Wikipedia Review/Move the Encyclopedia Dramatica thread back
(Redirected from 34126)
Full Version: Move the Encyclopedia Dramatica thread back
Daniel Brandt
Sat 25th June 2011, 10:58am
I was disappointed when the Encyclopedia Dramatica thread was moved to Biographies of Living People, where it is invisible to search engines.
It was the right thing to do while Ryan Cleary was on the loose, because he could have DDoSed WR easily, and WR would fold like a cheap suit. I know, because Scroogle was DDoSed by him. He had a hair trigger on his very own botnet. But Mr. Cleary has now been contained. Even if he makes bail (there's a hearing in a couple of days), it will be on the condition that he stays off the Internet.
There are problems with that thread. The premise of MZMcBride, who started that thread, was inaccurate and irrelevant. The thread needs some editing. My contributions to that thread are fairly informative, if I don't say so myself, but I don't care who starts the thread.
This Encyclopedia Dramatica situation is a hot issue and it's going to continue. Even though Mr. Cleary is out of the picture, there is still Joepie91 (Sven Slootweg) and one "Garrett" (we are getting close to identifying him) who are running the unauthorized encyclopediadramatica.ch. Both of them have strong connections with Anonymous. Slootweg is in the Netherlands, and he could get questioned by Dutch authorities sooner rather than later since his name is already in the tabloids. In any case, his technical skills appear to be minimal, and I don't think he could keep ED going by himself.
Garrett has networking know-how, and he's somewhere in the U.S. He could keep ED going by himself. Zaiger is very enthusiastic to keep ED going, but he completely lacks the networking and sysadmin skills needed to do this.
Because this is such a hot issue, and Mr. Cleary's botnet is no longer a threat, and WR does well in the search engines, I recommend extracting the posts from that thread that offer some useful information, and moving it back to General Discussion. I don't care who starts off the thread. You can start with my first post if you can't find anything more subtle. The point is to make the best posts available for web searching.
There is a lot of web searching happening. The title of the thread could be something like, "Encyclopedia Dramatica, Anonymous, and Lulzsec." That would do very nicely. Maybe the first post could be a moderator, who explains that the original thread was edited and reposted because many of the original posts were overtaken by fast-moving events.
gomi
Sat 25th June 2011, 11:50am
As the mod who moved the thread, I want to point out that I moved it not to protect Ryan Cleary, but to protect the underage girls they claimed to have "doxed", e.g. "Meepsheep". I continue to stand by the decision. However, that was two months ago, and events continue to unfold. I wish a separate thread had been started, but that didn't happen.
At this point, I've split the post-arrest part of the thread and closed the old stuff, but I've left (for the moment) both threads in the BLP forum, pending some discussion about where the other thread should go. It's not Wikipedia-related, so does anyone have a suggestion on where to put it?
thekohser
Sat 25th June 2011, 1:14pm
No love lost between me and Sven Slootweg.
Somey
Sat 25th June 2011, 2:06pm
QUOTE(gomi @ Sat 25th June 2011, 11:50am) *
At this point, I've split the post-arrest part of the thread and closed the old stuff, but I've left (for the moment) both threads in the BLP forum, pending some discussion about where the other thread should go. It's not Wikipedia-related, so does anyone have a suggestion on where to put it?
Tough call, isn't it? Now that the original ED site has gone off the air, that means the formal aspect of the Wikimedia connection is even more tenuous than it was. Maybe our policy should be to put ED-related stuff in The Lounge, except that might indicate that we believe the connection to be as tenuous as the WP mucky-mucks say it is, which is to say practically non-existent - when (hopefully) we know that's not the case.
Meanwhile, I'd be even less keen on the idea of creating some sort of special subforum for ED-related topics - that would just be encouraging them, and like Daniel says, we'd be painting a target on our own backs.
At the same time, I don't pretend to understand the black-hat hacker mentality at all, but my guess would be that Cleary wouldn't turn over control of his botnet to someone else as a form of revenge - he'll want the revenge of course, but he probably wouldn't trust anyone else enough, nor should he, since none of these people appear to be trustworthy.
