Easy Way To Get Wikipedia Links

43 replies
  • SEO
  • |
I found this easy method of creating Wikpedia links whilst implementing my own method on the same subject and I think it's worth a mention here. This way of link building is not spammy and will give you great results as it has done me.

Put simply, its replacing dead links on Wikipedia with your own links, Wikipedia hates dead links so you can help them and yourself at the same time and here is an easy method on how to do it:

Here's a few rules to help keep your link on Wikipedia live-
  1. Make sure you have a web page or blog post with lots of info on it.
  2. Make sure the Wikipedia article is relevant to your webpage or post.
  3. You cannot link to your homepage.
  4. Don't put more than one link on the same Wikipedia article.

First of all, we need to find the Wikipedia articles with dead links. To do that we will use Google. Type this search string into Google: site:wikipedia.org "keyword phrase" "dead link" and it will bring up all the articles on Wikipedia with dead links on them.



Now you will have to search through the search results for something relevant to your webpage or post content.

Once you have found something relevant you can select it and when your on the Wikipedia article you can use Ctrl+F and type in dead link. You may get just one or a few dead links show up.



Now just replace the dead links with your own link And voilĂ ! you will have yourself a powerful backlink and Wikipedia get a new working link.

Thanks
#backlinks #easy #free .edu links #free wikipedia links #links #wikipedia #wikipedia links
  • Profile picture of the author mkgg
    Very clever but wikipedia links are useless as they are no-follow.

    Even for traffic perspective they are useless as no one clicks on them. When have you ever bothered to click on the referenced websites ?

    All this trouble for useless links, might as well spend your time doing something better.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10243556].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Stop Byte
      Originally Posted by mkgg View Post

      Very clever but wikipedia links are useless as they are no-follow.

      Even for traffic perspective they are useless as no one clicks on them. When have you ever bothered to click on the referenced websites ?

      All this trouble for useless links, might as well spend your time doing something better.


      They are No Follow, but search engines like Google still give them a lot of juice and Wikipedia links are highly rated.

      As for traffic, this will boost your search engine rankings for a particular page or post and in the long run you could get more organic traffic from search engines. But you are right, don't expect much if any traffic from Wikipedia links.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10243588].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nmwf
      Originally Posted by mkgg View Post

      Very clever but wikipedia links are useless as they are no-follow.

      Even for traffic perspective they are useless as no one clicks on them. When have you ever bothered to click on the referenced websites ?

      All this trouble for useless links, might as well spend your time doing something better.
      Strongly disagree. I have a hobby site listed on Wikipedia that gets traffic, and even I have clicked on external links. On more than one occasion, I want straight to Wikipedia just to find external links! The sites I found in Google were completely unusable for what I wanted, so I purposely used Wikipedia as a search engine to find what I was looking for.

      Definitely not a waste of time, IMO. I just hope this strategy doesn't send Wikipedia a bunch of crap links that their staff has to remove. Or worse, use as a reason to shut down that capability altogether.
      Signature
      Write comprehensible articles on *any* topic in seconds with First Draft...
      First Draft's: Download | Add-Ons | Templates | Purchase | Support | Affiliates
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10243677].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author EJ Lear
      Originally Posted by mkgg View Post

      Very clever but wikipedia links are useless as they are no-follow.

      Even for traffic perspective they are useless as no one clicks on them. When have you ever bothered to click on the referenced websites ?

      All this trouble for useless links, might as well spend your time doing something better.
      Anyone with a Majestic, or Ahrefs subscription can tell you otherwise. Wikipedia links are very valuable and do pass authority on to your site.

      Peace,
      EJ
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10283338].message }}
  • With lastest Google updates all backlinks are good (no differences between follow and nofollow).
    Only one thing is important: diversification.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10243564].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author danparks
      Originally Posted by Antonio De Santis View Post

      With lastest Google updates all backlinks are good (no differences between follow and nofollow).
      Okay, I'll bite. Got a source for that major news? Inquiring minds want to know...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10243660].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      Originally Posted by Antonio De Santis View Post

      With lastest Google updates all backlinks are good (no differences between follow and nofollow).
      Only one thing is important: diversification.
      Oh----My----Gosh.....

      Are you people for real?

      If real people are actually putting real replies like that, we might as well
      pack up and move on. We have lost the battle.

