especially on boards where they get abused (e.g. SEO boards.)

Advertisers who want to track user traffic would be a fourth.

There are reasons. They're just not apparent at first glance.