Google Bombing For A Specific URL

[rajeevbala]

The term "Beruk" which means "Ape or Monkey" in english brings up this page of wikipedia amongst the first page result: URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khairy_Jamaluddin

The page does not contain the word "Beruk".

External links to the page do not contact the anchor-text "Beruk"

Given the above scenario, how is the page still ranking on first page for this keyword?

[StephanM]

Apparently, in 2007 Jamaluddin was involved in some kind of controversy concerning an HIV-positive monkey (http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khairy_Jamaluddin#Isu_beruk, I used Google Translate but it's not very clear).

Possibly a lot of pages just link to his wiki article using the work Beruk as past of the anchor text, or maybe even just as words surrounding the anchor text

[RyanKent]

Wikipedia is such an incredible strong site that Google clearly places them on a pedastal. This is purely a case of domain rank. To learn why the term Beruk is associated with that page you need to look at the page's history. In July 2008, about 150 page edits ago, a wiki reader decided to edit the page and use the term "beruk" as an insult. That is how the term became associated with the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khairy_Jamaluddin&oldid=226010042 This page would be a good example for the Google team to examine and then adjust their metrics.

[eunaneunan]

If you google phases with N.I. in them google shows results with Northern Ireland in the serps (bolded and all), maybe google doing something similar here?

[MarieHaynes]

This could also have something to do with how Google determines relevance.  If a user types in "black cat", sees their search results and then immediately goes back and types in "black kitten", Google can determine that cat and kitten are relevant.  If enough people do it they will figure out that when someone types cat, they could mean kitten.  The algorithm is more complicated than that though and Google is always learning.

So, I would guess that Google has figured out that when someone searches for Beruk, that that word is really relevant to the word monkey.  And then, the Wikipedia page is very relevant to monkies, especially the type of monkeys that people are looking for when they type in Beruk.

[rajeevbala]

Thanks Ryan for the historical wiki dig. But I doubt Google would have something so old still influence todays results (especially when the page was edited a long time ago removing all traces of the word "Beruk")

However this could be one of the possible explanations.

[rajeevbala]

Hi Dunamis,

I was wondering about the same. If Google sees historical search queries using "Term A" + "Term B" would it associate both the words so strongly.. that even when only one of the search term is being used the others relevance still gets quantifies? Hard to believe Google could be going something like this.

Still an open question for now. Let's see if we get any more explanations.