Charles Matthews wrote:
Well, maybe we should discuss the downside first. Not having project pages on Google would certainly impede my work. You know, some of us still develop articles, and so on.
This is a valid point, and I think it needs to be addressed in a couple of ways:
1. First, narrowing the scope of the noindex request.
2. Second, finding out what it would take to improve internal search to make it more usable for people developing articles and so on.
Ah, but I do. Isn't it a better solution to blank some AfDs, than to say "the mission has to come second"? After all, really negative material should be off the site, not just harder to find.
I would support that for some kinds of pages, blanking should be the default upon the close of discussion.
-----
I wonder how hard it would be to have a technical change whereby articles could be tagged with a {{noindex}} template which would set the meta headers appropriately. This could be liberally applied to project pages that may be magnets for bad behavior.
And then user space could be the only thing removed from google by default.
Thoughts?
--Jimbo
This already exists to some degree in Mediawiki by default. The "noindex,nofollow" tags can be assigned per-namespace, so the Wikipedia: namespace can easily be removed from search indexers (ones that follow the standard, at least).
As far as assigning it on a per-page basis (ie: for the mainspace if need be), I would think that either a magic word (like you said Jimbo: {{NOINDEX}} or somesuch), or an extension (such as the url blacklists) would be the way to go.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Well, maybe we should discuss the downside first. Not having project pages on Google would certainly impede my work. You know, some of us still develop articles, and so on.
This is a valid point, and I think it needs to be addressed in a couple of ways:
First, narrowing the scope of the noindex request.
Second, finding out what it would take to improve internal search to
make it more usable for people developing articles and so on.
Ah, but I do. Isn't it a better solution to blank some AfDs, than to say "the mission has to come second"? After all, really negative material should be off the site, not just harder to find.
I would support that for some kinds of pages, blanking should be the default upon the close of discussion.
I wonder how hard it would be to have a technical change whereby articles could be tagged with a {{noindex}} template which would set the meta headers appropriately. This could be liberally applied to project pages that may be magnets for bad behavior.
And then user space could be the only thing removed from google by default.
Thoughts?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I would be very reluctant to use NOINDEX on any mainspace article pages. If it is appropriate to have the article content, then it is appropriate to index it in the most public way. Other namespaces--even article talk pages--that's another matter. They should normally be public, but in my view some of them not searchable by google
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
This already exists to some degree in Mediawiki by default. The "noindex,nofollow" tags can be assigned per-namespace, so the Wikipedia: namespace can easily be removed from search indexers (ones that follow the standard, at least).
As far as assigning it on a per-page basis (ie: for the mainspace if need be), I would think that either a magic word (like you said Jimbo: {{NOINDEX}} or somesuch), or an extension (such as the url blacklists) would be the way to go.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Well, maybe we should discuss the downside first. Not having project pages on Google would certainly impede my work. You know, some of us still develop articles, and so on.
This is a valid point, and I think it needs to be addressed in a couple of ways:
First, narrowing the scope of the noindex request.
Second, finding out what it would take to improve internal search to
make it more usable for people developing articles and so on.
Ah, but I do. Isn't it a better solution to blank some AfDs, than to say "the mission has to come second"? After all, really negative material should be off the site, not just harder to find.
I would support that for some kinds of pages, blanking should be the default upon the close of discussion.
I wonder how hard it would be to have a technical change whereby articles could be tagged with a {{noindex}} template which would set the meta headers appropriately. This could be liberally applied to project pages that may be magnets for bad behavior.
And then user space could be the only thing removed from google by default.
Thoughts?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/4/29 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
I would be very reluctant to use NOINDEX on any mainspace article pages. If it is appropriate to have the article content, then it is appropriate to index it in the most public way.
Absolutely. The solution to bad living bios in article space, for example, is to fix, stub or remove them.
Other namespaces--even article talk pages--that's another matter. They should normally be public, but in my view some of them not searchable by google
Yeah. Our internal search needs to be a lot better. Fortunately, this is happening. Just not yesterday.
- d.