      The bots, the crazies, the sick, lame, and lazies, have taken over.

      Nobody in their right mind would ever reply like that.

      Seriously. What are you people, on dope?


      If you have read this far, I'm still here.

      Wikipedia is an outlier. It's a hybrid. The links must be nofollow because
      anyone can post one at any time. It also is what makes wikipedia junk.
      But google loves it. Unique, great, perfect, content is not what they
      specialize in. They break a ton of rules. They edit other language
      versions differently.

      So I am not talking about SEO and wikipedia, except with a wink.
      But a wikipedia link that stays up, is golden for a lot of reasons.

      There are easier ways of getting links. You really need links on high traffic
      pages, but those pages are edited by others who have clout. Keep trying.

      Why would you not link to your homepage? That part makes no sense.

      And the last tip: You need a non-spammy, authoritative website. A real website.
      Not a WP site that uses something like: best-tv-station-News-in-LA.com

      Paul
      Signature

      If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10243683].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author danparks
        Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

        If real people are actually putting real replies like that, we might as well pack up and move on. We have lost the battle.

        Seriously. What are you people, on dope?
        I don't know if they are, but reading their replies is making me feel like I am.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10243691].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
          Originally Posted by Antonio De Santis View Post

          With lastest Google updates all backlinks are good (no differences between follow and nofollow).
          Originally Posted by Stop Byte View Post

          They are No Follow, but search engines like Google still give them a lot of juice and Wikipedia links are highly rated.
          This here is crap, garbage, manure, and BS. It's sort of a miracle that someone apparently understands what "nofollow" means, but can still post such utter bollocks with a straight face. Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. After all, there's a product involved, and a confidence man needs a good poker face...

          Nofollow by definition means no juice. No sane people would "highly rate" such links.
          Signature
          Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
          Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

          What's your excuse?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10244623].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Stop Byte
            Why are wikipedia, along with other .edu and .gov still highly sought after? Why do people buy them? Not for the sake of it....
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10247371].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author paulgl
              Originally Posted by Stop Byte View Post

              Why are wikipedia, along with other .edu and .gov still highly sought after? Why do people buy them? Not for the sake of it....
              Because they swallow crap from crap people who claim they can get them a ton of crap links.

              All they end up is paying for crap.

              Wikipedia links may be good for traffic.

              .gov links "could" be valuable.

              But not because they are .gov links.

              .gov links are no better than other links.

              Links are about the page they are on, not extension.

              A peddler of such crap is not going to get anyone anything, except a lighter wallet.

              I pity the fools.....and a fool and his money are soon parted.

              Don't be a fool.

              Paul
              Signature

              If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10250555].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
              Originally Posted by Stop Byte View Post

              Why are wikipedia, along with other .edu and .gov still highly sought after? Why do people buy them? Not for the sake of it....
              Mostly because a bunch of fraudsters sell them in deceptive manner. Newbies don't understand that the "high PR" claim is bogus, and that the TLDs don't carry any magical link power.
              Signature
              Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
              Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

              What's your excuse?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10250978].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sonjay
          Originally Posted by danparks View Post

          I don't know if they are, but reading their replies is making me feel like I am.
          That's one reason I just target to enjoy the SEO discussions.. charge things to experience, and move on..!
          Signature
          SEO Simplified Surefire Strategy
          [ FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME ]
          discover what local businesses are doing wrong (to avoid these!) and get desired results even without links
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10295055].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fisch
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10248420].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SirKonstantine
    These links are useless and using this method will get your site blacklisted from Wikipedia (yes, Wikipedia has a blacklist).

    This counts as building links which is against Google guidelines. I recommend everyone to stay away for your own safety.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10250071].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Stop Byte
      Originally Posted by SirKonstantine View Post

      These links are useless and using this method will get your site blacklisted from Wikipedia (yes, Wikipedia has a blacklist).

      This counts as building links which is against Google guidelines. I recommend everyone to stay away for your own safety.


      I disagree with them being useless. As far as the black list goes, they only blacklist you for constantly spamming poor quality content over and over. This method doesn't. And Google doesn't penalise you for 'building backlinks' that's ridiculous.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10250365].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Corey Taylor
    How can you edit the specific link? I clicked edit and got something irrelevant...

    thanks for the info by the way!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10250082].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Stop Byte
      Originally Posted by Corey Taylor View Post

      How can you edit the specific link? I clicked edit and got something irrelevant...

      thanks for the info by the way!


