You are not understanding White Cat what the person means by ranking.
That there would be a "prime time" Wikipedia, which any reader can find, and then a "sub-surface" Wikipedia for all the articles not deemed ready to go to prime time.
These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the mainstream, but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit.
It seems like a simple way to satisfy both sides of the issue here.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http... cemailfooterNO62)
On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the mainstream, but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit.
Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed" article.
As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
--Noah--
Consider it this way, if the other side is cheating in chess, why should you want to switch to checkers? There is no consensus behind the current practice so acting as if it is commonly accepted does not go beyond being a mere misconception.
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Noah Salzman noah@salzman.net wrote:
On Jan 13, 2009, at 12:10 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the mainstream, but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit.
Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
Deletion could remain a standard process but with much clearer and stricter guidelines. Perhaps, it could be changed to "innocent until proven guilty" as opposed to the deletion process now where the defendant has to do a ton of busy work to save a "guilt-assumed" article.
As someone somewhat removed from the politics of the project, my main question is what does the step-by-step process look like for making this change happen? I imagine there is more than one path: grass roots consensus building vs lobbying The Powers That Be?
My apologies if that is an amusingly naive way of putting it.
--Noah--
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Noah Salzman wrote:
Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
It's already happened, with articles for deletion replaced by "merging" on the grounds that merging is not deletion.
AFDs cannot conclude as a "merge". AFDs are meant to be a binary decision. Something will either end up getting deleted or not. AFDs shouldn't go any further. - White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Noah Salzman wrote:
Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
It's already happened, with articles for deletion replaced by "merging" on the grounds that merging is not deletion.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But they do and theyn have for quite some time. Other results from an AFD are cleanup, redirect, no consensus (default keep), keep, delete, I think there are a few others. It *is* widely accepted practice and has been for as long as I have been here.
On 1/13/09, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
AFDs cannot conclude as a "merge". AFDs are meant to be a binary decision. Something will either end up getting deleted or not. AFDs shouldn't go any further.
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Noah Salzman wrote:
Makes sense to me. If the "articles for deletion" process is usurped by the "articles for purgatory" process then it transforms the debate entirely. If you keep losing at chess than change the game to checkers, rather than continuing to complain about losing at chess.
It's already happened, with articles for deletion replaced by "merging" on the grounds that merging is not deletion.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org wrote:
On 1/13/09, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
AFDs cannot conclude as a "merge". AFDs are meant to be a binary decision. Something will either end up getting deleted or not. AFDs shouldn't go any further.
But they do and theyn have for quite some time. Other results from an AFD are cleanup, redirect, no consensus (default keep), keep, delete, I think there are a few others. It *is* widely accepted practice and has been for as long as I have been here.
<snip>
"cleanup" is not an AfD result I've ever seen. It has been a long-standing axiom as far as I can remember that AfD is not cleanup. What *can* happen is someone closes as keep or no consensus, and then *adds* their opinion (or that of others) that cleanup is needed. But that is not a close of "cleanup".
Carcharoth
2009/1/14 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
"cleanup" is not an AfD result I've ever seen. It has been a long-standing axiom as far as I can remember that AfD is not cleanup. What *can* happen is someone closes as keep or no consensus, and then *adds* their opinion (or that of others) that cleanup is needed. But that is not a close of "cleanup".
This does not square with practice, where people will aggressively defend whatever the AFD comes out as. "But the AFD consensus was to GUT THAT LIST!"
- d.
AFD itself is quite broken. Decisions made at AFD may not necessarily represent the best interest of the site. The use of DRV had skyrocketed over the passing years. Originally there was no need for a DRV. - White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/14 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
"cleanup" is not an AfD result I've ever seen. It has been a long-standing axiom as far as I can remember that AfD is not cleanup. What *can* happen is someone closes as keep or no consensus, and then *adds* their opinion (or that of others) that cleanup is needed. But that is not a close of "cleanup".
This does not square with practice, where people will aggressively defend whatever the AFD comes out as. "But the AFD consensus was to GUT THAT LIST!"
