|
|
| (271 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown) |
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| | *[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)'' | | *[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)'' |
| | *[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)'' | | *[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)'' |
| | + | *[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 5|Archive 5]] ''(January 2009 - December 2009)'' |
| | + | *[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 6|Archive 6]] ''(February 2010 - April 2016)'' |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| − | == On Interpretation == | + | == Math Biz == |
| | | | |
| − | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.
| + | Hi Greg, |
| | | | |
| − | Currently [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22Aristotle+enumerates+the+affirmations+and+denials%22&meta= Google search] only returns the MWB version. I am not sure what happens here. Normally Google gives precedence to the original version.
| + | Do you think there's any chance you'll be updating the math parser, whatever it is, any time soon? I'd like to keep MyWikiBiz as my main work wiki and I've been trying to fix all the problems with MathJax or whatever it is, but it just doesn't look doable anymore. Here's how one of my math sections looks on three different wikis: |
| | | | |
| − | [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)
| + | * MyWikiBiz |
| | + | : http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_2.0#Terminological_Interlude |
| | | | |
| − | :Google is very strange. Just by [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Aristotle+enumerates+the+%22affirmations+and+denials%22&btnG=Search&meta= 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!) -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:15, 18 January 2009 (PST) | + | * InterSciWiki |
| − | :: 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. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:30, 19 January 2009 (PST)
| + | : http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_2.0#Terminological_Interlude |
| | | | |
| − | === Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===
| + | * Wikiversity |
| | + | : https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:JonAwbrey/Sandbox |
| | | | |
| − | [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22nicholas+of+paris%22&meta= Reaches #2] [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:12, 25 January 2009 (PST)
| + | Aside from the overall readability issues, there's problems with underlining and failure to distinguish serif and sans serif characters that I use for a critical math distinction. |
| | | | |
| − | ===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===
| + | Regards, [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] ([[User talk:Jon Awbrey|talk]]) 22:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | As reported above, I added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 some material] to the Wikipedia version of ''On Interpretation'', which before was only in MWB version. At that point, a
| + | :Frankly, there is zero chance that I would personally update the math parser, because I'm not technically inclined. The last time we had a major overhaul to the platform was in 2014. That took an outside contractor to execute, and the cost was around $900. I am just guessing that a math parser update would potentially set off a domino effect of requiring an update to the Mediawiki root platform, and thus I could be "in" for another $1,000-ish cost. Your most popular page, '''Logical graph''', got 62 hits from around the globe in the past month. For 2 hits a day, I really can't justify the potential budget outlay. Is there any way you would commit to splitting the cost and working with me to find an appropriate contractor? - [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] ([[User talk:MyWikiBiz|talk]]) 16:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC) |
| − | [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22Aristotle+enumerates+the+affirmations+and+denials%22&meta= 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? [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:19, 25 January 2009 (PST)
| + | == Wikipediocracy == |
| | | | |
| − | :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. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:54, 25 January 2009 (PST)
| + | Hey dude what's up? Did you quit Wikipediocracy? [[User:Emperor|Emperor]] ([[User talk:Emperor|talk]]) 20:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | ::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. | + | :Hey bro what's hangin? No, I still read it regularly and talk with numerous members at great length! [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] ([[User talk:MyWikiBiz|talk]]) 14:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC) |
| − | ::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. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 09:36, 25 January 2009 (PST)
| |
| − | ::: Yay that's the spirit. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:38, 25 January 2009 (PST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Bad weather incidents===
| |
| − | This is an [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=bad+weather+incidents&btnG=Search 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. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:48, 27 January 2009 (PST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Future SEO Battle ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | JA: Storing this here for future reference:
| |
| − | | |
| − | * [http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page : The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine]
| |
| − | | |
| − | {| align="center" width="90%"
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | <p>'''2.1.2. Intuitive Justification'''</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <p>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].</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <p>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.</p>
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | == 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...<br>
| |
| − | [[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]]<br>[[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]]<br>[[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 3]]<br>
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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, [[User:AndrewM|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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:AndrewM&diff=78250&oldid=77367 here]. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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! [[User:AndrewM|AndrewM]] 00:39, 2 February 2009 (PST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == More experiments ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | New article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_of_cornwall 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. [[User:Ockham|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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.mywikibiz.com List of all external links] from Wikipedia, currently 47. Twelve months ago, it was about 35. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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. [[User:Ockham|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. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 08:53, 7 February 2009 (PST)
| |