      Hi,
      you can't click on the link to edit it, you have to edit the article. To find where the link is in the article, look at the number next to the dead link. So if its number 5 it will be the 5th reference from the top. They always go in numerical order from the top. You can also click on the little arrow to the left of the deadlink.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10250392].message }}
  • I found this trick helpful. We can also use this trick to get backlinks from any other site. Right?
    Signature

    Regards
    Chetan Gupta, Founder of Black Friday Deals , HostGator Black Friday , BlueHost Black Friday

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10251836].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10251874].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Stop Byte
      Originally Posted by conscolor View Post

      I just used this search engine, and it does actually cut out half the labour of my Wikilink building method. Thank you kindly!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10283047].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author adeniyioa
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10291566].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
        Originally Posted by EJ Lear

        Value is not in the eye of the beholder, SEO is a black and white field, you either rank and get traffic, or you don't, there no ambiguity there. Honestly, everyone has an opinion I just happen to disagree with the one that assumes Wikipedia links have no value. You are free to do your thing, I'll do mine.
        You're free to do so. However, SEO is not philosophy or politics. It's a fairly technical pursuit on this side of SEO. Unfortunately one of us has to be more or less correct, and the other just isn't. There's obviously some middle ground, but counting on "caps" on what we know doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

        As you probably know, I'm not the one saying anything too controversial here.

        Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

        Yes, keep on rambling, here's something rarer than a coelacanth that you will not see here, RANKINGS:
        You do realize that this doesn't even touch the topic of Wikipedia backlinks in any way, right?

        Heck, I've got no way to know where these even came from and if they're yours. With the way you've conducted yourself in this thread you probably see why I have a bit of a hard time for taking something like that just on the face value. You may have context for these figures, but it's just random act of self-aggrandizement for us.

        And not only that, but they do not justify your earlier claims about me in any way or form. I can't even fathom why you'd think that's an appropriate reply to what you quoted.

        Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

        No, that's your ASSUMPTION, you assume that they have no value and that people selling them are fraudsters, apparently you can't see the flaw in your own reasoning.
        Many link sellers that you see on forums are fraudsters on one level or another. They start by lying about Pagerank, and go from there. That's not an assumption, simply something you can derive from their ads. You either misunderstand or misrepresent my stance here.

        Granted, it's possible that you've got a honest link seller who's not misrepresenting some of the obvious facts like Pagerank on the actual linking page. That's about as rare as hen's teeth.

        Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

        If Google is using Facebook and Twitter as a gauge of what is popular (and they are) then they CANNOT be following their own 'rules' regarding no-follow, end of story. Your definition of 'social signals' is very limited because it avoids the elephant in the room, the inbound no-follow link to a piece of content shared.
        I'm not sure why'd you assume that Google is using Facebook and Twitter for that? They aren't as far as anyone can tell.

        That's not my definition of social signals. I think it's all just a bunch of BS, but I wan't to take nofollow links out of that vague pile because they're at least something that we and Google can see. You can keep whatever definition you want to hold about this, I don't particularly care.

        Most of so-called "social signals" don't seem to work.

        Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

        Attacking you? No, calling you out for BS? Yes.
        Please do then. So far, you've not called out anything. You're just writing in circles about random stuff, referring to someone else's or your own supposed authority, and posting accusations without backing them up in any manner.

        Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

        You have no idea what you are talking about, yet you are trying to present yourself as some kind of authority on the subject. Every post that you have made here proves your ignorance of SEO. I feel sorry for your 'clients' if you have any.
        Then prove me wrong at least on some level! So far you've not done anything here. This is just some hot air and utterly dishonest rhetorical weaseling from your part. Who are you trying to fool here by posting these grandiose statements?

        Make a solid argument instead. Point to something we can look at. Instead of anything concrete you went from "you're wrong" to "lets agree to disagree" in the span of two posts.
        Signature
        Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
        Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

        What's your excuse?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10291834].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author footfoot
    So, a nytimes article references your site and of course it's nofollow as every link on big sites are now. Why would Google ignore that link. Be silly of them too as that's a great vote for a site. Logically, they would pick and choose which ones to follow and which to ignore.
    Assume everyone uses nofollow, then Google algorithm would fail, so they can't ignore them all as they would be getting skewed results if they did.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10283348].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DABK
      Nofollow tag gets Google to pass no juice or anchor, not to ignore.

