On 20 March 2012 18:39, Tom Morris <t...@tommorris.org> wrote: > On 20 March 2012 18:24, Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
>> (The SEO people are correct that Wikipedia has a high Google ranking, >> and correct that this is something of an odd skew on Google's part. >> What always amuses me is the recurrent belief that Wikipedia >> deliberately tries to do this, that we're bribing Google or setting up >> carefully-constructed semantic traps in our articles or something - >> the fact that it's not a cunning ploy on our part is completely >> inconceivable to someone who approaches everything from this >> perspective.) > Perhaps they honestly believe that their keyword-primed advertorial > page is actually more useful than a Wikipedia page and are astounded > that Google might have the temerity to disagree. ;-) You just don't understand how vitally important to the Web it really is that the first party (us) ignore the second party (the readers) so that a third party (SEO spammers^Wspecialists) can get in good with a fourth party (Google). [citation needed] - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
