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.