Just a thought - how much is the nofolow decision affecting Google rank of BLPs?
-Jeff
On 26/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Just a thought - how much is the nofolow decision affecting Google rank of BLPs?
Not at all. [[Nofollow]] is not [[noindex]].
- d.
On 5/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Just a thought - how much is the nofolow decision affecting Google rank of BLPs?
Not at all. [[Nofollow]] is not [[noindex]].
You said Devs said "No" to noindexing given pages, right? It's too bad we can't make a template for all BLPs that injects noindex...
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
You said Devs said "No" to noindexing given pages, right? It's too bad we can't make a template for all BLPs that injects noindex...
That seems a bit pointless to me: either we want people to find an article or we don't. If we don't, I have a better solution: delete it. If we do, why not let the search engines index it?
David
On 26/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Just a thought - how much is the nofolow decision affecting Google
rank
of BLPs?
Not at all. [[Nofollow]] is not [[noindex]].
You said Devs said "No" to noindexing given pages, right? It's too bad we can't make a template for all BLPs that injects noindex...
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/27/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
That seems a bit pointless to me: either we want people to find an article or we don't. If we don't, I have a better solution: delete it. If we do, why not let the search engines index it?
Well, there's always internal links, and internal search (which is not so good at the moment, but testing of Lucene 2 is happening as we speak, and it looks promising).
That said, removing or deleting material is indeed preferable to the possibility of letting things "slip under the radar".
As to the original question, us having nofollow turned on means nothing in terms of the rank of our pages; people who link to us would need to have nofollow turned on for it to be affected.
On 5/26/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
You said Devs said "No" to noindexing given pages, right? It's too bad
we
can't make a template for all BLPs that injects noindex...
That seems a bit pointless to me: either we want people to find an article or we don't. If we don't, I have a better solution: delete it. If we do, why not let the search engines index it?
I don't think it's nearly as simple as wanting people to find an article or not. There are some articles we might want some people to find (such as Wikipedia editors), but others not to find (such as Google searchers). I wouldn't say this is true of BLPs in general, though.
Anthony
I don't think it's nearly as simple as wanting people to find an article or not. There are some articles we might want some people to find (such as Wikipedia editors), but others not to find (such as Google searchers). I wouldn't say this is true of BLPs in general, though.
Eh. I am suitably chastised for my sweeping generalisations, but you get the general idea.
David
On 26/05/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/26/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
You said Devs said "No" to noindexing given pages, right? It's too bad
we
can't make a template for all BLPs that injects noindex...
That seems a bit pointless to me: either we want people to find an
article
or we don't. If we don't, I have a better solution: delete it. If we
do,
why not let the search engines index it?
I don't think it's nearly as simple as wanting people to find an article or not. There are some articles we might want some people to find (such as Wikipedia editors), but others not to find (such as Google searchers). I wouldn't say this is true of BLPs in general, though.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Mestel wrote:
You said Devs said "No" to noindexing given pages, right? It's too bad we can't make a template for all BLPs that injects noindex...
That seems a bit pointless to me: either we want people to find an article or we don't. If we don't, I have a better solution: delete it. If we do, why not let the search engines index it?
Stable versioning has been imminent for a long time now. Perhaps when it is operational indexing should only apply to stable versions.
Ec
On 26/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Mestel wrote:
You said Devs said "No" to noindexing given pages, right? It's too bad we can't make a template for all BLPs that injects noindex...
That seems a bit pointless to me: either we want people to find an article or we don't. If we don't, I have a better solution: delete it. If we do, why not let the search engines index it?
Stable versioning has been imminent for a long time now. Perhaps when it is operational indexing should only apply to stable versions.
That wouldn't really solve the problem at all - it's quite possible to have a stable-but-crap article. "Stable" only really means "pretty likely it doesn't say Joe is Gay anywhere"...
And Andrew wins. Stable versioning wont solve anything, nor will noindexing. Part of being an encyclopedia means wanting people to use you, which (for one on-line) means showing up in search engines.
On 5/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Mestel wrote:
You said Devs said "No" to noindexing given pages, right? It's too
bad we
can't make a template for all BLPs that injects noindex...
That seems a bit pointless to me: either we want people to find an
article
or we don't. If we don't, I have a better solution: delete it. If we
do,
why not let the search engines index it?
Stable versioning has been imminent for a long time now. Perhaps when it is operational indexing should only apply to stable versions.
That wouldn't really solve the problem at all - it's quite possible to have a stable-but-crap article. "Stable" only really means "pretty likely it doesn't say Joe is Gay anywhere"...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't understand why you make it about "winning". I don't think that either Andrew or I were approaching it in that spirit. Being dismissive from the beginning of possible solutions doesn't solve anything either. Both ideas being presented are possibilities, and no-one is treating them as certainties.
