Hallo.
The old version of the "puzzle globe" Wikipedia logo was retired in 2010. It had wrongly painted letters in several languages as well as some graphical imperfections. The current logo has correct letters and improved vector graphics quality.
Despite the replacement having taken place almost four years ago, I still see the old logo in news stories about Wikipedia in many languages every few days. I find it very frustrating.
One likely reason for this is that Google images search shows mostly images of the old logo when queried for "wikipedia logo".
Can we do anything about it? My SEO skills are about non-existent. A Facebook friend suggested changing the title of the Commons file File:Wikipedia-logo.png to File:Wikipedia-logo-v1.png and File:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg to File:Wikipedia_logo.svg. This sounds reasonable, though it may have considerable technical implications.
Is there anything else we can do?
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Most news agencies don't just go to the web for their images due to copyright reasons.
They will have a media collection system that they have the logo stored in.
So the best response would be for the Media Relations/Comms teams to actually contact them and request they use the updated logo.
On 21 December 2013 07:02, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.ilwrote:
Hallo.
The old version of the "puzzle globe" Wikipedia logo was retired in 2010. It had wrongly painted letters in several languages as well as some graphical imperfections. The current logo has correct letters and improved vector graphics quality.
Despite the replacement having taken place almost four years ago, I still see the old logo in news stories about Wikipedia in many languages every few days. I find it very frustrating.
One likely reason for this is that Google images search shows mostly images of the old logo when queried for "wikipedia logo".
Can we do anything about it? My SEO skills are about non-existent. A Facebook friend suggested changing the title of the Commons file File:Wikipedia-logo.png to File:Wikipedia-logo-v1.png and File:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg to File:Wikipedia_logo.svg. This sounds reasonable, though it may have considerable technical implications.
Is there anything else we can do?
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Dec 20, 2013 1:58 PM, "K. Peachey" p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
Most news agencies don't just go to the web for their images due to copyright reasons.
They will have a media collection system that they have the logo stored
in.
That is no doubt true for major media corporations, but a lot of the uses of the old logo are by born-digital outfits, where I fully expect the procedure to often be "Google X plus logo and grab the first decent hit".
So there may be much value in the (admittedly unorthodox) rename proposal relayed by Amir. To my mind, the fact it is a logo justifies it.
Also, thought experiment: suppose a certain laborer-abusing gadget-producing company, say "Elppa", changed its logo last year; suppose it reached out to the community asking to replace our hosted version of their old logo with the new one, because the media keeps getting it wrong. Would we not accommodate them?
A.
Well, one thing we did was actually retiring the old logo, just few months ago. :) Odder provided no less than 108 Wikipedias with a v2 logo. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2013-May/031550.html
Nemo
On 20 December 2013 22:02, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Can we do anything about it? My SEO skills are about non-existent. A Facebook friend suggested changing the title of the Commons file File:Wikipedia-logo.png to File:Wikipedia-logo-v1.png and File:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg to File:Wikipedia_logo.svg. This sounds reasonable, though it may have considerable technical implications.
But File:Wikipedia-logo.png now uses the new version of the logo, so what would that help?
Looking at the Google results, the first two are from Wikipedia (and these are the old logo), but from the articles [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos]] and [[Logo of Wikipedia]]. Both of which still includes the old logo.
I think the article(s) in question might be key to this, and not what the file names are.
Svip, 20/12/2013 23:27:
Looking at the Google results, the first two are from Wikipedia (and these are the old logo), but from the articles [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos]] and [[Logo of Wikipedia]]. Both of which still includes the old logo.
I think the article(s) in question might be key to this, and not what the file names are.
Does unlinking them reduce their pagerank? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logo_of_Wikipedia&diff=587018...
Nemo
On 20 December 2013 23:30, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Svip, 20/12/2013 23:27:
Looking at the Google results, the first two are from Wikipedia (and these are the old logo), but from the articles [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos]] and [[Logo of Wikipedia]]. Both of which still includes the old logo.
I think the article(s) in question might be key to this, and not what the file names are.
Does unlinking them reduce their pagerank? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logo_of_Wikipedia&diff=587018...
I don't know. On a regular web page, it wouldn't, because I think Google Images is managed differently, it is not looking for images that are link, but just for images in the right context. However, I am sure Google has some special mechanic for dealing with MediaWiki websites, so it can 'index' better.
But my ultimate prediction is that it won't make a difference. I could be wrong, though.
On 20 December 2013 22:30, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the Google results, the first two are from Wikipedia (and these are the old logo), but from the articles [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos]] and [[Logo of Wikipedia]]. Both of which still includes the old logo.
I think the article(s) in question might be key to this, and not what the file names are.
Does unlinking them reduce their pagerank?
I would be against degrading the usefulness of our articles in an attempt to influence Google's behaviour.
Put a big red notice in the old images page descriptions saying that the logo is deprecated and that the new logo is available in [link to the new version]. So when people click on them from Google, they will read it.
2013/12/20 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il
Hallo.
The old version of the "puzzle globe" Wikipedia logo was retired in 2010. It had wrongly painted letters in several languages as well as some graphical imperfections. The current logo has correct letters and improved vector graphics quality.
Despite the replacement having taken place almost four years ago, I still see the old logo in news stories about Wikipedia in many languages every few days. I find it very frustrating.
One likely reason for this is that Google images search shows mostly images of the old logo when queried for "wikipedia logo".
Can we do anything about it? My SEO skills are about non-existent. A Facebook friend suggested changing the title of the Commons file File:Wikipedia-logo.png to File:Wikipedia-logo-v1.png and File:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg to File:Wikipedia_logo.svg. This sounds reasonable, though it may have considerable technical implications.
Is there anything else we can do?
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org