If they can't see us, we're not there!
http://www.distilled.co.uk/blog/seo/search-google-without-wikipedia-a-firefo...
- d.
On 7/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If they can't see us, we're not there!
http://www.distilled.co.uk/blog/seo/search-google-without-wikipedia-a-firefo...
Personally, I prefer the google+wikipedia Firefox search plugin:
http://mycroft.mozdev.org/download.html?name=Wikipedia+(3rd+Party+-+Google)
Following the distilled link a little, I learn that of 40 destinations of the Tour de France, "Gourette" is the only one where Wikipedia is not in the top 10 google search results.
http://www.wolf-howl.com/case-study/2007-tour-de-france-winner-wikipedia/
Can we fix that before the 25th ? The French language article is quite long, yet our page currently redirects to a very short article about the commune [[Eaux-Bonnes]], which incidentally ranks at # 6.
-- John
On 7/14/07, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If they can't see us, we're not there!
http://www.distilled.co.uk/blog/seo/search-google-without-wikipedia-a-firefo...
Personally, I prefer the google+wikipedia Firefox search plugin:
http://mycroft.mozdev.org/download.html?name=Wikipedia+(3rd+Party+-+Google)
With the CustomizeGoogle plugin you can remove Wikipedia mirrors from Google search results. It's very handy. The list of mirrors is maintained on Meta and is pretty complete.
Extension: http://www.customizegoogle.com/
The list on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mirror_filter
On 7/15/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
With the CustomizeGoogle plugin you can remove Wikipedia mirrors from Google search results. It's very handy. The list of mirrors is maintained on Meta and is pretty complete.
If there were a more reliable way to do this, it would be much easier to avoid mistaking sources for mirrors (copyright infringement on our part), or mistaking mirrors for sources (circular spread of information that was never properly verified).
Somehow I doubt it's as fool-proof as you say.
—C.W.
On 7/15/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
If there were a more reliable way to do this, it would be much easier to avoid mistaking sources for mirrors (copyright infringement on our part), or mistaking mirrors for sources (circular spread of information that was never properly verified).
Somehow I doubt it's as fool-proof as you say.
It's as accurate as the list on Meta, which is pretty accurate, since there are always people looking out for mirrors and forks and keeping track of them at pages like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks
...as part of efforts to ensure GFDL compliance among reusers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GFDL_Compliance
The plugin doesn't completely remove those sites from the result, it just replaces the usual listing which is several lines long with a greyed out link to the mirror. So it's possible to spot false positives, should they ever occur.
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 09:56:09 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If they can't see us, we're not there! http://www.distilled.co.uk/blog/seo/search-google-without-wikipedia-a-firefo...
Oh man, that is hilariously stupid! We will fix Wikipedia's dominance by putting our fingers in our ears and chanting "laa laa laa we're not listening" - yup, that should work handily :-)
Guy (JzG)
David Gerard wrote:
If they can't see us, we're not there!
http://www.distilled.co.uk/blog/seo/search-google-without-wikipedia-a-firefo...
At last, a win-win solution. Perhaps we can give away copies at SEO conferences?
William
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 09:06:25 -0700, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
At last, a win-win solution. Perhaps we can give away copies at SEO conferences?
Even better: give them a version where the Wikipedia hit is replaced with Centiare. Then they will come in their pants every time they Google!
Guy (JzG)