- May 10, 2012
- 9,539
- 7,559
It's amazing how ranking on G so dominates IM strategies that it can "devalue" a link coming from one of the top ten domains on the entire web. If a site that has 3.9 billion traffic PER MONTH can be devalued, how valid is the the whole "authority" link racket, anyway?
Instead of relying on it for SEO, it would be better to treat Wikipedia like a top-rated editorial link, for direct click-through, high direct traffic purposes. That would mean the approach is to have an entire article written and posted on Wiki (not just slip a link onto an existing entry), that points to a matching info-rich page on one's own site.
I.e., go about it the same way one would get an editorially compliant article written on Forbes, that links to a similar or mirror article on your website. Writing a carefully selected 'stub' that relates to your niche site's content would probably do the job. Outcome, you end up with a full article on Wiki that is designed to lead to link-through traffic to your site, not just sneaky link.
Well, just the way Google devalued some pretty big PR agencies like PRlog in the past. Just the way how they forced Huffpost to change their blog links to nofollow (This is a speculation, but I am pretty sure they played they role.)
When there are multiple teams dedicated to fight SEO, it's not really that hard to stop ruining fun for everyone. And they are leaking money, so the less people believe in SEO, the better for them. Whatever the means. Plus, they can devalue just the links pointing out from the site, not necessarilly its position in Serps. That's a few lines of code and with the amount of traffic the Wikipedia received as you said, well, I think that with their resources, they could have dedicated a team to it for a couple of days.