Re: [Foundation-l] Question to post...

[stevertigo]

Dennis During wrote:
> Notice how easy it is to have vacuous "discussions" in the
> absence of facts about user behavior.

Query - to what "facts about user behavior" are you referring?

-Stevertigo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Question to post...

[Dennis During]

Notice how easy it is to have vacuous "discussions" in the absence of facts
about user behavior.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:06 PM, stevertigo  wrote:

> Greg wrote:
> > There are many indirect effects as well— Less search engine
> > hits means less readers means less editing means less content > and
> probably less neutral content.
>
> Ha!
>
> In reality, one could just as well argue that less hits and less edits
> might mean a *perfect article will remain perfect and will not be
> whittled down into nothingness by some drop-in busybody.
>
> -Steven
> PS: Sorry, for mentioning "articles" on Foundation-l
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Dennis C. During

Cynolatry is tolerant so long as the dog is not denied an equal divinity
with the deities of other faiths. - Ambrose Bierce

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cynolatry
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Question to post...

[stevertigo]

Greg wrote:
> There are many indirect effects as well— Less search engine
> hits means less readers means less editing means less content > and probably 
> less neutral content.

Ha!

In reality, one could just as well argue that less hits and less edits
might mean a *perfect article will remain perfect and will not be
whittled down into nothingness by some drop-in busybody.

-Steven
PS: Sorry, for mentioning "articles" on Foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Question to post...

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Cox, Serita 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Google's new search engine, Caffeine, is supposedly kicking Wikipedia
>>> entries further down results page. Thoughts? Comments?
>>>
>> So what?  Wikipedia's goal isn't to get high search rankings.  It's to
>> be a useful resource within its domain.
>
> That principle is too easily forgotten.

It's an over-simplification.


A resource that no one can find isn't a useful resource.  Things like
usability and simple awareness can have a major impact on the
fulfillment of the mission even if they don't directly impact the
content.  There are many indirect effects as well— Less search engine
hits means less readers means less editing means less content and
probably less neutral content.

It also means less funding, and while the site wouldn't need as much
funding with less traffic there would still be less money for things
like software development where cost is not a function of traffic.

So— "So what?" is the wrong position.  Good search positioning is not
mutually exclusive with useful content. 'Content' is the first
priority, but getting that content into peoples hands can't be far
behind if we're to do something worthwhile.


Cheers,
Greg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Question to post...

[Ray Saintonge]

Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Cox, Serita wrote:
>   
>> Google's new search engine, Caffeine, is supposedly kicking Wikipedia
>> entries further down results page. Thoughts? Comments?
>> 
> So what?  Wikipedia's goal isn't to get high search rankings.  It's to
> be a useful resource within its domain.  


That principle is too easily forgotten.

Ec

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Question to post...

[Aryeh Gregor]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Cox, Serita wrote:
> Google's new search engine, Caffeine, is supposedly kicking Wikipedia
> entries further down results page. Thoughts? Comments?

So what?  Wikipedia's goal isn't to get high search rankings.  It's to
be a useful resource within its domain.  If a search for "flat screen
TV" starts ranking online stores higher than [[Flat panel display]],
say, that's not something we should be worried about at all.  Good for
Google for improving its search quality results.  (For that particular
query it already returns stores, POV reviews, and so on -- which is
entirely correct.)

If Google is starting to rank us lower than our actual *competitors*
-- other sites that aim to provide neutral explanations of factual
topics -- then we should be looking at what people might prefer about
those sites that would cause Google to rank them higher.  It's not
like Google is doing anything but matching demand, as far as it can
gauge it.  If Wikipedia gets moved to fourth place for a certain
query, and then everyone skips the first three results to click on the
Wikipedia link, I very much doubt we'd stay in fourth place for too
long.

So, in short: forget about Google.  Make a site that people want to
read, and you'll get popularity not just from search engines, but also
from word of mouth and every other means under the Sun.  It's not like
we're making ad revenue off people who come to Wikipedia but would
really prefer to be someplace else.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Question to post...

[Chad]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Cox, Serita wrote:
> Google's new search engine, Caffeine, is supposedly kicking Wikipedia
> entries further down results page. Thoughts? Comments?
> http://software.silicon.com/applications/0,39024653,39484015,00.htm
> Thank, Serita
> ___NOTICE
> This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains 
> confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its clients. 
>  It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such 
> e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and 
> for no other purpose.  Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any 
> other persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes other than the 
> intended purpose, is strictly prohibited.  If you received this transmission 
> in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this 
> e-mail.  Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do 
> not relate to the official business of Bain shall be understood to be neither 
> given nor endorsed by Bain.  When addressed to Bain clients, any information 
> contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the 
> applicable client contract.
> ___
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

As long as all sites are getting treated equally, it's fine in my book.
I only take issue when results are skewed because Google bumps
results up/down arbitrarily.

-Chad

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Question to post...