So... I guess my vote would be to put it in the Lounge, minus the "dox" about any semi-innocent (and particularly underage) people. As flawed a solution as that is, this isn't the "Wikiland Review" or the "Web 2.0 Review" - we should at least try to give the appearance that we're still trying to focus on the main subject, and the Lounge is still Google-able, last time I checked.
Daniel Brandt
Sat 25th June 2011, 3:31pm
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 25th June 2011, 1:06pm) *
... and the Lounge is still Google-able, last time I checked.
No it isn't.
"The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion"
About 13,100 results
"The Wikipedia Review > Off Topic > The Lounge"
8 results — all of which are off-site links
gomi
Sat 25th June 2011, 3:35pm
We could put it under "International" as the "L33t-language Wiki" :)
No actual humans would read it there, but Google would find it.
Daniel Brandt
Sun 26th June 2011, 5:24pm
QUOTE(gomi @ Sat 25th June 2011, 2:35pm) *
We could put it under "International" as the "L33t-language Wiki" :)
No actual humans would read it there, but Google would find it.
So do it! The title might be better with something like, "MediaWiki software: Don't be evil?"
It doesn't matter if casual visitors to WR notice it; they don't notice most of the deep threads anyway. The issue is whether it's in the search engines. People use Google -> Google spits out the thread -> people read the thread. What matters is whether the content of the thread hits on the keywords that are fed into Google.
Google handles a billion searches per day worldwide. When a topic is hot, more people search on it.
One anti-MediaWiki argument I could make immediately is that screen names should not replace the display of the IP address on all edits, but should supplement the IP address.
Of course, I can make the same argument about WR, so I guess it's better left unsaid.
EricBarbour
Sun 26th June 2011, 6:15pm
Daniel Brandt
Mon 27th June 2011, 1:32am
This is not the first time that there has been confusion at the highest levels of WR staff about which search engines can crawl which threads. Years ago, shortly after WR switched its web hosting, I remember discovering that the entire Bureaucracy forum was not getting picked up by the search engines. Apparently no one was aware of this and it was unintentional. It was fixed when I raised the issue.
My impression is that WR uses a list of search engine crawlers, and on the basis of this list decides on the fly whether a particular crawler is allowed in a particular forum or subforum. I imagine the reason for this is that the various forums and subforums do not map to discrete subdirectories, which means that the robots.txt protocol is unusable for WR if you need fine-grained selectivity.
That is understandable, but what is not acceptable is keeping things in the present state of utter confusion regarding which forums and subforums are ending up in the engines. Google crawls deeper than anything on earth — if Google does not show in its search results that it is picking up a particular forum or subforum, then it's a good guess that other search engines aren't either.
The staff of WR owes us an accounting of what the hell is going on. I sense that there has been a lot of attrition over the past few years, in the direction of keeping more crawlers out of more subforums. It all happens in the dark. This is a disservice to those of us who try to contribute informative posts on WR. If I have something to say, I want to know whether I can say it on WR and have folks find it, or whether I'm better off adding another page or comment to one of my pre-existing websites.
gomi
Mon 27th June 2011, 1:39am
All I can say is that there is no deliberate attempt to keep the site away from Search engines, except for the BLP forum and the various off-topic fora. That we may have done it inadvertently is possible. The "policy", as I understand it, is to allow general Review discussions (except for Articles/BLP) to be searchable, and for off-topic items (the Lounge, Tar Pit, e.g.) to not be so. If we're not adhering to this, please let us know.
The Joy
Mon 27th June 2011, 1:54am
QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 27th June 2011, 2:39am) *
All I can say is that there is no deliberate attempt to keep the site away from Search engines, except for the BLP forum and the various off-topic fora. That we may have done it inadvertently is possible. The "policy", as I understand it, is to allow general Review discussions (except for Articles/BLP) to be searchable, and for off-topic items (the Lounge, Tar Pit, e.g.) to not be so. If we're not adhering to this, please let us know.
Maybe a list of search engine indexable/non-indexable forums should be provided so there's no more confusion? I'm always confused about what search engines can index and what they can't. :unsure: :confused:
The Joy
Mon 27th June 2011, 1:58am
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 26th June 2011, 7:15pm) *
I have a stupid question.......
