* Gerard Meijssen [Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:26:54
+0200]:
> Hoi,
> The point of spending time is exactly to prevent vandalised content to
> remain available in the search engines. The synchronisation of the
> changes
> in Wikipedia and the reflection in search engines is beneficial to us
> both.
>
> V
Hoi,
The point of spending time is exactly to prevent vandalised content to
remain available in the search engines. The synchronisation of the changes
in Wikipedia and the reflection in search engines is beneficial to us both.
Vandalism is always more voluminous then we would like to have it. Here
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Q wrote:
> On 10/17/2010 7:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> If you understand the issue, you would know who decides what qualifies as
>> vandalism. It is exactly the same people who already decide what vandalism
>> is.
>
> So basically you want anybody who
Dmitriy Sintsov wrote:
>> The linked blog post laments the lag between the removal of vandalism
> on
>> Wikipedia and its removal in Google's indices and cached data.
>>
> I am completely disconnected from Wikipedia - I do use MediaWiki for
> small projects. However, wasn't there FlaggedRevs depl
On 17.10.2010, 22:42 Neil wrote:
> Google would rather not have any vandalism in their index, but that's
> not the point. They care about the reindexing schedule. If we create
> sitemaps that also note the recent velocity of changes, the vandal's
> edits in a sense work against themselves. Ever
Google would rather not have any vandalism in their index, but that's
not the point. They care about the reindexing schedule. If we create
sitemaps that also note the recent velocity of changes, the vandal's
edits in a sense work against themselves. Every new change brings new
scrutiny.
If you
* Neil Kandalgaonkar [Sat, 16 Oct 2010 22:20:50
-0700]:
> On 10/16/10 8:40 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> >
> >
>
http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/2010/10/16/wikipedia-we-have-a-google-refresh-problem/
>
> The linked blog post laments the lag between the removal of vandalism
on
> Wikipedia and its re
On 10/17/2010 7:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> If you understand the issue, you would know who decides what qualifies as
> vandalism. It is exactly the same people who already decide what vandalism
> is.
So basically you want anybody who visits the website to be able to tell
google to fast
On 17/10/10 13:34, Q wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 10/17/2010 5:40 AM, Robert Stojnic wrote:
>
>> I am sure google already taps into recent changes in wikipedia, but it
>> might be worth contacting them officially to see if edits marked as
>> vandalism can be
Hoi,
If you understand the issue, you would know who decides what qualifies as
vandalism. It is exactly the same people who already decide what vandalism
is.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 17 October 2010 14:34, Q wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 10/17/2010 5:40 AM,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/17/2010 5:40 AM, Robert Stojnic wrote:
> I am sure google already taps into recent changes in wikipedia, but it
> might be worth contacting them officially to see if edits marked as
> vandalism can be threated with larger priority in their in
As far as I know, sitemaps are used primarily to inform the search
engine of the pages on a website directly, rather than waiting for the
search engine to figure them out from links from external sites. I
vaguely remember we used to generate sitemaps, but then stopped because
google more-or-le
On 10/16/10 8:40 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/2010/10/16/wikipedia-we-have-a-google-refresh-problem/
The linked blog post laments the lag between the removal of vandalism on
Wikipedia and its removal in Google's indices and cached data.
There is a way to mitigate t
http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/2010/10/16/wikipedia-we-have-a-google-refresh-problem/
Fred
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
14 matches
Mail list logo
