Hoi, The point of spending time is exactly to prevent vandalised content to remain available in the search engines. The synchronisation of the changes in Wikipedia and the reflection in search engines is beneficial to us both.
Vandalism is always more voluminous then we would like to have it. Here we are discussing the existence of our vandalism once it has *already* been solved in Wikipedia. I do not see how our community would be opposed to having a solution for this issue. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 October 2010 15:08, Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietchen@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Q overlordq@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/2010 7:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, If you understand the issue, you would know who decides what qualifies
as
vandalism. It is exactly the same people who already decide what
vandalism
is.
So basically you want anybody who visits the website to be able to tell google to fast-track reindex a page and you think google will go for
that?
It seems a bit strange to me to expect Google (or anyone external) to devote more effort to vandalized than to useful Wikipedia content.
I also disagree with the diagnosis in the above-mentioned blog post, which reads "So where does the problem lie? With the search engine information refresh rate."
In my view, the problem lies primarily with Wikipedia, and specifically with vandalism being too voluminous and too visible to the public. Technical solutions for both issues exist, and those addressing the second kind have the potential to be accepted by the community.
Daniel
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mietchen
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l