So - uh - the question naturally arises "Does anyone with the knowledge of how to do this feel BOLD?" Maybe just noindex the various talk spaces and see how it goes?
WilyD
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
This already exists to some degree in Mediawiki by default. The "noindex,nofollow" tags can be assigned per-namespace, so the Wikipedia: namespace can easily be removed from search indexers (ones that follow the standard, at least).
As far as assigning it on a per-page basis (ie: for the mainspace if need be), I would think that either a magic word (like you said Jimbo: {{NOINDEX}} or somesuch), or an extension (such as the url blacklists) would be the way to go.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Well, maybe we should discuss the downside first. Not having project pages on Google would certainly impede my work. You know, some of us still develop articles, and so on.
This is a valid point, and I think it needs to be addressed in a couple of ways:
First, narrowing the scope of the noindex request.
Second, finding out what it would take to improve internal search to
make it more usable for people developing articles and so on.
Ah, but I do. Isn't it a better solution to blank some AfDs, than to say "the mission has to come second"? After all, really negative material should be off the site, not just harder to find.
I would support that for some kinds of pages, blanking should be the default upon the close of discussion.
I wonder how hard it would be to have a technical change whereby articles could be tagged with a {{noindex}} template which would set the meta headers appropriately. This could be liberally applied to project pages that may be magnets for bad behavior.
And then user space could be the only thing removed from google by default.
Thoughts?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The way to do it would be to open a bugzilla request.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
So - uh - the question naturally arises "Does anyone with the knowledge of how to do this feel BOLD?" Maybe just noindex the various talk spaces and see how it goes?
WilyD
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
This already exists to some degree in Mediawiki by default. The "noindex,nofollow" tags can be assigned per-namespace, so the Wikipedia: namespace can easily be removed from search indexers (ones that follow the standard, at least).
As far as assigning it on a per-page basis (ie: for the mainspace if need be), I would think that either a magic word (like you said Jimbo: {{NOINDEX}} or somesuch), or an extension (such as the url blacklists) would be the way to go.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Well, maybe we should discuss the downside first. Not having project pages on Google would certainly impede my work. You know, some of us still develop articles, and so on.
This is a valid point, and I think it needs to be addressed in a couple of ways:
First, narrowing the scope of the noindex request.
Second, finding out what it would take to improve internal search to
make it more usable for people developing articles and so on.
Ah, but I do. Isn't it a better solution to blank some AfDs, than to say "the mission has to come second"? After all, really negative material should be off the site, not just harder to find.
I would support that for some kinds of pages, blanking should be the default upon the close of discussion.
I wonder how hard it would be to have a technical change whereby articles could be tagged with a {{noindex}} template which would set the meta headers appropriately. This could be liberally applied to project pages that may be magnets for bad behavior.
And then user space could be the only thing removed from google by default.
Thoughts?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
The way to do it would be to open a bugzilla request.
-Chad
Right now, robots.txt excludes certain areas, including XfD, from external search. There are two problems with this:
1. Internal search indexes them. 2. Developers are forced to work on them on a case-by-case basis, which takes a lot of time to work on. For example, bug 13398, regarding well-intentioned bot reports that tend to seem like nasty condemnations of sites as "spammers", has been open for over a month, but there are many other important bugs open, and so this and other robots.txt bugs have not yet been fixed.
For the former problem, it seems fairly straightforward to have logged-out users search only mainspace pages, either by default behavior of the search box, or by banning them entirely from searching these pages. Logged-in users would retain their current defaults and ability to search user pages, etc.
For the latter problem, I think the community needs to indicate that these bugzilla requests are important, and should be handled much faster. I have concerns about blocking namespaces because of the possible affects on other languages who'd rather not block these namespaces (because robots.txt works globally), but frankly I think that a full block of other namespaces would be a good idea, and should be considered on meta.
-- [[User:Ral315]]
Well, if the entire project namespace were set to nofollow/noindex, then it would certainly cut down on the individual requests for specific pages.