Do WR's no-follow methods also apply to search engines other than Google?
(You know, there are some other search engines.)
I would think that "NOINDEX" would mean no spiders whatsoever could index a site regardless of the search engine. Is that not true?
I did find a WRR thread through a search for "Wikipedia Review 300 Club" on Google. Strange that someone would want to keep that.
http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/Where...eadsGone.2.html
Daniel Brandt
Mon 27th June 2011, 2:38am
QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 27th June 2011, 12:58am) *
...
I did find a WRR thread through a search for "Wikipedia Review 300 Club" on Google. Strange that someone would want to keep that.
http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/Where...eadsGone.2.html
That looks like a leak by Moulton, because Moulton was the only person reading the thread at the time, based on the "1 Members: Moulton" at the bottom.
You can also find that same thread by using another technique, which I used in an earlier post in this thread for the "Lounge" forum — search Google inside of quotation marks: "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > The 300 Club"
Within 24 hours, I plan to list all the forums and subforums and the number of results found for each in Google. Others may want to do this too, so that we can compare results. Google is flaky these days, in that they show different results to different searchers. But this shouldn't be too much of a problem because the WR search technique I recommend is very specific.
The results will give us a birds-eye view of which forums and subforums are getting locked out of major search engines.
thekohser
Mon 27th June 2011, 6:17am
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 27th June 2011, 3:38am) *
The results will give us a birds-eye view of which forums and subforums are getting locked out of major search engines.
Much appreciated that you're doing this, Daniel.
I've always thought that Wikipedia Review should have a fund to pay one staff member at least a modest amount, to promote such "maintenance" issues being kept up with. But, Selina never seemed interested in building a more serious set of resources for this site. As it stands, I'm amazed by all of the work that Somey volunteers to do. It almost makes me wonder what his agenda/reward system is.
carbuncle
Mon 27th June 2011, 7:16am
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 27th June 2011, 11:17am) *
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 27th June 2011, 3:38am) *
The results will give us a birds-eye view of which forums and subforums are getting locked out of major search engines.
Much appreciated that you're doing this, Daniel.
I've always thought that Wikipedia Review should have a fund to pay one staff member at least a modest amount, to promote such "maintenance" issues being kept up with. But, Selina never seemed interested in building a more serious set of resources for this site. As it stands, I'm amazed by all of the work that Somey volunteers to do. It almost makes me wonder what his agenda/reward system is.
I move that any reference to Jimbo cost the equivalent of one shiny US dime, with all proceeds to fund such activities and buy beer for ArbCom leakers (not that I condone such things, obviously).
Daniel Brandt
Mon 27th June 2011, 1:29pm
By the way, I just noticed that there is a MediaWiki software subforum under General Discussion.
That would be the perfect place for "MediaWiki software: Don't be evil?"
I should have broken out everyone under Notable Editors. Maybe I'll do that later. Or maybe not. I think they are all zero.
Number of results as reported by Google.
Technique: You have to be consistent; do not vary from
this technique. We're not trying to get accurate counts
in the real world, but only trying to get an impression
of how much access to various forums and subforums Google
has when its crawler visits Wikipedia Review.
1. Set to 100 results per page.
2. Insert string with the quotation marks.
3. Disregard the first results count at the top of the page.
4. Click on "repeat the search with the omitted results included"
at the bottom of the page
5. Glance at the results and confirm that they are on-site. In other
words, the links should be links to that WR forum or subforum.
If Google cannot find exact matches they might automatically delete
the quotation marks around your search term, which provides many
results that must not be counted. If the results look like they
are off-site, there might be only one or two that are relevant,
and they will be on top. Most of the time your true count will
be zero in this situation, but it might be 1 or 2. It's also possible
that someone has scraped it all and posted it elsewhere on
the web, complete with the full heading used in your search term.
Those don't count either. (It looks like pipl.com grabbed some of
the headings in the Editors forum.)
