Comments on: The Good, The Bad, And Wikipedia http://henrikfalck.com/blog/2009/04/good-bad-and-wikipedia.html reinventing web 3.0 Thu, 17 May 2012 10:46:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: exton http://henrikfalck.com/blog/2009/04/good-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-985 exton Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:45:59 +0000 http://henrikfalck.com/blog2/2009/04/the-good-the-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-985 Hey I just wanted to drop a line and say I truly like your web site. I have been searching at it for really some time now and i thought it was about time i dropped a comment and said hello. Hey I just wanted to drop a line and say I truly like your web site. I have been searching at it for really some time now and i thought it was about time i dropped a comment and said hello.

]]> By: blambigma http://henrikfalck.com/blog/2009/04/good-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-874 blambigma Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:59:09 +0000 http://henrikfalck.com/blog2/2009/04/the-good-the-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-874 Zealous brother, what you sleep, I specify a subject and a sense of comfort not competent to get it, you give me the right who is the main response. Thank you very much different Zealous brother, what you sleep, I specify a subject and a sense of comfort not competent to get it, you give me the right who is the main response. Thank you very much different

]]> By: Amelia Neblett http://henrikfalck.com/blog/2009/04/good-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-850 Amelia Neblett Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:53:16 +0000 http://henrikfalck.com/blog2/2009/04/the-good-the-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-850 Do you know of the article reminds me of one other identical the one that Someone said in other places? Do you know of the article reminds me of one other identical the one that Someone said in other places?

]]> By: bufflo http://henrikfalck.com/blog/2009/04/good-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-646 bufflo Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:51:13 +0000 http://henrikfalck.com/blog2/2009/04/the-good-the-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-646 If you highlight a word on nytimes.com a small question mark pops up, clicking it transports you to a dictionary. That's a useful and relevant feture, seeing how journalists at the greatest newspaper in the world tend to use novel words here and there. If you highlight a word on nytimes.com a small question mark pops up, clicking it transports you to a dictionary. That's a useful and relevant feture, seeing how journalists at the greatest newspaper in the world tend to use novel words here and there.

]]> By: State of Bolivian http://henrikfalck.com/blog/2009/04/good-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-644 State of Bolivian Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:21:53 +0000 http://henrikfalck.com/blog2/2009/04/the-good-the-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-644 Anonymous is totally missing the point. Yes, page rank isnt nearly as important in 2009, as it was years ago. But inbound links and the relevance of the pages linking to your site are VITALLY important to achieving higher rankings on Google.<br /><br />Wikipedia wants their cake and to eat it too here. They want ALL of their inbound links to give them page credibility, yet want to discount all of their outbound links so NONE of the outbound links give any credit to anyone else.<br /><br />Here is an example. Wikipedia has 2 lines on subject X and then a link to website Y, which has 100 pages on this subject. A million people a day click on the wiki page, find the link and realize the second page is a better resource. But since Google allows for this blind No Follow, a lot of the real relevance on the subject continues to go to Wikipedia and then die in their dead end of programming.<br /><br />Site Y is the real relevant location that should be #1 in the rankings, but since Wiki controls the outbound link pop - Site Y never gets where it needs to in the rankings. There is no way anyone can condone this with a straight face. <br /><br />Google needs to eventually be able to allow for no follow tags to block spammers, while still giving the appropriate credit to the sites that are being linked to. Anonymous is totally missing the point. Yes, page rank isnt nearly as important in 2009, as it was years ago. But inbound links and the relevance of the pages linking to your site are VITALLY important to achieving higher rankings on Google.

Wikipedia wants their cake and to eat it too here. They want ALL of their inbound links to give them page credibility, yet want to discount all of their outbound links so NONE of the outbound links give any credit to anyone else.

Here is an example. Wikipedia has 2 lines on subject X and then a link to website Y, which has 100 pages on this subject. A million people a day click on the wiki page, find the link and realize the second page is a better resource. But since Google allows for this blind No Follow, a lot of the real relevance on the subject continues to go to Wikipedia and then die in their dead end of programming.

Site Y is the real relevant location that should be #1 in the rankings, but since Wiki controls the outbound link pop – Site Y never gets where it needs to in the rankings. There is no way anyone can condone this with a straight face.

Google needs to eventually be able to allow for no follow tags to block spammers, while still giving the appropriate credit to the sites that are being linked to.

]]> By: Anonymous http://henrikfalck.com/blog/2009/04/good-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-631 Anonymous Thu, 21 May 2009 05:54:34 +0000 http://henrikfalck.com/blog2/2009/04/the-good-the-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-631 I would agree with the PageRank argument, if PageRank was actually still in use at Google.<br /><br />The PageRank algorithm was used in the first implementation of Google in late 90s when it wasn't yet run by a multibillion dollars company doing business with AdWords.<br /><br />Now, the way Google indexes the web today has barely anything to do with the PageRank algorithm and is a company secret anyway, but we keep seeing SEO companies around the world claiming they can "improve your PageRank" for a few thousands $$$... I would agree with the PageRank argument, if PageRank was actually still in use at Google.

