As for the inconsistency in the icons (eg. not the same 'style'). I'll see if I can find alternatives all from one set tomorrow (or anyone else feel free to propose or edit yourself):
eg. pick one of the below: * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tango_project * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:GNOME_Desktop_icons * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuvola_icons -- Krinkle Op 7 okt 2010, om 20:39 heeft Paul Houle het volgende geschreven: > On 10/6/2010 9:55 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote: >> Yeah, that had its uses, so why was that removed? Deemed annoying? >> >> I've tried to research what's the best way to do "share this" buttons >> and there isn't any clear data or consensus on this. Collapsing the >> various share icons into one popup is probably the most extensible / >> least annoying. >> > Well, I do think the large buttons on the left looked more like > "wikispaces" than "wikipedia" (more commercial) but I thought they > looked great. It might be nice to see more of that style in other > places. > > As for social sharing, that's more complicated. I know of a site > (that you've probably never heard of) that was lucky enough to get on > the list of social media share buttons that came with a popular > wordpress plugin, and they got a number of backlinks that was > absolutely staggering -- and then they got hacked by some S.E.O. > spammers who turned it into their own private playground. The site > was > ranking well for many search terms and presumably getting quite a > bit of > traffic and also boosting the rankings of the spammers' sites, but it > got zapped when somebody uploaded malware to the site. The site > owners > were basically absentee landlords and if there were any honest people > contributing to the site they didn't do anything about it. > > Today any idiot can install Pligg and have a Digg clone running in > a few hours, and I'm sure there's something out there for making a > delicious clone too. So if you make a list, you're in this awful > position of picking winners and losers. You could make a case that > Facebook is so big that it's sufficient to have a Facebook button -- > but > there's people out there who really hate Facebook. Now you might say > "Facebook", "Twitter", "Digg", "Reddit", "StumbleUpon", "Delicious". > Well, some people hate Digg so much that they'll still complain... > There probably are thousands or tens of thousands of 'sharing' sites > out > there, and you can't draw a clear line between ones that are "big > enough", the ones that are somebody's web-spam project (it isn't hard > to make a flock of electric sheep that can beat the average Digger at > the Turing Test), and ones that are just too little to matter... Not > without offending somebody, and in a consensus-driven organization, > that's a problem. > > There's also the question of what value sharing buttons bring. > For > something to get traction in social media, it's got to be not just > cool, but ~really~ cool, and what plays depends entirely on the > community. For instance, I've got a certain content stream that > consistently gets 5-10 votes in reddit and brings in maybe 500-5000 > visitors. I submit the same stuff to Digg or Mixx and I might get 5 > or > 15 visitors. Part of that is that I've got a good account in reddit, > but some content just does well in some communities and doesn't in > others. > > For a project I'm working on, I'm seriously thinking about a > "Facebook-only" approach. I know that would drive some people nuts, > but I own the site lock, stock and barrel and I can do what I want. > Not everybody has that freedom. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
