On 17.10.2010, 22:42 Neil wrote:
Google would rather not have any vandalism in their
index, but that's
not the point. They care about the reindexing schedule. If we create
sitemaps that also note the recent velocity of changes, the vandal's
edits in a sense work against themselves. Every new change brings new
scrutiny.
If you use the protocols they understand, and they
think you're a high
priority, Google can update their index at a rather fearsome speed. A
new link can be in the #1 position before you can finish typing a tweet.
Generally this is not the bottleneck.
On 10/17/10 6:23 AM, Q wrote:
> On 10/17/2010 7:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> If you understand the issue, [...]
>
> So basically you [...] and you think google will go for that?
>
Okay, you both are about to enter into a
mini-flamewar, so can we just
agree that "who decides what vandalism is" is generally a settled
question at Wikipedia, and opening a post with "if you understand the
issue" is a little bit aggressive?
/me suggests to turn the problem into "who decides which version is
flagged and which is not". This is the only sane way, in addition
being the way we have all the technical means to use at any moment.
--
Best regards,
Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]])