The PageRank algorithm was used in the first implementation of Google in late 90s when it wasn't yet run by a multibillion dollars company doing business with AdWords.

Now, the way Google indexes the web today has barely anything to do with the PageRank algorithm and is a company secret anyway, but we keep seeing SEO companies around the world claiming they can "improve your PageRank" for a few thousands $$$…

]]> By: justin http://henrikfalck.com/blog/2009/04/good-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-624 justin Sun, 03 May 2009 17:54:00 +0000 http://henrikfalck.com/blog2/2009/04/the-good-the-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-624 i so totally agree. it's an awful shame there is no way we can force all the fools making worthless hyperlink to read this and think about what they are actually doing instead of just feeling 'geeky cool' doing something nonsensical but 'internetty' as they currently are. the worst, i'd have to say though, is the web forum software and various sites that have some sort of retarded automated linking software in place that adds links to words used by an author who had know knowledge those links were going to be automatically plugged in. half the time you will see semantically the thing linked has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of the word the author was using. i so totally agree. it's an awful shame there is no way we can force all the fools making worthless hyperlink to read this and think about what they are actually doing instead of just feeling 'geeky cool' doing something nonsensical but 'internetty' as they currently are. the worst, i'd have to say though, is the web forum software and various sites that have some sort of retarded automated linking software in place that adds links to words used by an author who had know knowledge those links were going to be automatically plugged in. half the time you will see semantically the thing linked has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of the word the author was using.

]]> By: Karl Henrik Falck http://henrikfalck.com/blog/2009/04/good-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-621 Karl Henrik Falck Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:00:00 +0000 http://henrikfalck.com/blog2/2009/04/the-good-the-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-621 Hi DM, thanks for your comment. I think the subject of Wikipedia's "nofollow" attribute might require its own blog post...<br /><br />But yes, I can think of other ways, like only allowing registered users to add outgoing links, or an even simpler measure would be to make links nofollow until a registered (perhaps registered for x months) user has verified it.<br /><br />Personally I think Wikipedia would gain from not allowing anonymous edits at all, especially since it would probably reduce the administrative work drastically, allowing "editors" to improve the content instead. That would also alleviate the link spam problem.<br /><br />Anyway, not linking back (in terms of search engine ranking) to the content they rip off is unfair and bad for the net. But I think people linking <i>to</i> Wikipedia in the thoughtless ways I outlined in this blog post is an even bigger problem. I hope people start linking to good content instead of relying on Wikipedia to be the global directory of the Internet. That would also alleviate the problem with outbound links from Wikipedia having such abnormally high value. I definitely don't expect that to happen in the near future though, I'm just wishing it would. Hi DM, thanks for your comment. I think the subject of Wikipedia's "nofollow" attribute might require its own blog post…

But yes, I can think of other ways, like only allowing registered users to add outgoing links, or an even simpler measure would be to make links nofollow until a registered (perhaps registered for x months) user has verified it.

Personally I think Wikipedia would gain from not allowing anonymous edits at all, especially since it would probably reduce the administrative work drastically, allowing "editors" to improve the content instead. That would also alleviate the link spam problem.

Anyway, not linking back (in terms of search engine ranking) to the content they rip off is unfair and bad for the net. But I think people linking to Wikipedia in the thoughtless ways I outlined in this blog post is an even bigger problem. I hope people start linking to good content instead of relying on Wikipedia to be the global directory of the Internet. That would also alleviate the problem with outbound links from Wikipedia having such abnormally high value. I definitely don't expect that to happen in the near future though, I'm just wishing it would.

]]> By: DM http://henrikfalck.com/blog/2009/04/good-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-620 DM Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:43:00 +0000 http://henrikfalck.com/blog2/2009/04/the-good-the-bad-and-wikipedia.html#comment-620 I disagree with your claim that adding the "nofollow" attribute to outgoing links on Wikipedia was "stupid and bad".<br /><br />Wikipedia's own interest is not to be polluted by spam. Getting a higher pagerank was one motivation for spammers to put their links in Wikipedia. The "nofollow" attribute removed that motivation.<br /><br />Of course, this is not fair to many people on there - those to whom Wikipedia links, and who are not rewarded for it in terms of pagerank.<br /><br />But... do you have a suggestion for Wikipedia that would do as much to control spam as using "nofollow"? I disagree with your claim that adding the "nofollow" attribute to outgoing links on Wikipedia was "stupid and bad".

Wikipedia's own interest is not to be polluted by spam. Getting a higher pagerank was one motivation for spammers to put their links in Wikipedia. The "nofollow" attribute removed that motivation.

Of course, this is not fair to many people on there – those to whom Wikipedia links, and who are not rewarded for it in terms of pagerank.

But… do you have a suggestion for Wikipedia that would do as much to control spam as using "nofollow"?

]]>