« You Think Your Keywords Are Competitive? | Main | Are You the Master of Your Domain? »
Google Search Results in a Wiki Thicket
December 20, 2005
Oilman got a hot tip about a new UI test involving Google results pages.
He points out that appending the terms "information" or "info" to simple concepts (such as [typing info], [driving information], and so on) often triggers the serving of the Wikipedia definition of that term as the top Google result.
I did more poking, and not only does it occur in a ton of different searches, but that result is also given a font size boost, and in some cases, a placement boost (see the Adidas example later in this post). For example, a typical Google descriptive "snippet" has a font size of "-1". The Wiki results don't have that attribute, resulting in text size that is the same as the blue title text. Following is the top result at Google for [airline information]:
![Top Google result for [airline information]](http://seoblog.intrapromote.com/goog-airline.JPG "Top Google result for [airline information]")
It's hard to get excited about this; the result above is unlikely to be helpful to anyone older than nine.
Historically, Google has had an interesting relationship with "information"-based queries, often producing pages from Answers.com or Business.com in the top spot for brand-focused queries such as [adidas information]. (Note that in this search, the Wiki result surpasses even the Froogle results.) But Wikipedia appears to be the new authority in town, doubtless leaving Answers.com wishing it had ... answers.
Due mostly to its raison d'etre of offering real-time edits by anyone, Wikipedia has had its share of negative press this year, including controversies surrounding former MTV veejay (and current Podcast evangelist) Adam Curry; former assistant to Robert Kennedy, John Seigenthaler; and even Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales.
A bit of good news came recently, however, when a study by the journal Nature put Wikipedia on par with Encyclopaedia Britannica in terms of accuracy:
The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.
So for better or worse, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. For SEOs and their clients, the pressing concern is whether its rise to fame hinders their branding message, and if so, how they're going to handle it.
All posts by Erik Dafforn
posted by Erik Dafforn at December 20, 2005 03:56 PM
Intrapromote: [ Case studies | SEO services | Bios ]