Google search put first the sites with more clicks and higher PageRank.
-- Alvaro On 13-01-2009, at 5:53, "White Cat" <[email protected]> wrote: > One side of the issue is aggressively mass removing articles without > backing > such an act with consensus of any kind. When that happens the other > side > does not even think of compromising. The opposing side pushes back > with > equal aggression. This kind of aggressive conflict between any two > sides > disrupts the entire site. This is what's happening. That is the > outstanding > problem at this point. It isn't the only outstanding problem but is > the > first one that needs to be addressed for us to work on a consensus > everyone > can agree on. Do we all agree thus far? Because neither one of you > have said > so. I apologize if I missed any remarks establishing this. > > As for your other point... Just how do you think Google ranks their > search > results? Google's search results establish the "prime time" articles. > > Consider "Beowulf" > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Beowulf+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Google+Search > > As you can see the historic article (Old English heroic epic poem) > is #1. > 2007 movie comes as #2. The computer clusters of NASA comes #3. > > Mind that #1 and #2 are fiction related topics and #3 is a real > world topic. > In this case the fiction related work is more popular/notable than > the real > world topic. > > Consider "Enterprise" > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Enterprise+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search > > #1 and #3 is a fiction related. > > The real world ships (OV-101 & CVN-65) called Enterprise come before > the > fictional ship (NCC-1701). CV-6 comes as the 20th hit. > > Consider "Voyager" > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Voyager+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search > > #1 is the fictional series and other 18 hits are not even fiction > related. The fictional ship USS voyager comes up in the next page at > #21. > > Consider "Zero" > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Zero+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search > > #1 is 0 (number) in mathematics - a real world topic to say the > least. #2 > is A6M Zero, the Japanese fighter aircraft in WW2. #3 is the fictional > character. #4 is a real world topic (chemistry). And the remaining > topics > are either disambiguation or real world related articles. > > Of course when I do a search on "Naruto" > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search > > I get 19 hits on fiction related topics. Even then the 20th is a > real world > topic! > > So where exactly is the Google ranking inadequate or unfair? Mind > that I > made no effort to "hide" fiction related topics in the search urls I > posted > so far. > > Had I searched for "Naruto -anime" > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search > > I get 18 real world topics. With the use of a few more words. > > Consider "Naruto -anime -manga -episodes -user -Wikipedia:featured" > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+-manga+-episodes+-user+- > > "Wikipedia:featured"+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+-anime+-manga+-episodes+-user+- > > > > > I can effectively remove fiction related hits on my search results. > Or... I > could use smarter search words to get what I am looking for. > > Consider: "Naruto University" > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Naruto+University+site:en.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search > > All it takes is the use of one extra word to eliminate nearly all > fiction > related topics. Naruto is among our top 20 most visited articles > each month. > Even so that doesn't get in the way if you are smart about it. > > So please tell me what exactly is the problem with fiction related > articles > as a whole? > > - White Cat > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You are not understanding White Cat what the person means by ranking. >> >> That there would be a "prime time" Wikipedia, which any reader can >> find, >> and >> then a "sub-surface" Wikipedia for all the articles not deemed >> ready to go >> to prime time. >> >> These sub-surface articles would not be googleable let's say, so >> reader >> wouldn't get side-tracked into thinking they are "acceptable" in the >> mainstream, >> but they would be present for people already in-world to read and >> edit. >> >> It seems like a simple way to satisfy both sides of the issue here. >> >> Will Johnson >> >> >> >> **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in >> just 2 easy >> steps! >> ( >> http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De >> cemailfooterNO62<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62 >> >> > >> ) >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
