> Ever wondered why Wikipedia ranks #1 for "computer"? IMO, it has to do with forcing Dell, MS, HP and others to advertise and to increase clicks on ads. I doubt most people want to know what a "computer" is when searching Google on a computer.
If I am searching a single noun, it is almost certain that what I really want it a link to Wikipedia. If I am looking to buy something I always add "buy" or "purchase" to the front of my search. I don't think I am particularly weird in that regard.
I don't, but if I type in "desktop" or "laptop" or "tablet" I get Amazon and Best Buy as the top organic results (admittedly, with very prominent sponsored links). "Computer" is probably less common as a search from shoppers.
To be honest, I am most likely to type a particular brand/model that I want, in which case I almost always get non-wikipedia pages (which in those cases are exactly what I want.) "honda accord" for example gives me honda.com search results before the wikipedia page.
Now if I just search "sedan", I of course get the wikipedia page first. Is this google just putting wikipedia at the top there to try to force Honda to buy ads for "sedan"? Somehow I highly doubt that. If I search "sedan", chances are I am looking to read about sedans, not jump right to buying an as-of-yet undetermined sedan.
You are a sophisticated user. You probably use Ad blockers too or try very hard to tell an ad from content. That's not what "regular" users do. How many people search for Facebook.com and Twitter.com on Google?
Not particularly. For the purposes of this discussion? Yes, but not during everyday use. If the ad is what I want, I click it.
> You are a sophisticated user.
Absolute bullocks. Wanting to read the Honda Accord page on honda.com and googling "honda accord" to do it is not sophisticated. Wanting to read about sedans and googling "sedan" is not sophisticated. This is just regular old google usage, exactly how regular users do it.
How many people search for "twitter.com" on google? My guess is "a metric fuckton". That is probably why twitter.com is the first is the first result for "twitter.com". That is almost certainly what they want. If they google "microblogging" then guess what? They probably want the wikipedia page, not a link to twitter. Guess which one they get? That's right, the wikipedia page.
It's not a fucking conspiracy that Google search results tend to be what people are actually looking for.
Fine. You do that. But you think major computer companies are dumb to advertise and probably risk $5 a click for "computer" when users want a link to Wikipedia?
Because if you want to learn the history of computers you are unlikely to be worth $5 a click or whatever it costs now. And ad links are barely different from other links (most will probably just see ads unless they scroll.)
"Now so you think major computer companies are dumb to advertise and probably risk $5 a click for "computer" when users want a link to Wikipedia?"
I am not sure what that sentence means, but to be clear I do not think they are dumb for buying ads on "computer". Those ads surely see many eyeballs, and many of the people who google "computer" likely see those ads, probably think "neat", and click them.
Seriously, what the hell is your angle exactly? You are all over the place with your accusations. Is your complaint that they put ads at the top now? I thought your complaint was that links to Dell/etc were not organically in the top results... Do you want links to Dell.com at the top of the page or not?
You used your search logic and tried to suggest that all do that (anecdote, logical fallacy). As a counter example I suggested that major computer companies with dozens of SEM and MBAs probably know better since they keep advertising for a quite a bit of money.
> You used your search logic and tried to suggest that all do that
Well no, I suggested that I do not believe I am odd in my preference for wikipedia links when I am searching non-trademarked single nouns. I did not suggest that nobody searches "computer" with the intent of buying one, so the fact that companies pay money for those ads is not a refutation of my point at all. Nor am I implying that I am correct because of a single experience, rather I am implicitly requesting that readers of my comment consider their own search habits. From what I see, I am hardly the only person that searches google expecting a wikipedia link.
You still haven't answered my question though, what exactly is your complaint? Is your complaint that a OEM doesn't have the top result for "computer"? You think that signals some sort of systematic manipulation? Why don't I see the same for "honda accord", or "lenovo", or "thinkpad", or hell, even "cars"? Why is it that what I am actually looking for (except in the particularly notable case of "cars"), always seems to be at the top?
And no, it is not because I am a "sophisticated user", I am typing fucking nouns and names into google, this isn't poweruser shit.
I'm not even sure this post is in english, or the point you're trying to make, but for the record, the word "computer" has a CPC about 1/4 that of "new computer".
If I am searching a single noun, it is almost certain that what I really want it a link to Wikipedia. If I am looking to buy something I always add "buy" or "purchase" to the front of my search. I don't think I am particularly weird in that regard.