User talk:MyWikiBiz

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Wednesday November 27, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search

Past discussions are archived here:


On Interpretation

Adding chapter 10 to the Wikipedia version.

Currently Google search only returns the MWB version. I am not sure what happens here. Normally Google gives precedence to the original version.

Ockham 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

Google is very strange. Just by rearranging the quotation marks, I can make the MyWikiBiz page disappear. Best to let the Google spiders do their work for at least 14 days before you draw any firm conclusion. (In the meantime, though, we already knew that MWB is better than Wikipedia in so many ways!) -- MyWikiBiz 12:15, 18 January 2009 (PST)
Yes - the current cached version is Dec 11 so the spiders still have to do their work. Then I will experiment with changing first on the MWB version, then propagate to the WP version, so it is clear what the proper source is. Ockham 02:30, 19 January 2009 (PST)

Google likes Nicholas of Paris

Reaches #2 Ockham 04:12, 25 January 2009 (PST)

But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'

As reported above, I added some material to the Wikipedia version of On Interpretation, which before was only in MWB version. At that point, a search on a key phrase only returned the MWB version. But now (as of new cache, 20 Jan) you see it is attributed to Wikipedia, and the MWB version is hidden. That is outrageous. Previous experiments with other sites suggested that Google always respects the provenance of material. Here it is the other way round. Google is a thief!

Next experiment. Perhaps either remove the paragraph from Wikipedia version. Or change the MWB version. Or put in another para into Wikipedia so Google gets the hint? Ockham 04:19, 25 January 2009 (PST)

JA: Google's ranking algorithm, apart from transient recency effects that disappear after a few weeks, is exclusively biased toward graph-theoretic connectivity over any other factor. That is why Google ranks Wikipedia high on any given search cue even when the original articles that snagged those cues have been reduced to stubs or even redirects — so long as all the links from other Wikipedia pages are still there — Google is clueless about the contents of the garbage bin at the other end of the links. Google's algorithm is blind to provenance when it does not issue in connectivity, it is blind to both content quality and logical quality (in the Kantian sense). "There's is no such thing as a negative link" is its sole maxim. Jon Awbrey 05:54, 25 January 2009 (PST)
I am tickled pink that you guys are curious about this Google phenomenon, as am I. It is rather offensive that the "original source" would be deprecated by Google in favor of the "borrowing site", no matter how much of a gorilla it is in PageRank. But, them's the breaks, I'm afraid. It all comes down to: In order to show you the most relevant results. Google has determined that popularity equals relevance, not originality nor quality. The only real solution to prevent this offense is to copyright your work here (in a Directory network, since the Main Space is governed by GFDL) and see to it that it doesn't find its way to Wikipedia.
If you don't mind, I'd like to toy around a little with these articles you've mentioned, to pump in a few semantic tags, so that maybe — maybe — it might out-compete Wikipedia once again. I doubt it, but it would be an achievement worthy of note. -- MyWikiBiz 09:36, 25 January 2009 (PST)
Yay that's the spirit. Ockham 11:38, 25 January 2009 (PST)

Bad weather incidents

This is an example of a Google search for bad weather incidents, where the MyWikiBiz page came up # 1 result out of 920,000, while Wikipedia's much more detailed page came in only at # 5. Notice the link for MyWikiBiz? Google seems to have selected out the Special:URIResolver page, which redirects the visitor into the real Category page. URI means 'uniform resource identifier', and that means XML relations and semantic web. So the semantic web characteristics of MyWikiBiz are without question being "boosted" by Google. Good thing the Wikipediots declared that Semantic Mediawiki was "too hard to use" for the average editor. -- MyWikiBiz 13:48, 27 January 2009 (PST)

Future SEO Battle

JA: Storing this here for future reference:

2.1.2. Intuitive Justification

PageRank can be thought of as a model of user behavior. We assume there is a "random surfer" who is given a web page at random and keeps clicking on links, never hitting "back" but eventually gets bored and starts on another random page. The probability that the random surfer visits a page is its PageRank. And, the d damping factor is the probability at each page the "random surfer" will get bored and request another random page. One important variation is to only add the damping factor d to a single page, or a group of pages. This allows for personalization and can make it nearly impossible to deliberately mislead the system in order to get a higher ranking. We have several other extensions to PageRank, again see [Page 98].

