QUOTE
[WikiEN-l] Flickr tells the SEOs to go away too
Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb at gmail.com
Wed Feb 27 18:53:37 UTC 2008
Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Flickr tells the SEOs to go away too
Next message: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] Musing with professional photographers: further lessons learned
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2/25/08, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I still say that the wikipedia needs a mechanism to turn off nofollow
> on selected links; for example links added by, or marked out by high
> edit count users. There needs to be a bot or something that whitelists
> links.
Why even bother? I mean yes, there are a handful of sites which we
consider useful and reliable enough to link to them in a very high
volume, so high that removing "nofollow" would create a conspicuous
spike in the job queue, so high that we've created templates to make
them easier to link to. IMDB comes to mind, but somehow I doubt they
would be bothered enough to care whether links from Wikipedia affect
IMDB's page-rank or whether this would help IMDB pass "Photobucket" in
the top 20. But whether they care or not, why should we?
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb at gmail.com
Wed Feb 27 18:53:37 UTC 2008
Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Flickr tells the SEOs to go away too
Next message: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] Musing with professional photographers: further lessons learned
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2/25/08, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I still say that the wikipedia needs a mechanism to turn off nofollow
> on selected links; for example links added by, or marked out by high
> edit count users. There needs to be a bot or something that whitelists
> links.
Why even bother? I mean yes, there are a handful of sites which we
consider useful and reliable enough to link to them in a very high
volume, so high that removing "nofollow" would create a conspicuous
spike in the job queue, so high that we've created templates to make
them easier to link to. IMDB comes to mind, but somehow I doubt they
would be bothered enough to care whether links from Wikipedia affect
IMDB's page-rank or whether this would help IMDB pass "Photobucket" in
the top 20. But whether they care or not, why should we?
—C.W.
Here's the rub, for those capable of reading between the lines. The ever so "useful and reliable" IMDB.com is owned by Amazon. Amazon is the #1 financial stakeholder in Wikia, Inc. Wikia, Inc. is managed by the co-founder of Wikipedia.
They're so brainwashed in WikipediotLand, they don't even know when they're advocating for a heightened environment for conflict of interest!
I love it.
Greg