      The will record the link but it will not help the site linked to increase position in ranks.

      Originally Posted by footfoot View Post

      So, a nytimes article references your site and of course it's nofollow as every link on big sites are now. Why would Google ignore that link. Be silly of them too as that's a great vote for a site. Logically, they would pick and choose which ones to follow and which to ignore.
      Assume everyone uses nofollow, then Google algorithm would fail, so they can't ignore them all as they would be getting skewed results if they did.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10283409].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
        Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

        Anyone with a Majestic, or Ahrefs subscription can tell you otherwise. Wikipedia links are very valuable and do pass authority on to your site.
        I have Majestic subscription, and I know they're clearly marking nofollow links as such. There's nothing to indicate that the links are "very valuable" or "do pass authority". And even if there was, it's a 3rd party estimate.

        Originally Posted by footfoot View Post

        Assume everyone uses nofollow, then Google algorithm would fail, so they can't ignore them all as they would be getting skewed results if they did.
        Actually it's the huge amount of user-provided links that would make it grumble. That's the best use case for nofollow. The algorithm works just fine the way it is.

        One newspaper link isn't likely going to make or break any site's visibility. It's just a single link on a page that doesn't have much "juice".

        And no, it doesn't really mean "no follow" as an instruction to the spiders. They're checking the links.
        Signature
        Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
        Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

        What's your excuse?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10283926].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author EJ Lear
          Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

          I have Majestic subscription, and I know they're clearly marking nofollow links as such. There's nothing to indicate that the links are "very valuable" or "do pass authority". And even if there was, it's a 3rd party estimate.
          Every high ranking site is based on a profile of no-follow and do-follow links, the main measure IS authority, which translates to 'quality'. If all you do is focus on do-follow links you can guarantee that it's un-natural and very easy to spot.

          The idea that Wikipedia links are not valuable and have no effect on your site is laughable. I sincerely hope that you go on every SEO forum on the internet and keep repeating this Matt Cutts talking point, it's honestly the best thing that you can do, for me, because it cuts out all of my competition.

          In every SEO forum on the internet people are selling Wikipedia links, are they selling them because they don't work? No, they are selling them because they do work. Additionally, my replies are based on experience, not something that I've heard from someone in a forum who worships Matt Cutts.

          It would behove you to base your comments off of personal testing rather than trumpeting things you have heard. If nofollow links were valueless then 'social signals' would have no effect, as most of the links you get from social media are no follow yet Google has clearly stated that social signals are a ranking factor.

          You get more information from what search engines DO, not from what they 'say they do' because you will quickly notice that they 'say' one thing, yet DO another.

          Peace,
          EJ
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10284833].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
            Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

            The idea that Wikipedia links are not valuable and have no effect on your site is laughable. I sincerely hope that you go on every SEO forum on the internet and keep repeating this Matt Cutts talking point, it's honestly the best thing that you can do, for me, because it cuts out all of my competition.
            Yet you provide nothing but hot air here. Why would Wikipedia links need to carry any weight? What good would that do for Google or their index? The evidence doesn't support your stance, but neither does simple logical reasoning.

            Silly personal attacks aren't an argument, but they're indication that you don't have one.

            Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

            In every SEO forum on the internet people are selling Wikipedia links, are they selling them because they don't work? No, they are selling them because they do work.
            They're selling them because they're fraudsters. They know that their marks recognize words "pagerank" and "wikipedia" so most of their work was done for them.

            Do you not realize how flimsy this line of argumentation is? You're using popularity among snake oil salesmen as a proof of something.

            Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

            Additionally, my replies are based on experience, not something that I've heard from someone in a forum who worships Matt Cutts.

            It would behove you to base your comments off of personal testing rather than trumpeting things you have heard.
            Those are your assertions, and ones that you clearly pulled out of your backside. Yes, I've tested things. I've seen people I trust test these things. If you want to attack someone perhaps try to come up with something that isn't just a bunch of blatant lies that you just came up with.

            This is just completely mystifying to me. What kind of person even posts these kind of random accusations?

            Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

            If nofollow links were valueless then 'social signals' would have no effect, as most of the links you get from social media are no follow yet Google has clearly stated that social signals are a ranking factor.
            WTF? Google has stated the opposite of that! And you've got the balls to accuse others.

