Interesting study and analysis. Ladyof Shalott 18:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
As of 18:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Whorlton Castle appears to be ranked #5 on Google results and #1 on Bing and Yahoo. I don't know enough to suggest why this might be, though I do note that the
page view statistics tool indicates all but 282 of the to-date ~10k page views took place on August 15, when the DYK was displayed. Would this be responsible for pushing up the page rank? Or has Google's marketing / localization / homing skewed my own personal search results?
☯.Zen
Swashbuckler
.☠
18:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The article is the 12th result for my searches on Google.com, both with and with quotation marks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Interesting study indeed. Thanks for performing this experiment. Here's a few data that may help tracking this article's further rise in Google:
Interestingly, the 29 external links Google thinks exist include this page, which (as far as I can see – am I missing anything?) does not link to Whorlton Castle at all, but only includes a link to Blickling Hall. (The reason seems to be that Whorlton Castle was mentioned in a question on that site that was present in the left hand sidebar of pages that linked to Wikipedia: [4]) Cheers, -- J N 466 19:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Excellent test, Prioryman. Thank you for looking in to this. I was wondering if you might run a longer test. Specifically, I would like to see what happens to the rank if the page is left to its normal evolution (i.e. people update it as normal not knowing this test exists). Possibly letting it go 30 days like this and following the daily ranking. Then try again to increase the rank using the techniques suggested at Wikipedia:Wikibombing (SEO) once again to see if there is any effect. I may be asking too much, but I think it could be informative. Thanks for your consideration. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 02:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
What is editors' view of the analysis in this video, by an SEO consultant, claiming that internal links play a very significant role in the high ranking of Wikipedia pages? -- J N 466 18:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
As several editors observed, the article now known as Campaign for "santorum" neologism rose to the first result on Google, surpassing even the "spreading santorum" site. The article is no longer the first result for me. I am curious if the conclusions drawn by this study are consistent with the observed behaviour of that particular article in Google ranking. Can someone with SEO expertise could comment on this? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
See here, I haven't read it yet. Count Iblis ( talk) 16:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Interesting study and analysis. Ladyof Shalott 18:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
As of 18:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Whorlton Castle appears to be ranked #5 on Google results and #1 on Bing and Yahoo. I don't know enough to suggest why this might be, though I do note that the
page view statistics tool indicates all but 282 of the to-date ~10k page views took place on August 15, when the DYK was displayed. Would this be responsible for pushing up the page rank? Or has Google's marketing / localization / homing skewed my own personal search results?
☯.Zen
Swashbuckler
.☠
18:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The article is the 12th result for my searches on Google.com, both with and with quotation marks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Interesting study indeed. Thanks for performing this experiment. Here's a few data that may help tracking this article's further rise in Google:
Interestingly, the 29 external links Google thinks exist include this page, which (as far as I can see – am I missing anything?) does not link to Whorlton Castle at all, but only includes a link to Blickling Hall. (The reason seems to be that Whorlton Castle was mentioned in a question on that site that was present in the left hand sidebar of pages that linked to Wikipedia: [4]) Cheers, -- J N 466 19:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Excellent test, Prioryman. Thank you for looking in to this. I was wondering if you might run a longer test. Specifically, I would like to see what happens to the rank if the page is left to its normal evolution (i.e. people update it as normal not knowing this test exists). Possibly letting it go 30 days like this and following the daily ranking. Then try again to increase the rank using the techniques suggested at Wikipedia:Wikibombing (SEO) once again to see if there is any effect. I may be asking too much, but I think it could be informative. Thanks for your consideration. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 02:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
What is editors' view of the analysis in this video, by an SEO consultant, claiming that internal links play a very significant role in the high ranking of Wikipedia pages? -- J N 466 18:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
As several editors observed, the article now known as Campaign for "santorum" neologism rose to the first result on Google, surpassing even the "spreading santorum" site. The article is no longer the first result for me. I am curious if the conclusions drawn by this study are consistent with the observed behaviour of that particular article in Google ranking. Can someone with SEO expertise could comment on this? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
See here, I haven't read it yet. Count Iblis ( talk) 16:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)