6. Now you are ready to record the number.
COUNT SEARCH TERM
2290 "The Wikipedia Review > Forum Information > ACHTUNG! Forum Information (Readme)"
65 "The Wikipedia Review > Forum Information > ACHTUNG! Forum Information (Readme) > Forum Information Archive"
13100 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion"
50 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion > MediaWiki Software"
86 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion > The Jimbo Phenomenon"
524 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Meta Discussion"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Editors"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors > SlimVirgin > Nutty SlimConspiracy Theories"
6630 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Articles"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Articles > Biographies of Living Persons"
6570 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy > Admin retirements"
47 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy > The ArbCom-L Leaks"
2 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy > ArbCom Elections"
1 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy > ArbCom Elections > 2008 Arbcom elections"
1 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy > ArbCom Elections > 2009 ArbCom Elections"
140 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Money"
23 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > International"
11 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > International > German-language Wikipedia"
5 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > International > Wikimedia India"
2 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > International > French-language Wikipedia"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > The 300 Club"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > The 300 Club > The PoetGuy Phenomenon"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > The 300 Club > Problematic Contributors"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > The 300 Club > The 300 Club Review"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > The Wikipedia Annex"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > The Wikipedia Annex > The Annex Tar Pit"
4190 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > News Worth Discussing"
25 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > News Worth Discussing > Notable WikiScandals"
4330 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > Wikipedia in the Media"
19 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > Wikipedia in the Media > Reality-Challenged"
93 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > Wikipedia in the Media > Highlighted for Posterity"
2960 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > Wikipedia in the Media > Less Relevant"
1 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > Wikipedia in the Media > Signpost"
10700 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > Wikipedia in Blogland"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Off Topic > The Lounge"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Off Topic > Politics, Religion and Such"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Off Topic > Support Group"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Off Topic > Wikipedia Review Review"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Off Topic > The Tar Pit and Feather Barrel"
That would be the perfect place for "MediaWiki software: Don't be evil?"
I should have broken out everyone under Notable Editors. Maybe I'll do that later. Or maybe not. I think they are all zero.
CODE
Number of results as reported by Google.
Technique: You have to be consistent; do not vary from
this technique. We're not trying to get accurate counts
in the real world, but only trying to get an impression
of how much access to various forums and subforums Google
has when its crawler visits Wikipedia Review.
1. Set to 100 results per page.
2. Insert string with the quotation marks.
3. Disregard the first results count at the top of the page.
4. Click on "repeat the search with the omitted results included"
at the bottom of the page
5. Glance at the results and confirm that they are on-site. In other
words, the links should be links to that WR forum or subforum.
If Google cannot find exact matches they might automatically delete
the quotation marks around your search term, which provides many
results that must not be counted. If the results look like they
are off-site, there might be only one or two that are relevant,
and they will be on top. Most of the time your true count will
be zero in this situation, but it might be 1 or 2. It's also possible
that someone has scraped it all and posted it elsewhere on
the web, complete with the full heading used in your search term.
Those don't count either. (It looks like pipl.com grabbed some of
the headings in the Editors forum.)
6. Now you are ready to record the number.
COUNT SEARCH TERM
2290 "The Wikipedia Review > Forum Information > ACHTUNG! Forum Information (Readme)"
65 "The Wikipedia Review > Forum Information > ACHTUNG! Forum Information (Readme) > Forum Information Archive"
13100 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion"
50 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion > MediaWiki Software"
86 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion > The Jimbo Phenomenon"
524 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Meta Discussion"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Editors"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors > SlimVirgin > Nutty SlimConspiracy Theories"
6630 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Articles"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Articles > Biographies of Living Persons"
6570 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy > Admin retirements"
47 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy > The ArbCom-L Leaks"
2 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy > ArbCom Elections"
1 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy > ArbCom Elections > 2008 Arbcom elections"
1 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy > ArbCom Elections > 2009 ArbCom Elections"
140 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Money"
23 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > International"
11 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > International > German-language Wikipedia"
5 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > International > Wikimedia India"
2 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > International > French-language Wikipedia"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > The 300 Club"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > The 300 Club > The PoetGuy Phenomenon"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > The 300 Club > Problematic Contributors"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > The 300 Club > The 300 Club Review"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > The Wikipedia Annex"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > The Wikipedia Annex > The Annex Tar Pit"
4190 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > News Worth Discussing"
25 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > News Worth Discussing > Notable WikiScandals"
4330 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > Wikipedia in the Media"
19 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > Wikipedia in the Media > Reality-Challenged"
93 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > Wikipedia in the Media > Highlighted for Posterity"
2960 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > Wikipedia in the Media > Less Relevant"
1 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > Wikipedia in the Media > Signpost"
10700 "The Wikipedia Review > Media Forums > Wikipedia in Blogland"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Off Topic > The Lounge"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Off Topic > Politics, Religion and Such"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Off Topic > Support Group"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Off Topic > Wikipedia Review Review"
0 "The Wikipedia Review > Off Topic > The Tar Pit and Feather Barrel"
Emperor
Mon 27th June 2011, 2:26pm
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 27th June 2011, 2:32am) *
This is a disservice to those of us who try to contribute informative posts on WR. If I have something to say, I want to know whether I can say it on WR and have folks find it, or whether I'm better off adding another page or comment to one of my pre-existing websites.