            Also, "social signals" very often refers to likes and other non-link "signals" that have no apparent mechanism of working. Nofollow link from social media site is something that I don't even call "social signal" to keep the discussion a bit more clear.
            Signature
            Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
            Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

            What's your excuse?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10287671].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author EJ Lear
              Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

              They're selling them because they're fraudsters. They know that their marks recognize words "pagerank" and "wikipedia" so most of their work was done for them.

              Do you not realize how flimsy this line of argumentation is? You're using popularity among snake oil salesmen as a proof of something.
              No, that's your ASSUMPTION, you assume that they have no value and that people selling them are fraudsters, apparently you can't see the flaw in your own reasoning.

              If Google is using Facebook and Twitter as a gauge of what is popular (and they are) then they CANNOT be following their own 'rules' regarding no-follow, end of story. Your definition of 'social signals' is very limited because it avoids the elephant in the room, the inbound no-follow link to a piece of content shared.

              EVERY RANKING SITE on the internet is a profile of no-follow and do-follow links. High page authority no-follow links and high page authority do-follow links. I'm not going to share with you anything, just go over to BlackHatWorld (where people actually know how to rank a site) and try this same argument, you will get laughed off the forum.

              Attacking you? No, calling you out for BS? Yes.

              You have no idea what you are talking about, yet you are trying to present yourself as some kind of authority on the subject. Every post that you have made here proves your ignorance of SEO. I feel sorry for your 'clients' if you have any.

              Peace,
              EJ Lear
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10290489].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author DABK
                Not every ranking site has a profile of nofollow and standard links.

                I ranked sites I owned that had nothing but standard links.

                Value is in the eye of the beholder, that's where you're getting side-tracked.

                Value as SEO is in the eye of the beholder. Just because something is valued does not mean it has a direct bearing on SEO. Or that its is even useful for SEO.

                They, well, some of them, have value from a traffic point of view.

                People are buying these kinds of links thinking there is a direct cause-effect between buying these links and ranking. Then they get disappointed when they don't see results, a very common occurrence.

                Or excited if a few days later they see a ranking increase. But the ranking increase is not caused directly by the links.... And they can't repeat the process... They just happened to have their site seen by someone who linked to it from his/her site, without adding rel="nofollow."

                The point is: if you know how things work, you can buy the right kind of links for your purposes.

                Buying this kind of links for traffic, assuming you're buying them from the right sites, is awesome. Buying them to increase your ranking is, at best hit-or-miss, usually miss. Therefore, a waste of effort.

                Why a waste of effort?

                Because people buying them for SEO purposes don't take care of the content... If they bought them for traffic-purposes, they'd pay more attention to content/conversions and would benefit more.

                Let me give you an analogy, you can nail a board to your door with a hammer or with the back end of French wrench. That doesn't mean nailing it with the French wrench is a good way to go about doing it.

                Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

                No, that's your ASSUMPTION, you assume that they have no value and that people selling them are fraudsters, apparently you can't see the flaw in your own reasoning.

                If Google is using Facebook and Twitter as a gauge of what is popular (and they are) then they CANNOT be following their own 'rules' regarding no-follow, end of story. Your definition of 'social signals' is very limited because it avoid the elephant in the room, the inbound no-follow link to a piece of content shared.

                EVERY RANKING SITE on the internet is a profile of no-follow and do-follow links. High page authority no-follow links and high page authority do-follow links. I'm not going to share with you anything, just go over to BlackHatWorld (where people actually know how to rank a site) and try this same argument, you will get laughed off the forum.

                Attacking you? No, calling you out for BS? Yes.

                You have no idea what you are talking about, yet you are trying to present yourself as some kind of authority on the subject. Every post that you have made here proves your ignorance of SEO. I feel sorry for your 'clients' if you have any.

                Peace,
                EJ Lear
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10290533].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author EJ Lear
                  Originally Posted by DABK View Post

                  Not every ranking site has a profile of nofollow and standard links.

                  I ranked sites I owned that had nothing but standard links.

                  Value is in the eye of the beholder, that's where you're getting side-tracked.

                  Value as SEO is in the eye of the beholder. Just because something is valued does not mean it has a direct bearing on SEO. Or that its is even useful for SEO.
                  I see your point however, Wikipedia is considered an authority by Google. They view the content there as authoritative simply because it's human filtered and edited, like DMOZ with no-follows.

