Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point, I basically have to append "reddit" to every search if I want to get quality answers.
What? Reddit.com is essentially unusable since the update a few years(?) ago.
old.reddit.com still works
Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
81–90 of 299 posts
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#82Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#83> ...zero-click results have cost Wikipedia’s English language subdomain tens of millions of organic visits. > ...Google was able to steal over 550 million clicks from Wikipedia in six months... "Cost"? "Steal"?! This would make sense if Wikipedia were ad-supported. But Google saves Wikipedia money by requiring less servers to support traffic. And Wikipedia is open content , you literally can't steal from it -- being…
I sympathize with Google here. The fact is there can only be 10 hits on the first page for each query. There isn't a correct query result. Any addition necessitates removal of something else.
Check out search settings allowing up to 100 hits per page.
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#84> ...zero-click results have cost Wikipedia’s English language subdomain tens of millions of organic visits. > ...Google was able to steal over 550 million clicks from Wikipedia in six months... "Cost"? "Steal"?! This would make sense if Wikipedia were ad-supported. But Google saves Wikipedia money by requiring less servers to support traffic. And Wikipedia is open content , you literally can't steal from it -- being…
I personally don't like the short Wikipedia excerpts. I almost always want more information, and Google tries to make the Wikipedia link as unintuitive as possible in order to keep the user on Google property. What's more, showing the info box means that the real article link is removed from the results list. Edit: to clarify, I do find the blue Wikipedia link decidedly small and I often have to actively look for it…
> Google tries to make the Wikipedia link as undiscoverable as possible
Huh?
If I search for "who founded the new york times", then immediately below the three-line snippet answer, is a big (not small) blue link to "The New York Times - Wikipedia". In fact, it's literally the easiest, most prominent thing on the page for me to click on. Google is helping to guide me on to visit Wikipedia for more info.
I think you're confusing the short excerpts (with have a clear, obvious Wikipedia link) with Google's Knowledge Graph results, which is a different thing and is based on many different sources.
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#85I've definitely noticed that I"ve had to add "wiki" to my search results to see Wikpedia articles to certain subjects I'm searching for whereas in previous years, Wikipedia was almost always the number one result. I feel like I'm back in the 90s when Yahoo went from a pretty good search engine to mediocre with ads and stuff, and I marveled at the clean simplicity of Google. Now, I'm finding Google shows a bunch of ar…
If you have Firefox I would suggest that you go on Wikipedia.org, right-click the search box, click "Add keyword to this search", and pick a keyword. This makes it faster to find information that you know is on Wikipedia.
This, but also, when you're stuck on Chromium, change the default search to DuckDuckGo or Searx and use !w or !wp to search Wikipedia (and !s !sp if you want Google results for some reason, and !g or !go if you want Google results with a filter bubble).
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#86> ...zero-click results have cost Wikipedia’s English language subdomain tens of millions of organic visits. > ...Google was able to steal over 550 million clicks from Wikipedia in six months... "Cost"? "Steal"?! This would make sense if Wikipedia were ad-supported. But Google saves Wikipedia money by requiring less servers to support traffic. And Wikipedia is open content , you literally can't steal from it -- being…
I personally don't like the short Wikipedia excerpts. I almost always want more information, and Google tries to make the Wikipedia link as unintuitive as possible in order to keep the user on Google property. What's more, showing the info box means that the real article link is removed from the results list. Edit: to clarify, I do find the blue Wikipedia link decidedly small and I often have to actively look for it…
That’s just false, showing the info box does not remove the link from itemized search results. If a Wikipedia link is nowhere to be found, that’s indication that the info box isn’t info from Wikipedia in the first place (e.g. movies, certain persons). Same goes for answer snippets.
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#87> ...zero-click results have cost Wikipedia’s English language subdomain tens of millions of organic visits. > ...Google was able to steal over 550 million clicks from Wikipedia in six months... "Cost"? "Steal"?! This would make sense if Wikipedia were ad-supported. But Google saves Wikipedia money by requiring less servers to support traffic. And Wikipedia is open content , you literally can't steal from it -- being…
Doesn't less page views also mean less donations?
Maybe. Maybe not.
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#88"In 2015, Google was able to steal over 550 million clicks from Wikipedia in six months"
As someone who has contributed content to Wikipedia and makes a (small) monthly donation this seems like a good thing. I support Wikipedia so that knowledge can be more easily and freely distributed and Wikipedia content is generally licensed under CC-BY-SA. Google following the license to make information sharing from Wikipedia more seamless (while reducing the load on Wikipedia servers) seems like a win for everyone.
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#89I've definitely noticed that I"ve had to add "wiki" to my search results to see Wikpedia articles to certain subjects I'm searching for whereas in previous years, Wikipedia was almost always the number one result. I feel like I'm back in the 90s when Yahoo went from a pretty good search engine to mediocre with ads and stuff, and I marveled at the clean simplicity of Google. Now, I'm finding Google shows a bunch of ar…
Use duckduckgo and type "!w blah" to go straight to the article for blah.
Re: Wikipedia Lost 3B Organic Search Visits to Google in 2019
#90I hate the fact that Google tries to change itself every couple of years just to make more money. The initial company proposition of giving me search results quickly and getting out of the way was the best ever. Over time, they instead want to keep people for as long as possible so they can present more advertisement links.