Obviously the latter. WR will fill your thread with video clips, snarky comments, rename it something stupid, move it to the annex or tar pit, hide it from search engines, close it, remix it, edit it, and generally poop all over it until whatever message you were trying to send is completely mangled and buried.
Milton Roe
Mon 27th June 2011, 2:33pm
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 27th June 2011, 12:26pm) *
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 27th June 2011, 2:32am) *
This is a disservice to those of us who try to contribute informative posts on WR. If I have something to say, I want to know whether I can say it on WR and have folks find it, or whether I'm better off adding another page or comment to one of my pre-existing websites.
Obviously the latter. WR will fill your thread with video clips, snarky comments, rename it something stupid, move it to the annex or tar pit, hide it from search engines, close it, remix it, edit it, and generally poop all over it until whatever message you were trying to send is completely mangled and buried.
That is correct. We are children, much worse than you will find on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Daniel, if you really want maximal web coverage for your informative material, you should put it on Enyc. The mighty minds there will ensure that it is properly-set into a context of insightful and embroideringly intelligent commentary, not unlike a flawless blue-white diamond into a comely setting of platinum-rhodium-iridium. Yes, some of the iridium is plated on baxterium, but it's the shine that counts. :)
The Joy
Mon 27th June 2011, 3:05pm
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 27th June 2011, 3:33pm) *
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 27th June 2011, 12:26pm) *
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 27th June 2011, 2:32am) *
This is a disservice to those of us who try to contribute informative posts on WR. If I have something to say, I want to know whether I can say it on WR and have folks find it, or whether I'm better off adding another page or comment to one of my pre-existing websites.
Obviously the latter. WR will fill your thread with video clips, snarky comments, rename it something stupid, move it to the annex or tar pit, hide it from search engines, close it, remix it, edit it, and generally poop all over it until whatever message you were trying to send is completely mangled and buried.
That is correct. We are children, much worse than you will find on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Daniel, if you really want maximal web coverage for your informative material, you should put it on Enyc. The mighty minds there will ensure that it is properly-set into a context of insightful and embroideringly intelligent commentary, not unlike a flawless blue-white diamond into a comely setting of platinum-rhodium-iridium. Yes, some of the iridium is plated on baxterium, but it's the shine that counts. :)
As long as the Cthulhu there doesn't interfere. <_<
Alison
Mon 27th June 2011, 3:25pm
The Joy
Mon 27th June 2011, 4:05pm
Milton Roe
Mon 27th June 2011, 4:24pm
QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 27th June 2011, 1:05pm) *
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 27th June 2011, 3:33pm) *
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 27th June 2011, 12:26pm) *
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 27th June 2011, 2:32am) *
This is a disservice to those of us who try to contribute informative posts on WR. If I have something to say, I want to know whether I can say it on WR and have folks find it, or whether I'm better off adding another page or comment to one of my pre-existing websites.
Obviously the latter. WR will fill your thread with video clips, snarky comments, rename it something stupid, move it to the annex or tar pit, hide it from search engines, close it, remix it, edit it, and generally poop all over it until whatever message you were trying to send is completely mangled and buried.
