UPDATE: The guys at Distilled have created a Firefox engine that doesn’t display Wikipedia entries in Google search results.
Second instalment of the Wikipedia/Google love. This time it’s using the Fortune 100 taken from the Fortune 1000 list on, ahem, Wikipedia. Again, comparing both Google.co.uk and Google.com I searched the top one hundred’s brand names in the massively popular search engine and, as I suspected, this list included more Wikipedia entries of well-known brands on the first page of results than yesterday’s analysis.
This time the Google.co.uk domain was almost on a par with the .com version. A massive 90% of the Fortune 100’s Wikipedia entries was on the first page of Google.co.uk and an even better (or worse, depending on which way you look at it) 92% was on Google.com.
Brand |
Top 10 .co.uk |
Top 10 .com |
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
No |
No |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
No |
No |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
No |
No |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
No |
No |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
No |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
No |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
No |
No |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
No |
No |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
No |
No |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
No |
No |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
Stephen is a communications consultant based out of the UK. You can connect with him on Twitter or check out his LinkedIn profile. | Email Stephen
Stumble it
Digg it
Deli.icio.us
Tweet this
Sage
Hmm. I found Wikipedia articles for all of the google.com “no’s” on the first results page except TIAA-CREF, Aetna, and Nationwide.
Stephen
Weird, thanks Sage.
I did this on Sunday and, at that time, it was exactly how I’ve presented it. Admittedly I was a little tired but don’t think I could have messed up like that.
Maybe the results constantly chop and change?
Will Critchlow
Wow – thanks for the high-profile mention Stephen
Stephen
No problem mate. Just realised I didn’t finish the sentence off before pressing publish.
I need to get some sleep. Seriously.
Liz Camps
Excellent article. Do you agree that perhaps the companies who list as “No” in either column would make good SEO prospecting candidates?
Stephen
Hi Liz,
I guess that depends if they want their Wikipedia article showing on the front page of Google or not. I’d imagine some don’t.
But even if they do it’s out of their control. If it was their own website that wasn’t on the front page that would be a different matter however.