Another intuitive justification is that a page can have a high PageRank if there are many pages that point to it, or if there are some pages that point to it and have a high PageRank. Intuitively, pages that are well cited from many places around the web are worth looking at. Also, pages that have perhaps only one citation from something like the Yahoo! homepage are also generally worth looking at. If a page was not high quality, or was a broken link, it is quite likely that Yahoo's homepage would not link to it. PageRank handles both these cases and everything in between by recursively propagating weights through the link structure of the web.

Images aren't working?!

I am uploading a series of photos as a part of my travelog, but I cannot get them to display in my browser - my readers are also having trouble. The files in question are...

Sahara image 1


Sahara image 2


Sahara image 3


I want to upload three more as well, but not until I find out what the problem with these images is. Could it be because of their very high resolution? I did not reduce their dimensions from the camera's 5.0 MP - if need be, I can do this and try to upload them again. Thanks as always, AndrewM 12:34, 1 February 2009 (PST)

Actually, it looks like the images are working. They are HUGE, so I am modifying them here to thumbnails. I also replied here. -- MyWikiBiz 14:59, 1 February 2009 (PST)
I think I'll just delete these images then upload resampled versions once I'm done with classes. I can't say I've ever used a wiki this extensively before, so thanks for bearing with me in this! AndrewM 00:39, 2 February 2009 (PST)

More experiments

New article here on Andrew of Cornwall which contains less information than the MWB version. Andrew of Cornwall. Also contains a link to the MWB article (the first such in article space I believe - there are many in talk space, mostly on Jimbo's page). Let's see what Google makes of that. Ockham 05:19, 7 February 2009 (PST)

Should be interesting. It's not the first external link to MWB from Wikipedia article space, though. Such links exist for MyWikiBiz article, Liz Cohen article, and Peirce's Law article. List of all external links from Wikipedia, currently 47. Twelve months ago, it was about 35. -- MyWikiBiz 06:41, 7 February 2009 (PST)
You are right. In any case, let's see. The community here seems to be growing, by the way. Ockham 08:49, 7 February 2009 (PST)
[update] The Wikipedia version of the article now appears #3 in Google - that was quick. It is the first major appearance of Andrew in a Google search, which ignores the scholarly articles about Andrew in the first 10 hits. But Google sadly ignores the MWB article, even though it is more detailed, and even though Wikipedia links to it, but not the other way round. Ockham 08:53, 7 February 2009 (PST)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for greater latitude colder, which puts MWB in 3rd place, higher than the Wikipedia page that it was scraped from, in 6th place. I have no explanation, except that "Latitude" is a semantic attribute used 97 times on MWB. -- MyWikiBiz 13:19, 10 February 2009 (PST)

Andy of Cornwall again

The Google cache for Andrew of Cornwall was refreshed on 7 Feb and again on 10 Feb. The latter one seems to have done the trick for the unquoted search. Now ranking fifth on Google, whereas before it was nowhere at all. Very encouraging. Or it might have been when the spiders reached my website which also has a link. Ockham 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

Haven't disappeared yet?

It still lists him in Google. And strangely, the outbound link was gone as well. Angdl 18:05, 8 March 2009 (PDT)

An update of that "disapear from google's searches" thing?

Angdl 07:15, 17 March 2009 (PDT)

Sorry, but I think we have done everything we can to help minimize this "problem". I have even contacted Google to ask them to stop listing the page. -- MyWikiBiz 18:54, 17 March 2009 (PDT)

I think I see what the problem is

You see, his name is no longer listed on Google but the 3f9r6y-4c page is still listed with a mark "redirected from (name)". So, could you delete the redirect instead? So that the "redirected from" name would not appear? I'm sorry for all the trouble. It was my fault why I didn't ask his permission first. Angdl 23:08, 20 March 2009 (PDT)

Demo page

Hi there is a link on Help:Demonstration to my user page which should point to the List_of_medieval_philosophers instead (I moved that page some time ago). I would have changed the link but don't have permission. Ockham 07:23, 29 March 2009 (PDT)

PS you may be interested in this. Ockham 08:09, 29 March 2009 (PDT)

Don't forget ...