That is correct. We are children, much worse than you will find on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Daniel, if you really want maximal web coverage for your informative material, you should put it on Enyc. The mighty minds there will ensure that it is properly-set into a context of insightful and embroideringly intelligent commentary, not unlike a flawless blue-white diamond into a comely setting of platinum-rhodium-iridium. Yes, some of the iridium is plated on baxterium, but it's the shine that counts. :)
As long as the Cthulhu there doesn't interfere. <_<
That's the baxterium. :cthulhu: The Elder Gods always wait until the stars are right, to return. Then chaos reigns!
The Joy
Mon 27th June 2011, 4:46pm
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 27th June 2011, 5:24pm) *
QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 27th June 2011, 1:05pm) *
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 27th June 2011, 3:33pm) *
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 27th June 2011, 12:26pm) *
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 27th June 2011, 2:32am) *
This is a disservice to those of us who try to contribute informative posts on WR. If I have something to say, I want to know whether I can say it on WR and have folks find it, or whether I'm better off adding another page or comment to one of my pre-existing websites.
Obviously the latter. WR will fill your thread with video clips, snarky comments, rename it something stupid, move it to the annex or tar pit, hide it from search engines, close it, remix it, edit it, and generally poop all over it until whatever message you were trying to send is completely mangled and buried.
That is correct. We are children, much worse than you will find on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Daniel, if you really want maximal web coverage for your informative material, you should put it on Enyc. The mighty minds there will ensure that it is properly-set into a context of insightful and embroideringly intelligent commentary, not unlike a flawless blue-white diamond into a comely setting of platinum-rhodium-iridium. Yes, some of the iridium is plated on baxterium, but it's the shine that counts. :)
As long as the Cthulhu there doesn't interfere. <_<
That's the baxterium. :cthulhu: The Elder Gods always wait to come out until the stars are right. Then chaos reigns!
Image
A regular Sockafeller? :P
The Joy
Mon 27th June 2011, 5:20pm
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 27th June 2011, 2:29pm) *
By the way, I just noticed that there is a MediaWiki software subforum under General Discussion.
That would be the perfect place for "MediaWiki software: Don't be evil?"
I should have broken out everyone under Notable Editors. Maybe I'll do that later. Or maybe not. I think they are all zero.
<snip>
Thanks, Daniel.
We really should have a list posted in forum information about what forums search engines can index.
Alison
Mon 27th June 2011, 5:46pm
QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 27th June 2011, 2:05pm) *
You can count to four? Isn't that being over-qualified for a WP administrator? ;)
Checkusers go all the way to eleven :P :D
Milton Roe
Mon 27th June 2011, 6:22pm
gomi
Mon 27th June 2011, 6:27pm
I moved the thread in question to "News Worth Discussing". It is definitely google-able, and seems to roughly fit the bill, despite the thread not really being about Wikipedia. I left a pointer to it in the BLP forum.
By the way, thank you for the Google analysis. The results are as expected, with the significant exception of the "Editors" forum. This may be Somey's soft heart and good nature at work, or it may be an accident. I will look into it.
The Joy
Mon 27th June 2011, 7:05pm
QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 27th June 2011, 7:27pm) *
I moved the thread in question to "News Worth Discussing". It is definitely google-able, and seems to roughly fit the bill, despite the thread not really being about Wikipedia. I left a pointer to it in the BLP forum.
By the way, thank you for the Google analysis. The results are as expected, with the significant exception of the "Editors" forum. This may be Somey's soft heart and good nature at work, or it may be an accident. I will look into it.
I think Blu Aardvark made the Editors forum NOINDEX, Somey changed it and then changed it back, IIRC.
Emperor
Tue 28th June 2011, 7:48am
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 27th June 2011, 3:33pm) *
That is correct. We are children, much worse than you will find on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Daniel, if you really want maximal web coverage for your informative material, you should put it on Enyc. The mighty minds there will ensure that it is properly-set into a context of insightful and embroideringly intelligent commentary, not unlike a flawless blue-white diamond into a comely setting of platinum-rhodium-iridium. Yes, some of the iridium is plated on baxterium, but it's the shine that counts. :)
Actually, you are kind of stupid.