                  Value is not in the eye of the beholder, SEO is a black and white field, you either rank and get traffic, or you don't, there no ambiguity there. Honestly, everyone has an opinion I just happen to disagree with the one that assumes Wikipedia links have no value. You are free to do your thing, I'll do mine.

                  BTW, I have a test site ranking well and moving up the SERPS with nothing but social media 'no-follow' shares. If no follow links are useless, then why is the site ranking well? This throws off your whole line of reasoning.

                  Peace,
                  Z
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10290549].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author DABK
                    Despite what you said, Value remains in the eye of the beholder. A link might be worth $4 to you and $0.71 to me, see?

                    Ranking has value, not the same value to all people, the ones who rank #1 place higher value on ranking #1... some not wisely, but that's a different story.

                    Your site ranking after you buy 'no-follow' is not due to the no-follow links but to what happens after: your page gets seen, it gets mentioned (with links that Google follows) by other people on their sites.

                    If what you said were the case, every time someone bought/created no-follow links there would be an increase in SERPs. And it doesn't happen every time. The better the content on the page you link to with the nofollow links, the higher the chances of SERPs increasing. Piss-poor content will not go up... because none of the people who see it will link to it.

                    My objection to people saying nofollow links are a direct cause of ranking higher in the SERPs is that it gets people to misuse (not prepare the right content) and, therefore, waste time.

                    It seems most people who get social media and other kind of nofollow links are thinking the link is the most and only important thing.

                    If they understood the process by which no-follow links can increase rankings, they would not waste time...


                    Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

                    I see your point however, Wikipedia is considered an authority by Google. They view the content there as authoritative simply because it's human filtered and edited, like DMOZ with no-follows.

                    Value is not in the eye of the beholder, SEO is a black and white field, you either rank and get traffic, or you don't, there no ambiguity there. Honestly, everyone has an opinion I just happen to disagree with the one that assumes Wikipedia links have no value. You are free to do your thing, I'll do mine.

                    BTW, I have a test site ranking well and moving up the SERPS with nothing but social media 'no-follow' shares. If no follow links are useless, then why is the site ranking well? This throws off your whole line of reasoning.

                    Peace,
                    Z
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10290601].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author EJ Lear
                      Originally Posted by DABK View Post

                      Your site ranking after you buy 'no-follow' is not due to the no-follow links but to what happens after: your page gets seen, it gets mentioned (with links that Google follows) by other people on their sites.
                      Friend, I don't 'buy' links, that's something that you assumed

                      Additionally, you are making a grand assumption here and I don't base anything off of assumptions, you ASSUME that my content is being shared on sites with do-follow links yet Majestic and Ahrefs provide no such evidence.

                      I don't start with theorys and then make the evidence line up with my pre-assumed thoughts, that will kill the value in any test, and you can take any evidence to twist it to suit your inwardly felt theory. I do tests in a vacuum and then analyze the data without assumption, this results in un-biased factual information for the times that we are in where things change almost daily.

                      Anyway, just a window into the test bed :-)

                      Peace,
                      Z
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10290617].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author DABK
                        No, I did not assumed. I said 'you' as in 'one.'

                        Yes, I assumed you got some links Google followed, if you're going after keywords that are hard enough that great onpage is not enough to get you to rank.

                        I didn't start with theory and made anything fit.. I started with the results of tests I ran. For a person not fond of assuming, you make big assumptions.

                        Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

                        Friend, I don't 'buy' links, that's something that you assumed

                        Additionally, you are making a grand assumption here and I don't base anything off of assumptions, you ASSUME that my content is being shared on sites with do-follow links yet Majestic and Ahrefs provide no such evidence.

                        I don't start with theorys and then make the evidence line up with my pre-assumed thoughts, that will kill the value in any test, and you can take any evidence to twist it to suit your inwardly felt theory. I do tests in a vacuum and then analyze the data without assumption, this results in un-biased factual information for the times that we are in where things change almost daily.

