Tim was relaying speculation of mine. Two of Google's problems are marketing companies
which use very similar affiliate sites linked to a parent company and companies which use
real content with marketing junk added, using the key words in the real content to
artificially raise ranks. Again, such things commonly point to a master site somewhere.
It's speculation as to whether this has tripped Google filters in some way or not.
There are alternative possible reasons in many cases, with some mirrors providing more
internal links and possibly spreading rank around within their site better. Some simply
offer nicer or more features.
Personally, I think that it is a factor, but only Google knows.
I'm not keen on any great attempts to interpret the GFDL. It's best left as close
to that document and nothing else as possible, to avoid the possibility of arguments and
upset if an interpretation proves to be wrong or someone argues that some particular
interpretation is an implied contract of some sort. This is close to the approach taken by
MySQL, which the head of the company says deliberately avoids trying to interpret what the
GPL means when applied to their software.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Shannon <robin.shannon(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:04:00 +1100
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF as publisher as in GFDL
Wikipedia's policy (not Wikimedia's) has been
to coerce mirrors and
forks into providing a link back by huffing and puffing about license
violations, even though a link back is not required by the license. All
you need to do to fulfill 4-I is create a "History" section like this:
HISTORY
* Some Mirror, 2004, John Copier,
http://somemirror.org
* Wikipedia, 2000-2002, Wikipedia contributors,
http://www.wikipedia.org
* Marxists Internet Archive, 2002, MIA volunteers,
http://www.marxists.org
* Nupedia, 2000-2001, Nupedia contributors,
http://www.nupedia.org
(see Wikipedia:Nupedia and Wikipedia for a list of articles this applies to)
That's taken from [[Wikipedia:GFDL History (unofficial)]]. Since it's
unofficial, you could assume it doesn't exist and just start your own
section, omitting the 3rd and 4th entries.
Wikimedia doesn't have any policy on this. The link back policy appears
to have destroyed our Google ranking, triggering spam heuristics. In
many cases we are ranked below the mirrors. This has forced Google to
consider a change to their ranking algorithm.
what? sorry, why has the link back destroyed our ranking? isnt it that
the more places that link to us the better our rating, and also what
do you mean by spam heuristics? Why are we ranked below our mirrors?
gah, im confused,
paz y amor,
rjs
--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade(a)jabber.zim.net.au
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l