As far as a NOINDEX magic word for the mainspace, I don't think this is a good idea necessarily, I was just saying how it could be done.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
The way to do it would be to open a bugzilla request.
-Chad
Right now, robots.txt excludes certain areas, including XfD, from external search. There are two problems with this:
- Internal search indexes them.
- Developers are forced to work on them on a case-by-case basis, which
takes a lot of time to work on. For example, bug 13398, regarding well-intentioned bot reports that tend to seem like nasty condemnations of sites as "spammers", has been open for over a month, but there are many other important bugs open, and so this and other robots.txt bugs have not yet been fixed.
For the former problem, it seems fairly straightforward to have logged-out users search only mainspace pages, either by default behavior of the search box, or by banning them entirely from searching these pages. Logged-in users would retain their current defaults and ability to search user pages, etc.
For the latter problem, I think the community needs to indicate that these bugzilla requests are important, and should be handled much faster. I have concerns about blocking namespaces because of the possible affects on other languages who'd rather not block these namespaces (because robots.txt works globally), but frankly I think that a full block of other namespaces would be a good idea, and should be considered on meta.
-- [[User:Ral315]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hello,
Ryan wrote:
Right now, robots.txt excludes certain areas, including XfD, from external search. There are two problems with this:
- Internal search indexes them.
- Developers are forced to work on them on a case-by-case basis, which
takes a lot of time to work on. For example, bug 13398, regarding well-intentioned bot reports that tend to seem like nasty condemnations of sites as "spammers", has been open for over a month, but there are many other important bugs open, and so this and other robots.txt bugs have not yet been fixed.
For the former problem, it seems fairly straightforward to have logged-out users search only mainspace pages, either by default behavior of the search box, or by banning them entirely from searching these pages. Logged-in users would retain their current defaults and ability to search user pages, etc.
I think that this is a very bad idea. It is necessary for anonymous users to be able to search the Meta and Talk namespaces / pages. However, banning then from Google would be OK.
Regards,
Yann
For the latter problem, I think the community needs to indicate that these bugzilla requests are important, and should be handled much faster. I have concerns about blocking namespaces because of the possible affects on other languages who'd rather not block these namespaces (because robots.txt works globally), but frankly I think that a full block of other namespaces would be a good idea, and should be considered on meta.
-- [[User:Ral315]]
Alright, as soon as I can convince Bugzilla to let me have an account ...
WilyD
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
The way to do it would be to open a bugzilla request.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
So - uh - the question naturally arises "Does anyone with the knowledge of how to do this feel BOLD?" Maybe just noindex the various talk spaces and see how it goes?
WilyD
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
This already exists to some degree in Mediawiki by default. The "noindex,nofollow" tags can be assigned per-namespace, so the Wikipedia: namespace can easily be removed from search indexers (ones that follow the standard, at least).
As far as assigning it on a per-page basis (ie: for the mainspace if need be), I would think that either a magic word (like you said Jimbo: {{NOINDEX}} or somesuch), or an extension (such as the url blacklists) would be the way to go.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Well, maybe we should discuss the downside first. Not having project pages on Google would certainly impede my work. You know, some of us still develop articles, and so on.
This is a valid point, and I think it needs to be addressed in a couple of ways:
First, narrowing the scope of the noindex request.
Second, finding out what it would take to improve internal search to
make it more usable for people developing articles and so on.
Ah, but I do. Isn't it a better solution to blank some AfDs, than to say "the mission has to come second"? After all, really negative material should be off the site, not just harder to find.
I would support that for some kinds of pages, blanking should be the default upon the close of discussion.
I wonder how hard it would be to have a technical change whereby articles could be tagged with a {{noindex}} template which would set the meta headers appropriately. This could be liberally applied to project pages that may be magnets for bad behavior.
And then user space could be the only thing removed from google by default.
Thoughts?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The relevant bug request exists : https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13864 but there's some politicing about implementing it, so it seems allowing each Wiki to choose a set of namespaces might allow for a quicker consensus. Sounds also like devs might just change the specific robots.txt if consensus existed, though I'll be hogtied and thricefuck'd if I've any idea how to do that.