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
One side of the issue is aggressively mass removing articles without backing such an act with consensus of any kind. When that happens the other side does not even think of compromising. The opposing side pushes back with equal aggression. This kind of aggressive conflict between any two sides disrupts the entire site. This is what's happening. That is the outstanding problem at this point. It isn't the only outstanding problem but is the first one that needs to be addressed for us to work on a consensus everyone can agree on. Do we all agree thus far? Because neither one of you have said so. I apologize if I missed any remarks establishing this.
As for your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their search results? Google's search results establish the "prime time" articles.
Consider "Beowulf"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Beowulf+site:en.wikipedia.org&b...
As you can see the historic article (Old English heroic epic poem) is #1. 2007 movie comes as #2. The computer clusters of NASA comes #3.
Mind that #1 and #2 are fiction related topics and #3 is a real world topic. In this case the fiction related work is more popular/notable than the real world topic.
Consider "Enterprise"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Enterprise+site:en.wik...
#1 and #3 is a fiction related.
The real world ships (OV-101 & CVN-65) called Enterprise come before the fictional ship (NCC-1701). CV-6 comes as the 20th hit.
Consider "Voyager"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Voyager+site:en.wikipe...
#1 is the fictional series and other 18 hits are not even fiction related. The fictional ship USS voyager comes up in the next page at #21.
Consider "Zero"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Zero+site:en.wikipedia...
#1 is 0 (number) in mathematics - a real world topic to say the least. #2 is A6M Zero, the Japanese fighter aircraft in WW2. #3 is the fictional character. #4 is a real world topic (chemistry). And the remaining topics are either disambiguation or real world related articles.
Of course when I do a search on "Naruto"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+site:en.wikiped...
I get 19 hits on fiction related topics. Even then the 20th is a real world topic!
So where exactly is the Google ranking inadequate or unfair? Mind that I made no effort to "hide" fiction related topics in the search urls I posted so far.
Had I searched for "Naruto -anime"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+site:en....
I get 18 real world topics. With the use of a few more words.
Consider "Naruto -anime -manga -episodes -user -Wikipedia:featured"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+-manga+-...http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+-manga+-episodes+-user+-
I can effectively remove fiction related hits on my search results. Or... I could use smarter search words to get what I am looking for.
Consider: "Naruto University"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+University+site...
All it takes is the use of one extra word to eliminate nearly all fiction related topics. Naruto is among our top 20 most visited articles each month. Even so that doesn't get in the way if you are smart about it.
So please tell me what exactly is the problem with fiction related articles as a whole?
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
You are not understanding White Cat what the person means by ranking.
That there would be a "prime time" Wikipedia, which any reader can find, and then a "sub-surface" Wikipedia for all the articles not deemed ready to go to prime time.
These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the mainstream, but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit.
It seems like a simple way to satisfy both sides of the issue here.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! ( http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http... cemailfooterNO62http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62 ) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:53 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
All it takes is the use of one extra word to eliminate nearly all fiction related topics. Naruto is among our top 20 most visited articles each month. Even so that doesn't get in the way if you are smart about it.
So please tell me what exactly is the problem with fiction related articles as a whole?
Good point. I haven't seen this argument raised prominently before, that fiction articles *don't* swamp our real-world coverage. It would be worth trying to get more rigorous results from a wider survey like this, and finding someone willing to help with some moderate form of statistical analysis. The number of page views is also something that should have more prominence in the debate, in my opinion.
Carcharoth
Indeed. Our (Wikipedias) most visited articles is "littered" with fiction related topics. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages
for a list of "most visited" articles. There are links to other tools which provide more detailed statistics.
For your convenience:
http://wikistics.falsikon.de/2008/wikipedia/en/
Thats the yearly visits. For the sake of our sanity we will ignore statistics on daily or even monthly visits.
Wikipedias top 25 most visited article with real content (excluding special pages and the main page as well ass any non-main namespace page ) in 2008 is:
1. Wiki - Software 2. YouTube - Website 3. Barack Obama - Politics 4. Sarah Palin - Politics 5. Facebook - Website 6. The Dark Knight (film) - Pop Culture 7. Wikipedia - Website (US!) 8. Sex - Science (o_O) 9. Deaths in 2008 - General content 10. United States - Science (Geography, socialy and etc) 11. MySpace - Website 12. John McCain - Politics 13. Beatles - Pop Culture - Music 14. 2008 Summer Olympics - Olympics 15. Large Hadron Collider - Science 16. Hotmail - Website 17. Naruto - Pop Cultue - Anime 18. Heroes (TV series) - Pop Culture - Sci fi 19. Google - Website 20. Joe Biden - Politics 21. Lil Wayne - Pop Culture - Music 22. Michael Phelps - Olympics 23. Batman - Pop Culture - Sci fi (or whatever) 24. United States presidential election, 2008 - Politics 25. Miley Cyrus - Pop Culture - Music
Now lets analyze all this.