                        Anyway, just a window into the test bed :-)

                        Peace,
                        Z
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10290672].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author EJ Lear
              Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

              Those are your assertions, and ones that you clearly pulled out of your backside. Yes, I've tested things. I've seen people I trust test these things. If you want to attack someone perhaps try to come up with something that isn't just a bunch of blatant lies that you just came up with.
              Yes, keep on rambling, here's something rarer than a coelacanth that you will not see here, RANKINGS:



              Peace,
              Z
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10290526].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author cbpayne
            Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

            If nofollow links were valueless then 'social signals' would have no effect, as most of the links you get from social media are no follow yet Google has clearly stated that social signals are a ranking factor.
            That is horse manure. They have clearly said the opposite. Care to back that up and show us where Google have said that?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10287750].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sherylpeter
    Are these links long term attached or temporary?
    Signature
    Android apps development is now becomes easy and fast with Dotstudioapps.com
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10284295].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author quadagon
    I'm no expert in seo by any stretch of the imagination. I do have my main site on page one of google for the single keyword search. If I'm honest I think this is more down to search volume (around 50,000 pm) and low competition.

    One of the strategies we use is to edit wiki articles and deadlinks (which I think I originally saw on backlinko). The reason we post on wikipedia is to provide information and reference myself and my book. We get good traffic and sales from this.

    Does this effect my seo, I don't know and to some degree I don't care. Google bot don't buy.

    If we get any bump in the serps from wiki great but I've never seen any evidence of it. I do see traffic boosted though.
    Signature
    I've got 99 problems but a niche ain't one
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10284946].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author EJ Lear
      Originally Posted by quadagon View Post

      If we get any bump in the serps from wiki great but I've never seen any evidence of it. I do see traffic boosted though.
      If you look in analytics where is your traffic coming from Wikipedia directly of via another referrer? You should be able to tell exactly where it coming from there, makes me curious, but I'm already a lover of Wikipedia! :-)

      Great job!

      EJ
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10285860].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author quadagon
        Originally Posted by EJ Lear View Post

        If you look in analytics where is your traffic coming from Wikipedia directly of via another referrer? You should be able to tell exactly where it coming from there, makes me curious, but I'm already a lover of Wikipedia! :-)

        Great job!

        EJ
        Yeah we get quite a bit of traffic from Wikipedia, but I think that's due to the nature if the niche. People seem to go to wiki for an overview and to us for further reading. We therefore have a low bounce rate.

        I think I've said in another thread that some of the keywords we use have under 200 searches a month. Wikipedia is normally first result shown for a lot of these terms.

        YouTube is our no1 driver of traffic on these pages then Wikipedia.

        So whether any of this helps with our position in google I don't know. When I've added links from Wikipedia I've not seen a boost or decline in the serps. I do see a boost in traffic and that's really what matters.

        Another benefit of Wikipedia is that when we create, edit and maintain wikipedia articles on the site one of our non fiction authors sells more books.

        It could be correlation instead of causation.

        Eric
        Signature
        I've got 99 problems but a niche ain't one
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10286138].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author DABK
          It is correlation, not causation. You can get extra traffic from nofollow links but you do not get a boost in the SERPS because of them.

          If you're clear about that, your strategy will be appropriate, you will not create crap content with a link in it; instead you'll create content that can convince people to visit your site.

          That's the reason I keep telling people nofollow links don't help with ranking... They save time if they do what they do for the right reasons.

          That said, traffic I got from bookmarking sites converts the worst.

          Originally Posted by quadagon View Post

          Yeah we get quite a bit of traffic from Wikipedia, but I think that's due to the nature if the niche. People seem to go to wiki for an overview and to us for further reading. We therefore have a low bounce rate.

          I think I've said in another thread that some of the keywords we use have under 200 searches a month. Wikipedia is normally first result shown for a lot of these terms.

          YouTube is our no1 driver of traffic on these pages then Wikipedia.

          So whether any of this helps with our position in google I don't know. When I've added links from Wikipedia I've not seen a boost or decline in the serps. I do see a boost in traffic and that's really what matters.

          Another benefit of Wikipedia is that when we create, edit and maintain wikipedia articles on the site one of our non fiction authors sells more books.

          It could be correlation instead of causation.

          Eric
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10286343].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author saeedrk
    Good guide but in fact need more time.
    Signature

    Well blogger and know about IT (information technology) .

    Work on Top Information Technology Ideas

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10290200].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author smallseotoolz
    Not a bad idea for getting Wikipedia backlinks according to your given instruction.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10294507].message }}

Trending Topics