On 26/05/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote: Not at all. [[Nofollow]] is not [[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.

On 5/26/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)gmail.com> wrote: article do, 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

David Mestel wrote: Stable versioning has been imminent for a long time now. Perhaps when it is operational indexing should only apply to stable versions.

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"... > >

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: noindexing. bad we article do, _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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.

Andrew Gray wrote: Yes, whatever we choose to call it.

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 Mestel schreef: That will probably have little effect, if the mean time between two spider visits is longer than the duration of the AfD.

On 5/29/07, David Mestel <david.mestel(a)gmail.com> wrote: one 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(a)inbox.org> wrote: possible "pretty _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l