I may have asked about this a while back, but trying again. I want a very crude estimate of the value, in monetary terms, of having your content (an article about you, your company, your political party, your theory, your views about another person, or theory, or party) getting top rank in a Google search.

Difficult to assess. Is it worth more, or less, than an advert containing the same information? I imagine more. I take little notice of those sections in newspapers labelled 'advert'. I read the non-advert bits more studiously as I imagine they were written with some independence. Likewise, I take big newspapers slightly more seriously than small ones or specialist ones, where the 'independent' material is heavily influenced by the advertisers. I take an 'encyclopedia' most seriously of all, as an encyclopedia is truly independent isn't it? Hmm. Anyway, I think the cost of an encyclopedia article coming #1 in Google should be very expensive, much more so than a mere advert.

Thoughts?

When WP went after the articles we created about our composers that we publish and they were deleted, I expected a drop in web traffic, and also a drop in sales. Our web traffic stats did go down...but our sales went up and continue to go up. Some of our composers have been re-added to Wikipedia (not by us, but by others...) and I have seen no increase in either web traffic or sales corresponding to the creation of these articles.

I think that the obvious conclusion is that Wikipedia only generates web traffic when there is some element of drama involved. This traffic does not generate sales, at least in the specific case of classical music sheetmusics. In terms of a promotional tool in my very well-defined market, it appears to be completely useless.

I think that people who work in pop music, mainstream film or other such things might have a different view, however...

You can say that again. Edward, it really depends on the search term itself. There is a completely different answer for "mesothelioma lawyer" or "mortgage refinancing", than there is for "Millard Fillmore" or "Ganymede".

I don't see "adverts" at all; my browser extensions delete them entirely. So for people like me, search engine placement is fairly important; I tend to only look at results on the first page, so if you're not on the first page you won't get looked at by me.


So what you're saying is that Wikipedia-generated traffic is unlikely to convert, at least for your market. That makes sense; people read Wikipedia for lulz, not because they're looking to buy something.

Excuse me boss man, but just exactly why are we bring you this information?

Asking what a top Google rank is worth in cash money is like asking why the sun shines. It's a simple
question, but a good answer is horribly complicated. This is an area SEO and ad people have been
fighting over for the past 10+ years, and every expert in the business will give you a different answer,
even allowing for basing on the same narrow area of business

This was the best report i could find, and it's not terribly helpful.
Typical to see figures for a CPC (cost per clickthrough) between 10 cents and $2, but that can
vary wildly by subject, geographical area of the customer, day, time of day, and an endless
list of other factors. As Greg intimated, the word "mesothelioma" has been a "hot" search
item for years, thanks to sleazy lawyers chasing the asbestos industry. You also see "hot" results for
certain prescription drugs, porn, and several other things that generate massive profits. Most of all,
the word "insurance", because ordinary folks are constantly looking for cheaper auto, homeowners,
or health insurance online. This guy's charts gives some idea how extreme the variations are.

None of this applies very well to Wikipedia's "value". If it were a for-profit corporation, it would have a
market cap in the billions, easily. But its "value" is based very heavily on absurd intangibles derived
from its magical power as a "free", "open source" thing, that just happens to be heavily linked by
Google searches. If it had gone for-profit, as many have noted, it would not have succeeded to the level
it has reached today. "Goodwill" counts, unfortunately in this case it's a very difficult thing to place a
dollar value on.

Don't forget this 2008 TechDirt essay.
"And that, in turn, could gradually antagonize rank-and-file Wikipedians, who might resent having their labors
generating millions of dollars to be spent by a self-perpetuating elite that may or may not represent their own
interests and values." Note that was written before Sue Gardner showed up and turned the WMF into a very
effective fundraising scam. They now have such an "elite": Sue, Erik Moeller, and a few other staffers at the
WMF. None of whom were elected by anyone, all of whom were more-or-less handpicked by Wales The Questionable.

Do you realize that if someone ever shot Jimbo in the head, Wikipedia's "value" would plummet?

I fail to see the force of this. An article on a specialist topic in a big newspaper (do you mean physically big, or big circulation?) is invariably oversimpled and often misinformed. It will be covered much better in a specialist magazine where it will be written by an expert for at least half experts.

Sorry yes I was thinking of trade rags and that sort of thing.

Harassment! Threat! Stalking!

Jes' sayin. Mebbe he should hire bodyguards, and hide in hotel rooms like Madonna.

Then we wouldn't have to put up with more public appearances by His Serene Glory, which always
seem to lead to embarrassingly-stupid public pronouncements......