Wanting people to use your encyclopedia is an underlying theme in the same way that any author would want the public to read his book. Sure we want people to use Wikipedia, and showing up in search engines will enhance the possibility of that happening. Nevertheless that should not be the driving force behind the way we do things. Having a good product is far more important than marketing that product. Wikipedia did not get where it is by developing a marketing strategy. We don't need to engage in grandstanding to develop an audience.
We don't want people to look ONLY at Wikipedia. We want our readers to find alternatives, and must support teachers who downgrade student papers when those students use Wikipedia as the only source for significant facts in that paper. We are not the Borg.
Ec
Brock Weller wrote:
And Andrew wins. Stable versioning wont solve anything, nor will noindexing. Part of being an encyclopedia means wanting people to use you, which (for one on-line) means showing up in search engines.
On 5/26/07, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 26/05/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Mestel wrote:
You said Devs said "No" to noindexing given pages, right? It's too bad we
can't make a template for all BLPs that injects noindex...
That seems a bit pointless to me: either we want people to find an article
or we don't. If we don't, I have a better solution: delete it. If we do,
why not let the search engines index it?
Stable versioning has been imminent for a long time now. Perhaps when it is operational indexing should only apply to stable versions.
That wouldn't really solve the problem at all - it's quite possible to have a stable-but-crap article. "Stable" only really means "pretty likely it doesn't say Joe is Gay anywhere"...
on 5/27/07 1:38 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't understand why you make it about "winning". I don't think that either Andrew or I were approaching it in that spirit. Being dismissive from the beginning of possible solutions doesn't solve anything either. Both ideas being presented are possibilities, and no-one is treating them as certainties.
Wanting people to use your encyclopedia is an underlying theme in the same way that any author would want the public to read his book. Sure we want people to use Wikipedia, and showing up in search engines will enhance the possibility of that happening. Nevertheless that should not be the driving force behind the way we do things. Having a good product is far more important than marketing that product. Wikipedia did not get where it is by developing a marketing strategy. We don't need to engage in grandstanding to develop an audience.
We don't want people to look ONLY at Wikipedia. We want our readers to find alternatives, and must support teachers who downgrade student papers when those students use Wikipedia as the only source for significant facts in that paper. We are not the Borg.
All very well said, Ray.
Marc Riddell
I didn't mean winning in the confrontational sense. Forgive me, its just a slang term meaning 'he's right'. I happen to agree with his point on stable versioning.
On 5/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't understand why you make it about "winning". I don't think that either Andrew or I were approaching it in that spirit. Being dismissive from the beginning of possible solutions doesn't solve anything either. Both ideas being presented are possibilities, and no-one is treating them as certainties.
Wanting people to use your encyclopedia is an underlying theme in the same way that any author would want the public to read his book. Sure we want people to use Wikipedia, and showing up in search engines will enhance the possibility of that happening. Nevertheless that should not be the driving force behind the way we do things. Having a good product is far more important than marketing that product. Wikipedia did not get where it is by developing a marketing strategy. We don't need to engage in grandstanding to develop an audience.
We don't want people to look ONLY at Wikipedia. We want our readers to find alternatives, and must support teachers who downgrade student papers when those students use Wikipedia as the only source for significant facts in that paper. We are not the Borg.
Ec
Brock Weller wrote:
And Andrew wins. Stable versioning wont solve anything, nor will
noindexing.
Part of being an encyclopedia means wanting people to use you, which (for one on-line) means showing up in search engines.
On 5/26/07, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 26/05/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Mestel wrote:
You said Devs said "No" to noindexing given pages, right? It's too
bad we
can't make a template for all BLPs that injects noindex...
That seems a bit pointless to me: either we want people to find an
article
or we don't. If we don't, I have a better solution: delete it. If we
do,
why not let the search engines index it?
Stable versioning has been imminent for a long time now. Perhaps when it is operational indexing should only apply to stable versions.
That wouldn't really solve the problem at all - it's quite possible to have a stable-but-crap article. "Stable" only really means "pretty likely it doesn't say Joe is Gay anywhere"...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 26/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Mestel wrote:
You said Devs said "No" to noindexing given pages, right? It's too bad we can't make a template for all BLPs that injects noindex...
That seems a bit pointless to me: either we want people to find an article or we don't. If we don't, I have a better solution: delete it. If we do, why not let the search engines index it?
Stable versioning has been imminent for a long time now. Perhaps when it is operational indexing should only apply to stable versions.
That wouldn't really solve the problem at all - it's quite possible to have a stable-but-crap article. "Stable" only really means "pretty likely it doesn't say Joe is Gay anywhere"...
If you apply that limitation to stable versions you are right. Stable versioning, however, should be developed to the point where it can do a lot more.
Ec
On 27/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That wouldn't really solve the problem at all - it's quite possible to have a stable-but-crap article. "Stable" only really means "pretty likely it doesn't say Joe is Gay anywhere"...
If you apply that limitation to stable versions you are right. Stable versioning, however, should be developed to the point where it can do a lot more.
Mmmm.... then we're really talking reviewed versions, or finalised versions, or revision rating structures, or something like that.