.. when you're deleting articles, to delete the edit summary that gets autofilled, else you keep a copy of the vandalism about. See here - Alison ❤ 22:32, 10 April 2009 (PDT)

Adsense

Oh.. I think I understand. Hopefully I can keep Adsense on those pages, maybe... or maybe not... oh well. : / .. : } ... would any of those be appropriate for directory space? Thanks.

I think I get it. I definitely get that we _DO NOT_ want warring in the main namespace, or really anywhere for that matter. Some other wikis are not healthy cultures, and should not be replicated.
Thanks.
I'm okay with you keeping your existing ads where they are, in Main space. I simply ask that you not keep adding Main space pages, if seeding them with AdSense is your goal. Instead, come up with some quasi-brand that becomes your Directory space umbrella, where you can put AdSense ads as much as you want (within Google's terms of service). -- MyWikiBiz 00:01, 19 April 2009 (PDT)

reply

No, nothing that fancy or purposeful, unfortunately. I hope you won't delete it...

Thanks.

Importing and moving

Is there a chance I could be flagged for import and move wiki abilities? It would save me some time.

I only plan to use move function to move pages to within my directory spaces.

Thanks.

Sorry, I'd rather not. -- MyWikiBiz 20:28, 17 May 2009 (PDT)


NPRT: Help!

Hello. I am trying to put a page up about or paranormal team but i dunno how to and i think its been deleted!?!... HELP ME PLEASE... -- NPRT1 05:19, 29 May 2009 (PDT)

Sorry, it had looked like you wanted the page deleted. I see that you are now (correctly) working on a similar page in the Directory space, where legal entities are supposed to reside here. Good luck with your editing here! -- MyWikiBiz 06:53, 29 May 2009 (PDT)

Your candidacy to the BoT

With Promethean's dirty maneuver to remove your candidacy, you won my vote. Who knows, perhaps you can change something from inside out, but even if you have the chance, it will be a hard task. Good luck anyway! Anonymous 14:12, 9 July 2009 (PDT)

You're right about the probable inability to change things even from the inside, even if I were to gain a seat on the Board; but, boy, let me tell you what fun it would be to swagger into that first Board meeting, and in a loud, booming voice, say: "Get your house in order, boys and girls, there's a new sheriff in town!" LOL. -- MyWikiBiz 18:32, 9 July 2009 (PDT)

wiki review :-(

Hey greg - just browsing around the review, and noticed your new sig (possibly it's old - but I'm slow ;-) - anywhoo... hopefully it won't be the last time you're involved over there - bizarre as it seems, what WR in my opinion does well is actually 'community' - as in having a bunch of people contributing thoughts and ideas in a way such as the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. The gags are regularly pretty good too :-)

I remain interested in Akahele, and how it goes - I probably should have mentioned this to you earlier, but I spoke about 'akahele' very very briefly at a wiki wednesday here in sydney (not a wikipedia event - more corporate - free pizza and beer, mind!) - if you are considering a message board experiment over there - let me know.....

hope you're good regardless, if I could have been bothered we'd have spoken about this election thing - which might actually have made it online - you never know! cheers, Privatemusings 03:33, 11 August 2009 (PDT)

Hi, PM! Thanks for stopping by. Yes, I've decided to leave (or at least take a long extended break from) Wikipedia Review. Honestly, I grew tired of the quality of critique there, and I think it traces back to the hands-off ownership by a fictional character we're not allowed to know or to speak of. I'm too old to be working on good content that two people I don't know could just take and walk away with at any time. Please do keep reading Akahele, and join the discussion via Comments, of course! -- MyWikiBiz 03:53, 11 August 2009 (PDT)

I also saw your new sig, and I'm sorry to see that you're not posting anymore. But, could you explain further, regarding the issue with Selina, or are you reluctant to do so? Jonas Rand 23:21, 11 August 2009 (PDT)

