On 20/08/07, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSi60Zj6JXU
> Some idiot, somewhere, is going to think this is a good idea.
I guess I'm an idiot then, because I think
it's a good idea.
I meant for SEO :-) The really advanced Googlemancers get like New Age
conmen, selling snake oil so refined the customers think scientific
falsifiability is the mark of an insufficiently advanced service and
logical thought and joined-up thinking are oppressive constructs out
to crush the human spirit.
I don't think
we have to wait until we have a top ranking "enemy" in Google search
results, I think we can add more internal links to everything regardless
of the circumstances of the particular article. Because we want Wikipedia
to rank highly, and we want readers to have an engaging surfing experience
where they can follow their curiosity from article to article, across all
disciplines and fields of knowledge. Heavily-linked articles are an
important part of Wikipedia's style. If the SEO people want to help with
that, that's fine by me.
I think the key to our vastly successful search engine optimisation is
not having given a hoot about the notion of search engine
optimisation. I remember when our Google rankings were so bad that our
own mirror sites frequently came first and the Wikipedia article would
be on page three. But now we're a highly "authoritative site" (in
Google rank terms), and I suspect it's precisely because we do what's
right for the content and the reader. We do well by doing good.
- d.