I tnink it's best to get *some* kind of stable versioning live and working before we start trying to load it with jobs to do, otherwise we'll never get anything. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and all that.
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 27/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That wouldn't really solve the problem at all - it's quite possible to have a stable-but-crap article. "Stable" only really means "pretty likely it doesn't say Joe is Gay anywhere"...
If you apply that limitation to stable versions you are right. Stable versioning, however, should be developed to the point where it can do a lot more.
Mmmm.... then we're really talking reviewed versions, or finalised versions, or revision rating structures, or something like that.
Yes, whatever we choose to call it.
I tnink it's best to get *some* kind of stable versioning live and working before we start trying to load it with jobs to do, otherwise we'll never get anything. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and all that.
True enough. Though with something like the most basic concept of stable versioning that was discussed last summer I am often guilty of thinking, "What the hell's taking so long?"
Ec
On 5/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 27/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That wouldn't really solve the problem at all - it's quite possible to have a stable-but-crap article. "Stable" only really means "pretty likely it doesn't say Joe is Gay anywhere"...
If you apply that limitation to stable versions you are right. Stable versioning, however, should be developed to the point where it can do a lot more.
Mmmm.... then we're really talking reviewed versions, or finalised versions, or revision rating structures, or something like that.
Yes, whatever we choose to call it.
[[Silver bullet]]s, maybe?
Here's an idea: why not noindex BLPs while they're being considered on AfD. We get the best of both worlds, since as the article isn't the number one ghit, there's no need to speedy non-outrageous articles. I guess we'd also need to noindex the AfDs themselves.
David
On 27/05/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 27/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That wouldn't really solve the problem at all - it's quite possible
to
have a stable-but-crap article. "Stable" only really means "pretty likely it doesn't say Joe is Gay anywhere"...
If you apply that limitation to stable versions you are right. Stable versioning, however, should be developed to the point where it can do
a
lot more.
Mmmm.... then we're really talking reviewed versions, or finalised versions, or revision rating structures, or something like that.
Yes, whatever we choose to call it.
[[Silver bullet]]s, maybe? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 29/05/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an idea: why not noindex BLPs while they're being considered on AfD. We get the best of both worlds, since as the article isn't the number one ghit, there's no need to speedy non-outrageous articles. I guess we'd also need to noindex the AfDs themselves.
AFDs are noindexed for this reason. The devs have resisted noindexing some classes of page.
- d.
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
David Mestel schreef:
Here's an idea: why not noindex BLPs while they're being considered on AfD.
That will probably have little effect, if the mean time between two spider visits is longer than the duration of the AfD.
Quite the opposite. If the AfDs last five days, and the spidering frequency is seven days one would expect that two out of seven would be left out because they were never checked, but it would still be useful for the other five. It makes more sense if they do things based on our criteria (whatever those may be) instead of some random application of criteria established by random spidering sites.
Ec
On 5/29/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an idea: why not noindex BLPs while they're being considered on AfD. We get the best of both worlds, since as the article isn't the number one ghit, there's no need to speedy non-outrageous articles. I guess we'd also need to noindex the AfDs themselves.
What would be the purpose of noindexing the article which isn't better solved by judicious application of WP:BLP? I thought the whole argument for noindexing was that these articles might get vandalized and not noticed. But an article which is currently being discussed on AfD should have plenty of eyeballs on it.
Anthony
On 27/05/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 27/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That wouldn't really solve the problem at all - it's quite possible
to
have a stable-but-crap article. "Stable" only really means "pretty likely it doesn't say Joe is Gay anywhere"...
If you apply that limitation to stable versions you are
right. Stable
versioning, however, should be developed to the point where it can
do
a
lot more.
Mmmm.... then we're really talking reviewed versions, or finalised versions, or revision rating structures, or something like that.
Yes, whatever we choose to call it.
[[Silver bullet]]s, maybe? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, the idea in this case would be so that editors could scrutinise an article that we weren't yet sure whether we wished to draw to the attention of the outside world.
David
On 29/05/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/29/07, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an idea: why not noindex BLPs while they're being considered on AfD. We get the best of both worlds, since as the article isn't the number
one
ghit, there's no need to speedy non-outrageous articles. I guess we'd also need to noindex the AfDs themselves.
What would be the purpose of noindexing the article which isn't better solved by judicious application of WP:BLP? I thought the whole argument for noindexing was that these articles might get vandalized and not noticed. But an article which is currently being discussed on AfD should have plenty of eyeballs on it.
Anthony
On 27/05/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 27/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
>That wouldn't really solve the problem at all - it's quite
possible
to
>have a stable-but-crap article. "Stable" only really means
"pretty
>likely it doesn't say Joe is Gay anywhere"... > > If you apply that limitation to stable versions you are
right. Stable
versioning, however, should be developed to the point where it can
do
a
lot more.
Mmmm.... then we're really talking reviewed versions, or finalised versions, or revision rating structures, or something like that.
Yes, whatever we choose to call it.
[[Silver bullet]]s, maybe? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l