The benefit of having good, quality content...

by Joseph Then 10 replies
is that you have lower chances of Wikipedia rejecting your link. We know very well that Wikipedia is very strict in its outgoing links and they can take down your link in just hours.

I did a simple test where I hire a writer who studies and is practicing medicine to write articles on a niche.

Pretty well written, and it's very insightful. After doing some backlinking I decided to give it a try on Wikipedia. Put up a link at the external link and hope that it stays.

After one day, the link stays.

After two days, the link stays.

It's more than 4 days, the link is still there.

Yes, I know it's a "NO-FOLLOW" tag but I do get traffic from Wikipedia.

So here's another good reason to publish quality content.
#main internet marketing discussion forum #benefits #content #good #quality
Avatar of Unregistered
  • Profile picture of the author oneplusone
    I've never tried using Wikipedia.

    I think I'll give it a go as you've suggested and will see what happens.
    Signature
    'If you hear a voice within you say "you cannot paint," then by all means paint and that voice will be silenced.' Vincent Van Gogh.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768117].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MBizInc
    Well, quality content means professionalism and a huge plus to having permanent links, visitors coming over and over again to your website, subscribers etc.

    And, as I like to say, quality is priceless!

    Roxana
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768167].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mr.gaurabborah
    I never tried wikipedia. But if you somone is having good results, I would definitely do that.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768179].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author christopher jon
    is that you have lower chances of Wikipedia rejecting your link. We know very well that Wikipedia is very strict in its outgoing links and they can take down your link in just hours.
    Well, it's not wikipedia, it's their fanatical cult of volunteer moderators, a bunch of homers with no lives.

    Getting and keeping a link from wikipedia has less to do with the quality of your website but whether or not it's an obvious marketing money making site.

    The greatest content in the world surrounded by ads, upsells and optins isn't going to survive very long but garbage with no monetization typically sticks pretty well if it's relevant to the wiki article.

    But really, it's up to the whims of the wiki mod army.

    And yeah, wikipedia can be a pretty good traffic source.
    Signature
    It buys my product or it gets the hose
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768299].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joseph Then
      Originally Posted by christopher jon View Post

      Well, it's not wikipedia, it's their fanatical cult of volunteer moderators, a bunch of homers with no lives.

      Getting and keeping a link from wikipedia has less to do with the quality of your website but whether or not it's an obvious marketing money making site.

      The greatest content in the world surrounded by ads, upsells and optins isn't going to survive very long but garbage with no monetization typically sticks pretty well if it's relevant to the wiki article.

      But really, it's up to the whims of the wiki mod army.

      And yeah, wikipedia can be a pretty good traffic source.
      You may be right, but hey I saw many sites in the external links that have ads all over them but they stay in the links too.

      My site that stays in Wikipedia has google ads all over the place.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768770].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SeanLee
    Well, it's not wikipedia, it's their fanatical cult of volunteer moderators, a bunch of homers with no lives.
    Wikipedia ROCKS and you should thank these folks to do such a great job... or rather spend 300 bucks to an outdated encyclopedia !
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768894].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author christopher jon
    Wikipedia ROCKS and you should thank these folks to do such a great job... or rather spend 300 bucks to an outdated encyclopedia !
    An encyclopedia with verified and reliable information or a website where anybody can add and modify content?

    Don't get me wrong, I use wikipedia all the time but it's not the definitive online source for accurate information. I'll stick with Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia which is also free and far more reliable.
    Signature
    It buys my product or it gets the hose
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768938].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ben Gordon
    I've never tried Wikipedia either, I might give it a go though.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768942].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bruce NewMedia
    I've had some client sites in Wikipedia for a long time...but, some topics are prowled by the wiki police there and do get hammered pretty quick. I'd agree though, quality can help and may keep the link on there longer.
    _____
    Bruce
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768968].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JamesGw
    There is some correlation with nofollow links and ranking for a particular page, so I think going for Wiki links is great no matter what. The additional traffic, if nothing else, is useful.

    With that said, it's been said several times (and I always agree) that quality content is the way to go.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3769026].message }}
Avatar of Unregistered

Trending Topics