If people think noindexing is worthwhile, they might indicate this is worth having as an option by voting for this bug.
WilyD
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
The way to do it would be to open a bugzilla request.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
So - uh - the question naturally arises "Does anyone with the knowledge of how to do this feel BOLD?" Maybe just noindex the various talk spaces and see how it goes?
WilyD
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
This already exists to some degree in Mediawiki by default. The "noindex,nofollow" tags can be assigned per-namespace, so the Wikipedia: namespace can easily be removed from search indexers (ones that follow the standard, at least).
As far as assigning it on a per-page basis (ie: for the mainspace if need be), I would think that either a magic word (like you said Jimbo: {{NOINDEX}} or somesuch), or an extension (such as the url blacklists) would be the way to go.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Well, maybe we should discuss the downside first. Not having project pages on Google would certainly impede my work. You know, some of us still develop articles, and so on.
This is a valid point, and I think it needs to be addressed in a couple of ways:
First, narrowing the scope of the noindex request.
Second, finding out what it would take to improve internal search to
make it more usable for people developing articles and so on.
Ah, but I do. Isn't it a better solution to blank some AfDs, than to say "the mission has to come second"? After all, really negative material should be off the site, not just harder to find.
I would support that for some kinds of pages, blanking should be the default upon the close of discussion.
I wonder how hard it would be to have a technical change whereby articles could be tagged with a {{noindex}} template which would set the meta headers appropriately. This could be liberally applied to project pages that may be magnets for bad behavior.
And then user space could be the only thing removed from google by default.
Thoughts?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Apparently, the ability to disable indexing of various namespaces already exists at the project level
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:LocalSettings.php LocalSettings.php can be amended with the line $wgNamespaceRobotPolicies = array( NS_TALK => 'noindex' ); (here substitute "TALK" "USER_TALK" "WIKIPEDIA_TALK" or whatever namespace you think should be noindex'd for NS_TALK) and it won't be indexed anymore. I gather we need to a) develop a local consensus to do this, and b) beg the devs to do it for us. For this, I think, a volunteer roundup is needed. Anyone think we can develop a consensus to noindex the talk spaces on en.wiki as a start?
WilyD
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The relevant bug request exists : https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13864 but there's some politicing about implementing it, so it seems allowing each Wiki to choose a set of namespaces might allow for a quicker consensus. Sounds also like devs might just change the specific robots.txt if consensus existed, though I'll be hogtied and thricefuck'd if I've any idea how to do that.
If people think noindexing is worthwhile, they might indicate this is worth having as an option by voting for this bug.
WilyD
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
The way to do it would be to open a bugzilla request.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
So - uh - the question naturally arises "Does anyone with the knowledge of how to do this feel BOLD?" Maybe just noindex the various talk spaces and see how it goes?
WilyD
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
This already exists to some degree in Mediawiki by default. The "noindex,nofollow" tags can be assigned per-namespace, so the Wikipedia: namespace can easily be removed from search indexers (ones that follow the standard, at least).
As far as assigning it on a per-page basis (ie: for the mainspace if need be), I would think that either a magic word (like you said Jimbo: {{NOINDEX}} or somesuch), or an extension (such as the url blacklists) would be the way to go.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Well, maybe we should discuss the downside first. Not having project pages on Google would certainly impede my work. You know, some of us still develop articles, and so on.
This is a valid point, and I think it needs to be addressed in a couple of ways:
First, narrowing the scope of the noindex request.
Second, finding out what it would take to improve internal search to
make it more usable for people developing articles and so on.
Ah, but I do. Isn't it a better solution to blank some AfDs, than to say "the mission has to come second"? After all, really negative material should be off the site, not just harder to find.
I would support that for some kinds of pages, blanking should be the default upon the close of discussion.
I wonder how hard it would be to have a technical change whereby articles could be tagged with a {{noindex}} template which would set the meta headers appropriately. This could be liberally applied to project pages that may be magnets for bad behavior.
And then user space could be the only thing removed from google by default.