My issue is not so much "with Selina". My issue is the cumulative impact of a message forum that has been slipping ever downhill in terms of quality, informed criticism of Wikipedia. The straw that broke the camel's back is that the site's owner is, as far as we are all concerned, a fictitious character. And if you question her identity (even in jest), the threat comes back that not only might such questions be censored, moved, or deleted, but the whole damn site might very well be shut down in a dramatic puff of indignant smoke. I thought the needless drama was reserved for Wikipedia, not Wikipedia Review. When you couple all of this with the fact that "Selina" (or whomever operates that character identity) altered posts of mine in order to irritate me (one of the top contributors to "her" site), and then compounded that affront by surveying my private messages issued to others in the community, there is really no reason why a self-respecting adult (or child) should willingly want to participate in such a forum. I have Akahele.org, and while it is not a forum, I think the aspects of "guest article" and "comments" are good enough, for the trade-off that higher-quality, more informed, and attributed content will grace its pages. -- MyWikiBiz 05:46, 12 August 2009 (PDT)
I agree in regards to WR going downhill. Ever since late 2007, something about Wikipedia Review seems much different, with lots of pro-Wikipedia types coming in and the amount of serious, intelligent criticism decreased. And I am not sure of the current and past states of the ownership of WR. But I do know that while some of the critics are still posting, they are outnumbered by the pro-Wikipedia posters, or Wikipedia-tolerant posters, who are not interested in analysis. Yes, there were some problems in the pre-2008 Wikipedia Review, but not on nearly as large a scale as now. And I don't know why Selina would do that, regarding the PMs. Definitely something is wrong when the owner deliberately tries to bait one of the top posters and then looks at his private messages.
As far as WR's ownership goes, I have made a post here in regards to that, and I asked some questions there. My e-mail is happydelsim (at) aol.com, if you want to contact me. Jonas Rand 20:23, 12 August 2009 (PDT)
For over twenty years, I've been working on the problem of mass organization in the presence of known problems with such, the biggest problem being noise. On a small scale, we know very well how to operate as what I call a Free Association, which is non-coercive, open, tolerant ... but also able to make decisions, if there are skilled participants or facilitators present, without taking forever. What I stumbled across is a technique for scaling this. The basic mechanism for this was proposed on Wikipedia about two years ago and promptly, without understanding (or any danger) rejected, and the attempt was made to delete and salt it, which was pretty outrageous; in spite of massive !votes to delete, older and more experienced editors prevailed, and WP:PRX still exists. The mechanism doesn't explain how it would work; the term "proxy" is a bit misleading, but the European term for the same function, "advisor" only conveys half the meaning. In any case, I could write megabytes on this, and have, but I won't sink your Talk page with it. FA/DP technology ("Free Association with Delegable Proxy"), in theory, can function in very difficult environments, it is truly subversive, as long as an active interest group appears, but it is non-destructively subversive, it simply fails if an attempt is made to abuse it. Long story, as I imagine you can guess. It is possible to reform Wikipedia, and fairly quickly, and with no central structures that would simply replace one set of abusers with another.
Wikipedia Review has become a general noticeboard for Wikipedia, which is a positive function. It's essential that this kind of function exist; however, there are no effective noise-filtering mechanisms for WR, and probably such cannot be built there. But they could be built elsewhere. The problems of efficiency and noise were mostly neglected when the wiki model evolved; the only attempt to deal with noise has been through banning, which doesn't resolve disputes. There is a much better way, addressing the noise problem which is the real issue, often. To mention my own travails, the majority should not have to bear with massive debate over issues that it cares not about, such as cold fusion, and that it knows nothing about except for rumor and mass media images. ArbComm is running as if the way to try a case is to open the court and allow anyone to speak. That works when the scale is very small. Rapidly, the scale at Wikipedia became too large, but editors, having experience with how well it can work on a small scale, were attached to the open wiki model. The open wiki model is excellent, but only under certain conditions, and a better understanding of what is organizationally possible would allow keeping the baby while discarding the bathwater. --Abd 06:56, 19 September 2009 (PDT)
I love the proxy delegate idea. That would have made for even more political intrigue, until, eventually, one person would "win" Wikipedia, which is a game, as we all know. Too bad the proposal wasn't presented in a more simplified way. -- MyWikiBiz 19:52, 19 September 2009 (PDT)
It would not have made any difference, in fact. Hidden secret: the proposal is unstoppable, if people want to do it. If proxy assignments represent real off-wiki connections, deleting and salting the proxy assignment files has no real effect, it merely makes what was visible invisible, and if those involved want to keep it visible, they simply create the structures off-wiki. Yes, it makes for more "intrigue," but at the same time makes it possible to actually negotiate. It's well known that it is impossible to negotiate with mobs. Think Tiananmen Square. The Chinese government tried to negotiate with the students, and gave up when they realized that the sober leaders had no power, nor did anyone, really. Tragic. --Abd 12:42, 20 September 2009 (PDT)