First of all please recall that 2008 had two significant events.
- The Election in the United States - The Summer Olympics in China
Politics: 5 Olympics: 2 Websites: 6 Pop Culture: 7 Other: 5
If we count Other+Olympics+Websites+Politics as real world... Thats 18 real world and 7 pop culture.
I do not see the threat of pop culture there...
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
Good point. I haven't seen this argument raised prominently before, that fiction articles *don't* swamp our real-world coverage. It would be worth trying to get more rigorous results from a wider survey like this, and finding someone willing to help with some moderate form of statistical analysis. The number of page views is also something that should have more prominence in the debate, in my opinion.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Mothly
1. Wiki (+ 268 redirect hits per day) 2. The Beatles (+ 60,737 redirect hits per day) 3. YouTube (+ 6,163 redirect hits per day) 4. Christmas (+ 384 redirect hits per day) 5. Ponzi scheme 6. Wikipedia (+ 713 redirect hits per day) 7. Favicon.ico 8. Deaths in 2008 (+ 4,172 redirect hits per day) 9. Hanukkah 10. Twilight (2008 film) (+ 1,511 redirect hits per day) 11. United States (+ 10,085 redirect hits per day) 12. Facebook (+ 399 redirect hits per day) 13. Virgin Killer 14. The Dark Knight (film) (+ 1,541 redirect hits per day) 15. Twilight (novel) (+ 3,239 redirect hits per day) 16. Heroes (TV series) (+ 6,659 redirect hits per day) 17. Robert Pattinson (+ 10 redirect hits per day) 18. Barack Obama (+ 56,551 redirect hits per day) 19. Naruto (+ 1,636 redirect hits per day) 20. Sex (+ 859 redirect hits per day) 21. Rod Blagojevich 22. Lil Wayne (+ 6,644 redirect hits per day) 23. Edward Cullen (Twilight) (+ 2,010 redirect hits per day) 24. The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film) 25. Seven Pounds
A less detailed analysis... Mind that for some odd reason on December 2008 people shown a lot of interest in topics like Ponzi scheme, Christmas, Virgin Killer, Twilight (2008 film), Twilight (novel), Robert Pattinson.
The reason for that is...
The last three items (Twilight (2008 film), Twilight (novel), Robert Pattinson): These are related to the Twilight saga (whatever it is - I really do not care) which released the movie or something...
Virgin Killer: had a controversy surrounding it over the controversial album cover. Read about it if you like at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer#Internet_censorship
Christmas: 25 Dec... Seems like people needed to learn about it from Wikipedia...
Ponzi scheme: had a controversy on 11 Dec concerning former chairman of the NASDAQ Stock Market Bernard Madoff. Fun part of it is that more people cared about the meaning of Ponzi scheme than Bernard Madoff himself. If you care to read more about it, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme#Bernard_Madoff
At a glance you can see that there is an overflow of fiction related topics. This is primarily due to releases in December. If you put it in the context of a year-long statistics most of those will not even show as a blip. So I really do not see a threat in fiction related articles.
- White Cat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme#Bernard_Madoff
Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.
-- Alvaro
On 13-01-2009, at 5:53, "White Cat" wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
One side of the issue is aggressively mass removing articles without backing such an act with consensus of any kind. When that happens the other side does not even think of compromising. The opposing side pushes back with equal aggression. This kind of aggressive conflict between any two sides disrupts the entire site. This is what's happening. That is the outstanding problem at this point. It isn't the only outstanding problem but is the first one that needs to be addressed for us to work on a consensus everyone can agree on. Do we all agree thus far? Because neither one of you have said so. I apologize if I missed any remarks establishing this.
As for your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their search results? Google's search results establish the "prime time" articles.
Consider "Beowulf"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Beowulf+site:en.wikipedia.org&b...
