Please don't link to WikiPeeingYa (wikipedia.com)
Google is in serious danger of becoming nothing but an index for WikiPeeingYa. Since utilizing the rel="nofollow" tag (except to other properties, including their own for-profit site) WikiPeeingYa comes up as #1 on soooo many topics. Because of their high internal page rank (accelerated by their use of the nofollow tag), their unoriginal, poorly written, frequently inaccurate, single page summations frequently outrank entire websites of original, accurate copyrighted information. Including this one. Linking to WikiPeeingYa is easy; please go the extra step and drill down and link to the original source of the information. Thanks. |
|
|
| But anyone in the world can put anything they want on Wikipedia, so you know you're getting the best information out there! |
Ron wrote: Google is in serious danger of becoming nothing but an index for WikiPeeingYa.
What search engine(s) are the best? I need to get out of my Google habit. I figure there are members here with some opinions... |
| Thanks for telling us, Ron. Will remember not to link.
Google is the best search engine. |
| Thanks for alerting people. Some people are still of the mindset to believe everything they find on the internet... |
barney1 wrote: Thanks for alerting people. Some people are still of the mindset to believe everything they find on the internet...
Everything on the internet is true. |
Lil Walty wrote: But anyone in the world can put anything they want on Wikipedia, so you know you're getting the best information out there! I hope you're being sarcastic... |
| At the school where my kids attend, they have forbidden the kids to use Wikipedia as a reference tool.
Instead we got a subscription to Britannica. |
Ron wrote: Lil Walty wrote: But anyone in the world can put anything they want on Wikipedia, so you know you're getting the best information out there! I hope you're being sarcastic...I am, it's actually a reference from The Office  |
| I personally like www.dogpile.com
Aside from the obviously cool name, it is a super search engine.  |
got sheep wrote:
That always make me think of, well, you know  |
| I like dogpile too, but I used google most of the time.
I absolutely HATE yahoo.... |
| 3rd vote for dogpile. |
| Hmm ... just because Wikipedia articles outrank better ones doesn't mean they prevent you from scrolling the page. Wikipedia isn't an academic quality source, but at the same time they are often a nice way to find links to better sources. Besides, where else are you going to find amazingly long articles about obscure bits of pop-culture?
I like Google the best, but then again, I like the company. They've managed to remain a great place to work, despite growing significantly over the past few years. Disclaimer: I don't work for Google--sometimes I just wish I did. |
| Just the thing you like about WikiPeeingYa is what my little protest is all about. Are you familiar with the rel="nofollow" tag?
A normal link passes "Google PageRank". Think of it like a vote, and the higher the pagerank of the vote, the higher the worth of the vote. If there are 10 links on a page, the value of the page is divided by 10 and each link gets 1/10th of that page's vote. In order to help prevent "comment spam", people placing nonsense comments and posts solely for getting a link back to their own site, Google introduced and pushed the rel="nofollow" tag. Any link with that attribute passes no page rank at all. If there are 10 links on that hypothetical page and 5 of them pointed outside of WikiP and 5 were internal links, now the outside sites get no pagerank, and the internal pages each get 1/5th of a vote. WikiP has implemented the rel="nofollow" tag for all links leaving their site, except for links that point to certain other wikis, including their own for-profit sites. Immediately after implementing the change, WikiP's rankings all went sky high, and all of the sources they cite and reference with a link went down. Those links aren't comment spam, they are human edited, community vouched-for links. Instead of letting the editors, in this case EVERYBODY guard against the spam links, and keep the quality high, they resorted to this "easy" approach. They now give no credit to their source, so I figure they should get no credit from their sources, either. |
| That sounds fair. The exact workings of page rankings are regularly tweaked, and you never know when Google might just give Wikipedia a downward bump (oops .. they fell into the supplemental index).
Still, all I was saying is that despite their technical policies, they are often a good source of better sources. (My most recent visits being for 'Sucralose', 'Thoreau', and 'Straw-bale construction'.) Ron's point is valid though: If you are creating your own site, definitely link to the actual sources, not the Wikipedia article. The web's equivalent of six degrees of Kevin Bacon has already become two degrees of "WikiPeeingYa". |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|