Comments on: Jimmy Wales Responds

By: City pics

City pics — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:40:12 +0000

Beyond basic SEO, which is what we all try to do (including Wikipedia)"

Wikipedia never did any sort of SEO by itself. It's certain$ly not organized enough for that.

just laugh :S

Are you kidding? SEO is completely in Wikipedia's DNA. It starts with the titles, the first sentence, and every other aspect that writers have control over. You have a whole army of volunteers making sure the "formula" is followed.

By: seo

seo — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:45:46 +0000

The real story here, though, is that Google seems to claim it will give extra help to make sure posts on knols show up high in search results. If so, they have now stepped over quite a serious line. How much will users care and respond is the big question. I would greatly enjoy clarification on just what they mean.

By: Estetik

Estetik — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:10:15 +0000

hi,
I am Java Programmer working in a Software Company. We provide ERP solutions to various domestic and international clients. We are now looking for new open source and we think Open Laszlo is great tool for us.

By: Jim Green

Jim Green — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:54:16 +0000

I think the big difference here just that it’s google, god damn they’re just so sexy, their products, their smooth curves… uhh, anyway, google seems to be able to make their products just so much more popular than everybody elses. Are they better or does google just have such a great image?

By: Rob Phillips

Rob Phillips — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:09:05 +0000

I think the key thing here is whether Google place emphasis on it, or whether they just let it “exist”.

By: Anand

Anand — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:56:27 +0000

I perfectly agree with what Jimmy Wales has to say. Knol looks more like Ezinearticles.com, the popular article submitter. How different is this? Wikipedia is an entirely different concept in itself, and the only place where they will compete is in the Google SERPS which Wikipedia has anyway been doing all these years with all the other webpages.

By: kevin gamble

kevin gamble — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:14:00 +0000

Are you kidding? SEO is completely in Wikipedia’s DNA. It starts with the titles, the first sentence, and every other aspect that writers have control over. You have a whole army of volunteers making sure the “formula” is followed.

By: Jean-Sébastien Girard

Jean-Sébastien Girard — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:23:17 +0000

"Beyond basic SEO, which is what we all try to do (including Wikipedia)"

Wikipedia never did any sort of SEO by itself. It's certain$ly not organized enough for that.

By: Kevin Gamble

Kevin Gamble — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:55:38 +0000

>Google seems to claim it will give extra help to make sure posts on knols show up high in search results.

And where did they say that? Beyond basic SEO, which is what we all try to do (including Wikipedia), how is Google providing preferential treatment?

Well written content does well in SEO. Period. It sure sounds to me like Google is treating all content the same-- that the higher quality content will rise to the top.

By: SorenG

SorenG — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:51:07 +0000

@zozo Asking a site their views on a new competing site is Google hating? In this logic, asking readers their views on a blog post would be "author hating." I don't get it.