« 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 3:56 PM
Intrapromote: [ Case studies | SEO services | Bios ]
Comments
Very good article! I would like to thank you for the great effort you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. In fact your creative writing ability has inspired me to start my own BlogEngine blog now. Really the blogging is spreading its wings rapidly. Your write up is a fine example of it.This is to be honest a Great knowledge gaining post and all thanks to yahoo search engine get me on here. I loved reading your writing and added to the favorites.Very good!
Posted by: beer consumption cancer liver at August 4, 2010 11:12 PM
Hi there, this is a really good blog, i will use this for my project. Thanks
Posted by: Ashlie Garitty at August 6, 2010 5:35 PM
Very good article! I would like to thank you for the great effort you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the tomorrow as well. In fact your creative writing abilities has inspired me to start my own BlogEngine blog now. Really the blogging is spreading its wings rapidly. Your write up is a fine case of it.This is to be honest a Great knowledge gaining post and all thanks to google search engine get me on here. I loved reading your writing and added to the favorites.Very good!
Posted by: liver cancer survival rate at August 11, 2010 7:02 PM