One of the first questions that will baffle most Wikipedians is of course SlimVirgin.
Try Googling "slimvirgin" or "wikipedia slimvirgin". Brandt's site is near or at the top. Encyc is mid-page along with Kelly Martin's blog. WR doesn't show up on the first page.
Try Googling "wikipedia review slimvirgin" and Brandt is still first. WR is second, with a bunch of links to discussions about ancient ArbCom cases that I'm sure would be tl;dr for all but the most hardcore Wikipedians.
This is just one example but you get the picture. Brandt understands search engines and getting his message out there. You like the immediate feedback you get from a forum. Both systems have their time and place, but there's no doubt that if you actually have a message, Brandt's way is better.
Somey
Wed 29th June 2011, 10:14pm
Okay, I can accept that we made the Lounge non-indexable, and I either wasn't paying attention or abstained from voting. But what was the rationale? Were people posting an unusually large amount of worthless threads at the time? :unsure:
If I remember correctly, Kato was the one who most wanted the Lounge to be non-indexable, and Gomi pretty much agreed with him (one of the few times that happens!) and I vaguely recall Cedric and GBG agreed too... but the rest of us were pretty much on the fence, right? Except that I think I would have leaned towards keeping it visible (to Google), unless there was something going on at that particular time, i.e., crap-flood.
I'd suggest that we make it Google-visible again, but it's no big deal - and I'm just as happy with the ED thread moved to "News Worth Discussing," as far as the immediate issue is concerned.
As for the "Editors" forum, that was me, sorry. I'd be perfectly OK with making that visible again too, if there aren't too many serious objections. ("Nutty Slimconspiracy Theories" should stay non-indexable, though, unless we're going to tarpit pretty much all of it.)
Milton Roe
Wed 29th June 2011, 10:47pm
QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 28th June 2011, 5:48am) *
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 27th June 2011, 3:33pm) *
That is correct. We are children, much worse than you will find on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Daniel, if you really want maximal web coverage for your informative material, you should put it on Enyc. The mighty minds there will ensure that it is properly-set into a context of insightful and embroideringly intelligent commentary, not unlike a flawless blue-white diamond into a comely setting of platinum-rhodium-iridium. Yes, some of the iridium is plated on baxterium, but it's the shine that counts. :)
Actually, you are kind of stupid.
One of the first questions that will baffle most Wikipedians is of course SlimVirgin.
Try Googling "slimvirgin" or "wikipedia slimvirgin". Brandt's site is near or at the top. Encyc is mid-page along with Kelly Martin's blog. WR doesn't show up on the first page.
Try Googling "wikipedia review slimvirgin" and Brandt is still first. WR is second, with a bunch of links to discussions about ancient ArbCom cases that I'm sure would be tl;dr for all but the most hardcore Wikipedians.
This is just one example but you get the picture. Brandt understands search engines and getting his message out there. You like the immediate feedback you get from a forum. Both systems have their time and place, but there's no doubt that if you actually have a message, Brandt's way is better.
It isn't that Brandt understands search engines. It's that the mods here have deliberately made a "tarpit" that search engines cannot find, and stuck most of the good SlimVirgin info into it.
I never said WR was perfect from my POV. I have made my displeasure with most of what's in the Tarpit well-known. I can't even get the mods to set the default "show date" to "ALL" when you look to see what's in it, so most people probably think it's empty. <_< That's one more of those little tricky software engineering things that software engineers like to set as puzzles. Or leave set in some non-obvious way.
However, on the whole, on Encyc you're twice as dorky, and Baxter-ridden besides.
Emperor
Thu 30th June 2011, 11:48am
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 29th June 2011, 11:47pm) *
It isn't that Brandt understands search engines. It's that the mods here have deliberately made a "tarpit" that search engines cannot find, and stuck most of the good SlimVirgin info into it.