Just To Say Hello

Hi MyWikiBiz! I'm just here to say hello & that I'm happy to be here. Peter Z. 20:36, 21 September 2009 (PDT)

Equally happy to have you here! -- MyWikiBiz 08:25, 22 September 2009 (PDT)

Sorry To See You Being Blocked (Again) From Wikipedia

Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? I don't think so! It’s probably past the point where any reform can help it. Here in Australian Universities, Colleges and other tertiary education facilities are banning the use of Wikipedia. In my short time there at Wiki, I've seen other editors do far worse things and get away with it. Sometimes I think the place is run by 17 year old nerds going on their big teenage ego trips, with no qualification and with no life experience (or they just act in that manner).

Did you say something really naughty at Wikivoices? Wikibiz is a far cooler place! See Ya! Peter Z. 01:56, 28 September 2009 (PDT)

You've got it about right. My block this time came as a result of calling to task the ethics of a struggling college biology student who has refused to release a recorded audio interview that 10 people took two hours of their time to produce, under the impression that the audio would be promptly published. Apparently, it is a blockable offense on Wikipedia to call for greater accountability among the youngsters who rule the roost. Meanwhile, Wikipedia won't get any more articles like this, this, and this from me while I'm blocked, will they? Their loss, not mine. -- MyWikiBiz 06:10, 28 September 2009 (PDT)
Agreed, & they are great articles, as you say 'Their loss'.Peter Z. 04:18, 30 September 2009 (PDT)

Wiki Editors Publishing Wiki Articles (In a Book)

G-Day MyWikiBiz! Do you know anything about Wiki Editors publishing Wiki articles (in a book) and making money from it. I brought this book of the Internet called History of Dalmatia [1]. It turned out to be 95% Wiki (maps & all). I though that Wiki was a non-profit organization. Without my knowledge I was surprised to see myself listed as a source author (& they got my statement wrong). Peter Z. 22:51, 11 October 2009 (PDT)

My understanding of the the various free licenses (GFDL and CC) that Wikipedia has foisted on the world, is that anyone is free to re-use the content either in non-commercial or in commercial settings, so long as they properly attribute the content to its source/authors, and they in turn re-release the content under the same license. This is one of the most interesting aspects of free licenses, and a reason to very carefully consider whether you want to put too much sweat and labor into content that is so released. Judging from this particular book's publisher (@lphascript publishing), I'll venture a guess that the total value of the profits going to the pocket of John McBrewster (et al) is less than the cost of dinner for four at Macaroni Grill. I have yet to see someone get rich off of re-purposing free content, other than Jimmy Wales, Sue Gardner, Mike Godwin, and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation team. -- MyWikiBiz 08:11, 12 October 2009 (PDT)
I also find it extremely entertaining, as I go to write a review of the book on Amazon.com, that after writing my blurb, Amazon suggests the following handy "tags" to annotate my thoughts:
Tag Suggestions (click to add): rip-off, croatia, wikipedia, lies, sham, deceptive, ripoff, john mcbrewster
That ought to keep the cash register ringing! -- MyWikiBiz 08:14, 12 October 2009 (PDT)
Retrieved from "https://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:MyWikiBiz&oldid=94456"