As you can see the historic article (Old English heroic epic poem) is #1. 2007 movie comes as #2. The computer clusters of NASA comes #3.
Mind that #1 and #2 are fiction related topics and #3 is a real world topic. In this case the fiction related work is more popular/notable than the real world topic.
Consider "Enterprise"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Enterprise+site:en.wik...
#1 and #3 is a fiction related.
The real world ships (OV-101 & CVN-65) called Enterprise come before the fictional ship (NCC-1701). CV-6 comes as the 20th hit.
Consider "Voyager"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Voyager+site:en.wikipe...
#1 is the fictional series and other 18 hits are not even fiction related. The fictional ship USS voyager comes up in the next page at #21.
Consider "Zero"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Zero+site:en.wikipedia...
#1 is 0 (number) in mathematics - a real world topic to say the least. #2 is A6M Zero, the Japanese fighter aircraft in WW2. #3 is the fictional character. #4 is a real world topic (chemistry). And the remaining topics are either disambiguation or real world related articles.
Of course when I do a search on "Naruto"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+site:en.wikiped...
I get 19 hits on fiction related topics. Even then the 20th is a real world topic!
So where exactly is the Google ranking inadequate or unfair? Mind that I made no effort to "hide" fiction related topics in the search urls I posted so far.
Had I searched for "Naruto -anime"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+site:en....
I get 18 real world topics. With the use of a few more words.
Consider "Naruto -anime -manga -episodes -user -Wikipedia:featured"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+-manga+-... "Wikipedia:featured"+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+-manga+-...
I can effectively remove fiction related hits on my search results. Or... I could use smarter search words to get what I am looking for.
Consider: "Naruto University"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+University+site...
All it takes is the use of one extra word to eliminate nearly all fiction related topics. Naruto is among our top 20 most visited articles each month. Even so that doesn't get in the way if you are smart about it.
So please tell me what exactly is the problem with fiction related articles as a whole?
- White Cat
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
You are not understanding White Cat what the person means by ranking.
That there would be a "prime time" Wikipedia, which any reader can find, and then a "sub-surface" Wikipedia for all the articles not deemed ready to go to prime time.
These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so reader wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the mainstream, but they would be present for people already in-world to read and edit.
It seems like a simple way to satisfy both sides of the issue here.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! ( http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http... cemailfooterNO62<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http...
) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Which does not connect with the content of my post...
So what? How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post. If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards fiction related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com wrote:
Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.
-- Alvaro
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ah well, Wikipedia was fun while it lasted.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:34 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.comwrote:
Which does not connect with the content of my post...
So what? How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post. If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards fiction related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com wrote:
Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.
-- Alvaro
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sorry but you asked that -maybe retorically-, no need to be rude.
-- Alvaro
On 14-01-2009, at 10:34, "White Cat" wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Which does not connect with the content of my post...
So what? How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post. If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards fiction related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com w rote:
Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.
-- Alvaro
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am kinda confused? What are you referring to?
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry but you asked that -maybe retorically-, no need to be rude.
-- Alvaro
On 14-01-2009, at 10:34, "White Cat" wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Which does not connect with the content of my post...
So what? How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post. If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards fiction related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com w rote:
Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.
-- Alvaro
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nevermind.
-- Alvaro
On 14-01-2009, at 11:30, "White Cat" wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I am kinda confused? What are you referring to?
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com w rote:
Sorry but you asked that -maybe retorically-, no need to be rude.
-- Alvaro
On 14-01-2009, at 10:34, "White Cat" wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Which does not connect with the content of my post...
So what? How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post. If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards fiction related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García <alvareo@gmail.co m> w rote:
Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.
-- Alvaro
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I shall mind it nevermore forevermore.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com wrote:
Nevermind.
-- Alvaro
On 14-01-2009, at 11:30, "White Cat" wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I am kinda confused? What are you referring to?
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com w rote:
Sorry but you asked that -maybe retorically-, no need to be rude.
-- Alvaro
On 14-01-2009, at 10:34, "White Cat" wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Which does not connect with the content of my post...
So what? How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post. If you read throughly, I have demonstrated how the paranoia towards fiction related topics is baseless and unwarranted.
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Alvaro García <alvareo@gmail.co m> w rote:
Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.
-- Alvaro
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l