A number of SEO consultants are up in arms this week after reading a new report conducted by Intelligent Positioning. The report discusses the positioning of the website Wikipedia in Google’s Search Engine Results Pages (SERPS). According to the report by author Sam Silverwood-Cope the Wikipedia web pages are featured on first page for 99% of Google searches.
The concern is multipied by the apparent low quality of many of the pages that some of the very general searches take you to. SEO consultants across the industry have been blogging and tweeting about ‘poorly written content ranking higher-quality websites on the same subject’ ever since a story relating to the report apeared on Search Engine Watch.
According to the Search Engine Watch story, ‘Wikipedia is the No. 1 result on Google for 56 percent of searches, while 96 percent of searches saw Wikipedia in one of the top five positions.’
Mr Silverwood-Cope found that Wikipedia did “extremely well” on geographic and scientific searches, as well as food and clothing.
“If there was one place taken up in every search by Wikipedia, then that would mean there is one place in the Top Ten for possible PPC paying corporations.” He said, adding that this was ‘just a thought, not a fact.’
Google Scam or Quality Website Aptly Rewarded?
Although the SEO world is up in arms, is the outcry justified? Philip Brassington, a Director at Rake Mark Web Design, Staffordshire thinks that the SEO world has maybe over reacted. The main critisism seem to be that the searches lead to very poor web content or low quality web pages.
“At first glance you might think that Wikipedia is being unfairly favoured by Google but when you look a little deeper you find that the very general single word keyphrases used often lead to excellent content.” He said
Other members of the internet community have added their own support to Google and the findings of the report.
Stuart Duncan said “Google helps you to find answers. Wikipedia gives you answers. You do the math.”
Steve Da Cunha commented, “Gotta love Wikipedia I’ve learned a lot from that site”
In repsonse to the 99% claim made in the report Jochen Wiedmann said, “And rightly so…. cause. at least for me, it’s the link I am most likely to follow”
Is this a website unjustly promoted by Google or a raft of relevent web pages with simple effective web design served up by a search Engine to the public.
Great web design blog, you’re amazing! Thank you!.
You’re website is so cool! .So good to find someone with some original thoughts on relevant topics. Really.. thank you for articles, they really are useful. Your website is something that’s needed on the internet, someone with a bit of originality!.
Nice post. I have been checking continuously on your blog and have to say I am impressed! Extremely helpful information. Thank you and well done!
This is really interesting, you’re a skilled blogger. I’ve joined your feed, thanks for the info.
Useful info, found your web site unintentionally, dont agree with you though, wikipedia shouldnt get the prominence that they do, wouldnt be suprised if Google did promote them
This is going to run and run, keep the comments coming
Sorry, I’m another disagree, google promotes them and others unfairly. If you’re in the club, great, if not then your stuffed
Hi Georgia
Run your own test. Grab some general search terms and see where Wikipedia ranks. Then look at the quality & relevance of the pages that surround it and compare them to the wiki page that is returned in the rankings.
If the page that Wikipedia returns is dross and the other pages are quality info pages then you have a point, but I don’t think you will find that this is the case.
I have run my own experiments through general searching and I find that Wikipedia is well placed.
Let me know if you find otherwise, this is a really interesting SEO topic.
Regard,
Phil