[Angela]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Cox, Serita wrote:
>> Google's new search engine, Caffeine, is supposedly kicking Wikipedia
>> entries further down results page. Thoughts? Comments?
>> http://software.silicon.com/applications/0,39024653,39484015,00.htm
> [from my comments in #wikimedia-tech the other day]
> "So— I tried 20 random words, and the WP result was lower in four of
> them, the same in the rest."
> "No pattern really...  We still have the problem with "article at funny name;
> redirect from common name; common name search on google gives squat",
> which I consider to be much more major."

A simple solution to this is using the canonical tags which all major
search engines started supporting earlier this year.



Angela

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Question to post...

[geni]

2009/8/13 Cox, Serita :
> Google's new search engine, Caffeine, is supposedly kicking Wikipedia
> entries further down results page. Thoughts? Comments?
> http://software.silicon.com/applications/0,39024653,39484015,00.htm
> Thank, Serita


There is evidence that Google has pushed wikipedia down in the past. I
doubt it will have much impact in the long term.

-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Question to post...

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:09 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> Perhaps we should try using the titles for things that other people
> use--not for g-rank, but as signs that we recognize that an
> encyclopedia is made for the readers.

Eh— It's unsolvable in some cases... People frequently use multiple
terms for the same thing. And what happens when one term is really
common in Canada and one is really common in the US? Do we always use
the US version because the US is more populous than Canada?  It would
be a fair decision by one reasonable metric, but deeply biased by
other reasonable metrics.

An alternative argument is that "When a 'more correct' name exists, we
should use that because we're an encyclopaedia and we're supposed to
educate people on these things".  Perhaps you don't agree— but
hopefully you can see why others can reasonably hold that position.

The real answer to this problem is ALL names should work equally, and
with redirects they do.  Except, it seems, that search engines
behaviour may be undermining this to some extent. ... but changing the
naming in response to the symptom rather than a response to the real
problem.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Question to post...

[David Goodman]

Perhaps we should try using the titles for things that other people
use--not for g-rank, but as signs that we recognize that an
encyclopedia is made for the readers.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> On 8/13/09 12:23 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> (I went on, on IRC, to point some examples of the behavioural change
>> that happened towards the end of 2007 (per my cruddy memory) where
>> non-widely-linked redirects basically fell out of the google index...
>> search terms like "Jesus bug" or many other things like
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Redirects_to_scientific_names
>>   ... if we cared about the traffic flux from google we'd see what we
>> could do to fix that)
>
> Worth looking into; have we got some collected info and sample queries
> to poke at? [I would recommend moving further detail discussion on this
> end of things to wikitech-l.]
>
> -- brion
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Question to post...

[Brion Vibber]

On 8/13/09 12:23 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> (I went on, on IRC, to point some examples of the behavioural change
> that happened towards the end of 2007 (per my cruddy memory) where
> non-widely-linked redirects basically fell out of the google index...
> search terms like "Jesus bug" or many other things like
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Redirects_to_scientific_names
>   ... if we cared about the traffic flux from google we'd see what we
> could do to fix that)

Worth looking into; have we got some collected info and sample queries 
to poke at? [I would recommend moving further detail discussion on this 
end of things to wikitech-l.]

-- brion

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Question to post...

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Cox, Serita wrote:
> Google's new search engine, Caffeine, is supposedly kicking Wikipedia
> entries further down results page. Thoughts? Comments?
> http://software.silicon.com/applications/0,39024653,39484015,00.htm

[from my comments in #wikimedia-tech the other day]
"So— I tried 20 random words, and the WP result was lower in four of
them, the same in the rest."
"No pattern really...  We still have the problem with "article at funny name;
redirect from common name; common name search on google gives squat",
which I consider to be much more major."

When you're at the top there is no place to go but down. A larger
comparison would be nice, but I didn't seen any reason to think that
it was a major change.  I generally expect the SEO people to
over-react to, well, just about everything.


(I went on, on IRC, to point some examples of the behavioural change
that happened towards the end of 2007 (per my cruddy memory) where
non-widely-linked redirects basically fell out of the google index...
search terms like "Jesus bug" or many other things like
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Redirects_to_scientific_names
 ... if we cared about the traffic flux from google we'd see what we
could do to fix that)

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Question to post...

[Cox, Serita]

Google's new search engine, Caffeine, is supposedly kicking Wikipedia
entries further down results page. Thoughts? Comments?
http://software.silicon.com/applications/0,39024653,39484015,00.htm
Thank, Serita
___NOTICE
This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains 
confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its clients.  
It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such e-mail 
shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no 
other purpose.  Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other 
persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes other than the intended 
purpose, is strictly prohibited.  If you received this transmission in error, 
please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this e-mail.  
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate 
to the official business of Bain shall be understood to be neither given nor 
endorsed by Bain.  When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in 
this e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable 
client contract.
___
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l