I never said WR was perfect from my POV. I have made my displeasure with most of what's in the Tarpit well-known. I can't even get the mods to set the default "show date" to "ALL" when you look to see what's in it, so most people probably think it's empty. <_< That's one more of those little tricky software engineering things that software engineers like to set as puzzles. Or leave set in some non-obvious way.
However, on the whole, on Encyc you're twice as dorky, and Baxter-ridden besides.
So what exactly are you trying to achieve by posting in this thread? All I said was that if Brandt wants his stuff read, he would be better off posting it on his own websites rather than WR.
You should be agreeing with me, given that so much of your stuff has been sent down the crapper here, yet you're relentlessly focusing on Encyc, to the point where now you're left with nothing but lame put-downs.
What's your deal? Is it not enough that I exposed you as a piece of shit for posting a link to a brazenly antisemitic website, then leaving the link up with a half-assed, combative apology and an invitation to go view the images of politicians standing with funny-looking Jews, as if that's some kind of legitimate discourse? What if I sent you to a hate-filled page full of politicians standing around with any other ethnic group?
If you don't like Encyc, don't go to it. It's not a good place for people like you, and I don't want you there. You're lucky that they put up with you here.
Kato
Fri 1st July 2011, 7:47pm
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 30th June 2011, 4:14am) *
If I remember correctly, Kato was the one who most wanted the Lounge to be non-indexable...
You remember incorrectly. I wanted nothing of the sort.
Milton Roe
Fri 1st July 2011, 10:25pm
QUOTE(Emperor @ Thu 30th June 2011, 9:48am) *
[What's your deal? Is it not enough that I exposed you as a piece of shit for posting a link to a brazenly antisemitic website, then leaving the link up with a half-assed, combative apology and an invitation to go view the images of politicians standing with funny-looking Jews, as if that's some kind of legitimate discourse? What if I sent you to a hate-filled page full of politicians standing around with any other ethnic group?
The site is also anti-Catholic, as you yourself pointed out. If there are a list of pictures of funny-looking Jews, it's due to their religious beliefs, not their "ethnicity". There are no photos of people posing with Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman. Just photos of people with two sets of kitchenware, or standing at a temple wall with prayers stuck in it, or wearing 19th century-clothing as a symbol that they follow god's laws specially like nobody else. In other words, they are nuts.
But here's the difference: this particular group of zealots has ties to their own nation, and when attacked for their nutty beliefs, unlike Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists or any other run-of-the-mill religious shit-for-brains zombies, THIS particular group of zealots plays the ethnic-persecution card, so that they don't actually have to answer for their entitled behavior, and their hunger for power and influence. Indeed, you are doing exactly that, right here. With me. Except I won't put up with it.
Emperor
Mon 4th July 2011, 5:01pm
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 1st July 2011, 11:25pm) *
QUOTE(Emperor @ Thu 30th June 2011, 9:48am) *
[What's your deal? Is it not enough that I exposed you as a piece of shit for posting a link to a brazenly antisemitic website, then leaving the link up with a half-assed, combative apology and an invitation to go view the images of politicians standing with funny-looking Jews, as if that's some kind of legitimate discourse? What if I sent you to a hate-filled page full of politicians standing around with any other ethnic group?
The site is also anti-Catholic, as you yourself pointed out. If there are a list of pictures of funny-looking Jews, it's due to their religious beliefs, not their "ethnicity". There are no photos of people posing with Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman. Just photos of people with two sets of kitchenware, or standing at a temple wall with prayers stuck in it, or wearing 19th century-clothing as a symbol that they follow god's laws specially like nobody else. In other words, they are nuts.
But here's the difference: this particular group of zealots has ties to their own nation, and when attacked for their nutty beliefs, unlike Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists or any other run-of-the-mill religious shit-for-brains zombies, THIS particular group of zealots plays the ethnic-persecution card, so that they don't actually have to answer for their entitled behavior, and their hunger for power and influence. Indeed, you are doing exactly that, right here. With me. Except I won't put up with it.
It's pretty clear where you stand, Mel. I'll tell you what I won't put up with. You posting links to hate sites. Do it again, and you're being reported to the site management. Think what you want about the Jews, but it's disrespectful to all the hard work people put into this place to drag it down into being an antisemitic hangout once again.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.