| abstract
| - Thisniss nailed it with Stephen Colbert instead of our glorious leader. We need the link names to be what will be entered into google and other search engines. It's why Wikipedia admins spend so much time worrying about google bombing. We definitely need to avoid un-bombing ourselves by getting too tricky. It's one thing to title a page that way, but then using it as a link name screws the google out our truthiness. Please link to wikipedia instead of wikip*dia so that our encyclopedic corrections bring the lost and unsaved to our factiness. For pages that use non-common titles, you can find and correct links by going to that page and clicking on the Tubes that link here. By connecting more tubes to us, the guts will soon surpass the facts and we will save the innocent school children of liberals.--Pro-Lick 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC) It was a relatively easy fix to change the links for Our Glorious Stephen and Stephen Colbert, and it meant that the "Stephen Colbert" page went from being our 23rd most linked to page to being our first most linked to. We're also now at the top of the 3rd page of a google search for "Stephen Colbert," where before we were at the bottom - could be a whole host of other reasons, too, but why not make the changes we can control, eh? Anyway, I'm thinking that I can easily make a "tip tool" template for "wikip*dia" like the one I made for Our Glorious Stephen (which I based on the ones MC Esteban™ made for Stephen Colbert and John Stewart). Then we can move the pedo-related pages to the best google-reading link names, and use the tip-tool templates so that we can (hopefully) have our joke and eat the google rankings, too.--thisniss 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Here ya go: {{Pedo}} gives you Wikip*dia . I feel the hover message is truthy, but feel free to make adjustments (or we can have multiple versions). --thisniss 21:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry if I'm stupid here, but isnt the point to make it say Wikipedia in the alt-text? Are they reading our internal linkages or the amount of times the actual word is used?--MC Esteban™ 17:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Yeah, I thought it's the associated text too. As far as I know, google complete ignores what the linked to page says and bases it's rankings completely on what the links say it is. So if we all link to pedo by calling it child (having child redirect to pedo), the rankings for child will be increased and pedo decreased. But I'll leave my trustiness to thisniss to work out the facts.--Pro-Lick 17:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Okay, here's what I think is going on. I will preface this all by saying I don't know shit about dick. Anyway, yes, what you are saying about the "associated text" matters, which is actually why I made the template. By which I mean, if we are trying to make a "google-bomb," then the point is to link a word or a set of words to a particular url (e.g. Greatest Living American). This is, of course, easily "diffused" - which you can see by googling Greatest Living American ( "Stephen Colbert" and "Greatest Living American" are still conversationally linked in sites talking about the google bomb, but the CN page is not ranking high on the google search). So it's not the most important thing. More important things include the url text (which is why I moved it back so the page name itself has "wikipedia" in the url), and of course the all-important backlinks. The thing that we are talking about here, though, is the "anchor text" for this link, which if I understand the MediaWiki correctly should still be "wikipedia" in the template above. I "piped" the "wikip*dia" part ([[wikipedia|wikip*dia]]) precisely to fix the "wikipedia" anchor text problem. Otherwise, we could still just link through the [[wikip*dia]] redirect. This is the same thing I did with the {{OGS}} template and the change I made to all the other templates that used the phrase "Our Glorious Stephen" -- piped them so that instead of redirecting through [[Our Glorious Stephen]], they go through [[Stephen Colbert|Our Glorious Stephen]]. In this case, "Stephen Colbert" is still the "anchor text" - not "Our Glorious Stephen." It's the same with any wiki link - the "anchor text" is the part in [[double brackets]], which points to some url (at this site, something that begins with <a href="http://www.wikiality.com/etc.etc.etc..">http://www.wikiality.com/etc.etc.etc..</a> You can put anything you want after the |pipe, and it doesn't change the "anchor." It might count as additional anchor text - I'm not sure how that works in wiki, but I sorta doubt it because "anchor stacking" pisses the Googles off, so I can't imagine they'd let the Wikipedia get away with it. I think it's just a "bonus," but I really couldn't find anything to tell me for sure. Redirect pages are a different kind of trade-off. They can create their own weight in backlinks, especially when you start getting hundreds or thousands of pages linking through a redirect. For terms where we're not looking to rank (i.e., very few redirects), or if we want to rank for a specific phrasing (i.e., google bombing) redirects can be very helpful. We should always make them anyway, imo, to help our searching and to cut down on duplicate page creation. BUT, when we end up route all our traffic through a specific redirect, then that page becomes the url that we're pushing for the google's magical page ranking machines, and we end up making a kind of inadvertent, backwards google bomb (which is what we were doing with Our Glorious Stephen-Stephen Colbert). In fact, this whole question came up because El Payo noticed that other accidental google-bomb we'd made. Again, though, I am in Big Foot Expert territory here. --thisniss 21:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)