Thoughts?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Please contribute if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Noindexing_Talk_Spaces
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently, the ability to disable indexing of various namespaces already exists at the project level
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:LocalSettings.php LocalSettings.php can be amended with the line $wgNamespaceRobotPolicies = array( NS_TALK => 'noindex' ); (here substitute "TALK" "USER_TALK" "WIKIPEDIA_TALK" or whatever namespace you think should be noindex'd for NS_TALK) and it won't be indexed anymore. I gather we need to a) develop a local consensus to do this, and b) beg the devs to do it for us. For this, I think, a volunteer roundup is needed. Anyone think we can develop a consensus to noindex the talk spaces on en.wiki as a start?
WilyD
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The relevant bug request exists : https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13864 but there's some politicing about implementing it, so it seems allowing each Wiki to choose a set of namespaces might allow for a quicker consensus. Sounds also like devs might just change the specific robots.txt if consensus existed, though I'll be hogtied and thricefuck'd if I've any idea how to do that.
If people think noindexing is worthwhile, they might indicate this is worth having as an option by voting for this bug.
WilyD
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
The way to do it would be to open a bugzilla request.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
So - uh - the question naturally arises "Does anyone with the knowledge of how to do this feel BOLD?" Maybe just noindex the various talk spaces and see how it goes?
WilyD
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
This already exists to some degree in Mediawiki by default. The "noindex,nofollow" tags can be assigned per-namespace, so the Wikipedia: namespace can easily be removed from search indexers (ones that follow the standard, at least).
As far as assigning it on a per-page basis (ie: for the mainspace if need be), I would think that either a magic word (like you said Jimbo: {{NOINDEX}} or somesuch), or an extension (such as the url blacklists) would be the way to go.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote: > Well, maybe we should discuss the downside first. Not having project > pages on Google would certainly impede my work. You know, some of us > still develop articles, and so on.
This is a valid point, and I think it needs to be addressed in a couple of ways:
First, narrowing the scope of the noindex request.
Second, finding out what it would take to improve internal search to
make it more usable for people developing articles and so on.
> Ah, but I do. Isn't it a better solution to blank some AfDs, than to > say "the mission has to come second"? After all, really negative > material should be off the site, not just harder to find.
I would support that for some kinds of pages, blanking should be the default upon the close of discussion.
I wonder how hard it would be to have a technical change whereby articles could be tagged with a {{noindex}} template which would set the meta headers appropriately. This could be liberally applied to project pages that may be magnets for bad behavior.
And then user space could be the only thing removed from google by default.
Thoughts?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jimmy Wales ha scritto:
I would support that for some kinds of pages, blanking should be the default upon the close of discussion.
Should history be left for documentation purposes?
I wonder how hard it would be to have a technical change whereby articles could be tagged with a {{noindex}} template which would set the meta headers appropriately. This could be liberally applied to project pages that may be magnets for bad behavior.
And then user space could be the only thing removed from google by default.
Thoughts?
What about Wikipedia clones? We had experience of AfD pages that get copied by clones and google indexes them (they have a {{noindex}} on it.wikipedia). People that were declared non-notable don't like this fact to be their first googlehit.
Cruccone
Marco Chiesa wrote:
Jimmy Wales ha scritto:
I would support that for some kinds of pages, blanking should be the default upon the close of discussion.
Should history be left for documentation purposes?
In most cases, I think that blanking is sufficient. Full deletion is also called for in some cases.
--Jimbo
2008/4/29 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Well, maybe we should discuss the downside first. Not having project pages on Google would certainly impede my work. You know, some of us still develop articles, and so on.
This is a valid point, and I think it needs to be addressed in a couple of ways:
- First, narrowing the scope of the noindex request.
Create a new name space no index it and move problematical pages there.
- Second, finding out what it would take to improve internal search to
make it more usable for people developing articles and so on.
Spelling. Page rank based on internal links. Page rank based on external links with proper weighting for authority domains. You are not going to be able to match google's searching ability.
FYI https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8068
MinuteElectron.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org