On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: Policy pages, guidelines, essays. Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

2008/4/28 Judson Dunn <cohesion(a)sleepyhead.org>rg>: Well, here's the problem. When I google-search "Verifiability", the first hit is the Wikipedia policy - it isn't even our article on formal verification (redirected from "Verifiability), or any other link on Wikipedia or elsewhere that describes what verifiability is in the real world. "Naming convention" shows our article first, our policy second, and then all the other real-world information about naming conventions after that. "Arbitration policy" again shows a #1 google-hit direct to our policy. "Copyright violations" takes us first to the Wikipedia article, and second to our Category of possible copyright violations. "Basic dignity" - a fairly common term - first hit is our essay. (And this was just a random sample.) Our rankings for policies, guidelines and essays are all out of proportion to their importance in the real world, and frankly should not be the first hit for someone looking for general information on the subject. They should definitely be available for searching within Wikipedia, but they do not need to be in the top-10 google hits - ever. They pertain only to the process of editing Wikipedia and have no bearing on any other aspect of the world. Risker

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't think we should assume what people want to find when they search for things. That is not Wikipedia's job, but googles. I bet when most people search for "arbitration policy" they are looking for Wikipedia, for example. Regardless that's a fairly unrealistic search phrase. The rest are fine too, "naming conventions", why shouldn't the biggest online published of free information's naming conventions come up first in that search? Who's conventions would be more appropriate? Says you. I'm sure a lot of researchers, sociologists, wikipedians, and the curious would disagree. Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Relata Refero <refero.relata(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes, sorry on re-reading what I said seems a little assy. I meant "says you", as "says you, an insider", as everyone on this list is. I don't think we can necessarily do a great job at guessing what people want when they search for things in Wikipedia. I don't search for our neutrality policy either, because I know where it is, and that we have one, but outsiders might. I'm very aware of the problem though, and think the no-index magic word is a very good, change. Page blanking does work almost all the time, but what about areas that have a high likelihood for problems? Should we not index from the start, or only blank as needed for the sake of transparency? I kinda like both solutions equally. :P Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

Some people think the web has relevant content that is non-notable... Suggesting to search engines that they not index certain pages will only break one discovery mechanism. If there is irrelevant content why not blank them. There is obviously something there that people don't want others to find, so why not focus on that issue. The fact that when they do get to the page they can do a lot with the community content under wikipedia licensing terms should be a bigger issue than that of real world consequences of Google (not) doing things with content. Peter 2008/4/28 Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com>om>: