Mogu li vratiti svoj novac, Wikipedia?

wikipedia

Nisam velik doprinos Wikipedija. Međutim, u prošlosti sam donirao nešto novca zakladi i doprinosio sadržaju na njihovoj web lokaciji. Volim Wikipediju ... Stalno je koristim i često je koristim na svom blogu. Wikipedia mi je također pomogla - generirajući neke pogotke za moju web stranicu I Wikipedia je poboljšala moj ukupni rang web stranice putem veza do mene.

S obzirom na ovo stajalište, nije li ovo bila situacija davanja i primanja? Dao sam Wikipediji novac i sadržaj. Zauzvrat, dali su mi poboljšani poredak na tražilicama i izravne pogotke.

Sada Wikipedija is dodavanjem nofollow na sve vanjske poveznice. To u osnovi nokautira vrlo ključnog referenca na moj blog, tako da ću bez sumnje izgubiti smještaj na tražilici zbog odluke.

Pretpostavljam da me to ne bi smetalo, osim što smo oboje imali koristi od našeg poslovnog odnosa u prošlosti. Wikipedia je dobila samo fantastičan poredak na tražilicama jer:

  • Ljudi su doprinijeli sadržajem
  • Ljudi povezani s tim sadržajem

Dakle, evo pitanja od 10 dolara. Možemo li svi vratiti svoj novac, Wikipedia? Promijenili ste poslovni odnos sa svim svojim suradnicima, a da prethodno niste njih pitali. Možda više ne vrijediš.

Čitateljima mojih pošta prije nekoliko dana bit ćete sretni kada saznate da MOŽETE poboljšati rang listu komentirajući poveznicom natrag na vaše web mjesto. Onemogućio sam nofollow na mom blogu. Pa komentirajte dalje! Pružite odličan sadržaj i iskoristite blagodati!

15 Komentari

  1. 1

    Jesi li vidio Andy Beal’s campaign to get people to “nofollow” their links to Wikipedia? It seems only fair.

    I don’t understand the logic behind this latest move by Wikipedia. The whole point of the links on Wikipedia pages is to reference the sites that the articles source their content from. If the sites referenced can’t be trusted enough to have normal links, why should they be trusted as references for an article? I can understand adding “nofollow” to new links until they undergo some sort of review, but adding it permanently to all outgoing links just seems wrong.

  2. 2
  3. 3

    The whole nofollow issue is a very interesting. By not having the nofollow tags you promote commenting, but also promote spamming (and make the spam that get’s by more effective). I have found Akismet to be effective enough that I agree with what you are doing though…

    As for Wikipedia- just to play devil’s advocate- I am not sure everyone sees it as a give/take relationship, in a financial sense. Yes, an information exchange, but making from a free service like that coud definitely get the community in an uproar. If you were adding good content and pertinent links, it should be fine, but how many spammers were deterred by Wikipedia adding those nofollow tags? Plus, the money you donate is normally to support the site that you use for information, not a kickback ; )

  4. 4

    You bring a good point, but I don’t know what the stats are for between donators and owners of websites with links on wikipedia. I’d assume it was low, but it’s still a good point, but not one that they’d care for – since the whole point of this new decision was to get rid of self-promotion ( I assume you added your own link to wikipedia?)

  5. 5
  6. 6

    The question really is what did you donate to Wikipedia for? Was it to provide backlinks to your blog or was it to help build an encyclopedia? If you were to argue to have your donation returned, Wikipedia could argue the latter. They aren’t under any obligation to assist with your search engine rankings, although it was always a nice bonus.

    It’s a shame that abuse of the system has lead to nofollow being implemented, but it doesn’t detract from Wikipedia’s goal at all.

  7. 7

    Firstly, thanks for for removing nofollow from your blog. I’ve done the same on mine.

    By adding nofollow to Wikipedia, they are not tackling the problem but just the symptom.

  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10

    I have the feeling that nofollow links will eventually (they might allready do) contribute to your search engine ranking.

    Just think about what a nofollow link is: It’s the most unbiased, unspammed and PR-greed free link on the Net. What search engine in their right mind would disregard this additional information on a websites importance.

    I’m sure Google have a secret nofollow rank for webpages 🙂

  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13

    I jumped into the blog game fairly recently, when wikipedia had already implemented the nofollow thing, so I missed that boat. I must say though, that I linked to an article on one of my blogs from a wikipedia page and it is still a large contributer of traffic.

    • 14

      OK I am trying to get this follow/no follow concept down, and now I get it! Are you saying you submitted an article to Wiki with your link on it, google won’t follow it, but humans will? In an organic sense, that makes sense, in that we want to be valued by humans! They are de-valueing the robots, and elevating the value of humans!

  14. 15

Što vi mislite?

Ova web stranica koristi Akismet za smanjenje neželjene pošte. Saznajte kako se podaci vašeg komentara obrađuju.