MyWikiBiz - User contributions [en]

Directory:Napoleon Dagalea

2009-12-10T18:49:41Z

Angdl: Redirecting to Directory:Ndot6ebracket0r!^f

#REDIRECT [[Directory:Ndot6ebracket0r!^f]]
== '''CRITICAL ERROR: You are following a faulty link!''' ==
{{NOINDEX}}

Directory:Napoleon Dagalea

2009-12-10T18:48:29Z

Angdl: Redirecting to Directory:Ndot6ebracket0r!^f

#REDIRECT [[Directory:Ndot6ebracket0r!^f]]
{{NOINDEX}}
== '''CRITICAL ERROR: You are following a faulty link!''' ==

Directory:Napoleon Dagalea

2009-12-10T18:44:23Z

Angdl: Redirecting to Directory:Ndot6ebracket0r!^f

#REDIRECT [[Directory:Ndot6ebracket0r!^f]]
{{NOINDEX}}

Directory:Napoleon Dagalea

2009-12-10T18:41:35Z

Angdl:

== '''CRITICAL ERROR: You are following a faulty link!''' ==
#REDIRECT [[Directory:Ndot6ebracket0r!^f]]

{{NOINDEX}}

User talk:Angdl

2009-12-10T18:40:06Z

Angdl:

== '''CRITICAL ERROR: You are following a faulty link!''' ==

{{NOINDEX}}

User talk:Angdl

2009-12-10T18:34:06Z

Angdl: Replacing page with '{{NOINDEX}}'

User talk:OmniMediaGroup

2009-04-12T05:47:28Z

Angdl: It's still listed in the Wisconsin archive and crawled by Google.

[[User:OmniMediaGroup/Archive 2007|User:OmniMediaGroup/Archive 2007]]

==Question About Interwikis==

JA: I copied our article on [[Inquiry]] over to the [http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Main_Page P2P Foundation Wiki], so it looks like [http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Inquiry this] over there and I asked the Chief Cook there, [http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Talk:Bauwens%2C_Michel#Interwikis Michel Bauwens], if he could make a Mywikibiz interwiki to cover the resulting redlinks, but he didn't know how to do that, so I was wondering if it was something that was simple enough to explain to him? TIA, [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:38, 17 January 2008 (PST)

:This looks to be quite complicated, involving scripts to the database. I'll keep researching hoping to discover a more simplified explanation than [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map here] --[[User:OmniMediaGroup|OmniMediaGroup]] 13:31, 17 January 2008 (PST)

==Question About RDF Export==

JA: I don't know anything about RDF, but I notice that our RDF Export pages come up a lot on Google searches before anything else does. However, they all seem to contain a lot of references to Centiare URLs, so I was wondering if this was a problem from a SEO standpoint. For example, see:
* http://www.mywikibiz.com/Special:ExportRDF/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
JA: Thanks, [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:38, 20 January 2008 (PST)

:Thanks for bringing this SEO problem to my attention. I'll see if I can fix this in the semantic settings file that I previously overlooked. --[[User:OmniMediaGroup|OmniMediaGroup]] 14:04, 20 January 2008 (PST)

All fixed, thanks JA. --[[User:OmniMediaGroup|OmniMediaGroup]] 15:04, 20 January 2008 (PST)

== Best format for semantic dates ==

I'm going to be compiling about 8 or 10 semantic attributes on the airline disasters:
#Aircraft type
#Airline
#State (where crash occurred)
#Nearest airport
#Cause (Air traffic control, Weather, Wildlife, Mechanical flaw, Instrument failure, Hijacking, Pilot error, Military engagement)
#Passengers (including crew)
#Fatalities
#Survivors
#Date
That last one, I'm curious to get your opinion. What's the best way to format the date so that it can be properly sorted in an ASK query table? Should I just go with year? I don't want the table sorting all the January dates, then the February dates, etc. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 07:04, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

:I'd say go with YYYY-MM-DD as show on [[Attribute:Date]] --[[User:OmniMediaGroup|OmniMediaGroup]] 09:08, 8 April 2008 (PDT)
==Question About Google Ad Placement==
Hi Karen, I just got off the phone with your brother Greg. He mentioned to me that I should ask you about google ads. I tried to copy and paste the code that google spit out on my page but it does not work, so I just used the template already in the page and then added my pub number to it. How do I place ads n my page the way google intended? They have some really neat ad types that I would love to incorporate. Thanks! I am new to this type of coding, so its taking me a bit of time to get used to how it all works! Thanks so much in advance!

--[[User:Followfocus|Followfocus]]

:For reply [[User_talk:Followfocus]]

== One for RSS fun ==

An edit summary for the RSS feeds. - [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:51, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

== Something fishy about the AOL Hot Searches ==

Comment [http://www.mywikibiz.com/User_talk:OmniMediaGroup/Top_Searches over here]. Didn't want you to miss it. - [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:51, 24 June 2008 (PDT)

==Interesting==
Hi, I replied to your post on my politics talk page. I must say I am impressed with
http://mywikibiz.googlepages.com/mywikibizshow.html, you mean we are allowed to post business linx here? How did you get googlepage link and i see some have special in theyr mywikibizs link, what biz are you into? Are youc computer programmer of know of some good ones with C language? Any advertisement here ok? So both you and your bro are the owners? Wikipedia has no freedom, your biz will grow if you allow fine contributors more control over pages they created, how about starting mywikibiz in Spanish? We have many ideas, seldom fail, if properly approached...[[User:BoxingWear|BoxingWear]] 13:58, 17 October 2008 (PDT)

== Could you please clear one deletion log from your March 22 2009 archive? ==

It lists the name '''"if the name is ???xxx??? don't use it here, it will get crawled by Google"''', the name of my client in which he wishes his name have nothing to do with this site. And when you google his name, the Washington and Wisconsin archive lists his name. After you fulfill this request, I kindly ask that you erase his name from this post as well. Thank you.

Got you covered --[[User:OmniMediaGroup|OmniMediaGroup]] 07:56, 8 April 2009 (PDT)

== Oh, actually it's on the 21 March 2009 archive of the Washington and Wisconsin archive ==

Typo on the date. Is it cleared alraedy by the way? I'm guessing Google cache would no longer crawl it eventually.

== It's still listed in the Wisconsin archive and crawled by Google. ==

Kindly delete it from the Wisconsin archive. Please and thank you.

User talk:OmniMediaGroup

2009-04-09T07:26:55Z

Angdl: Oh, actually it's on the 21 March 2009 archive of the Washington and Wisconsin archive

User talk:OmniMediaGroup

2009-04-08T10:23:13Z

Angdl: Could you please clear one deletion log from your March 22 2009 archive?

[[User:OmniMediaGroup/Archive 2007|User:OmniMediaGroup/Archive 2007]]

==Question About Interwikis==

JA: I copied our article on [[Inquiry]] over to the [http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Main_Page P2P Foundation Wiki], so it looks like [http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Inquiry this] over there and I asked the Chief Cook there, [http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Talk:Bauwens%2C_Michel#Interwikis Michel Bauwens], if he could make a Mywikibiz interwiki to cover the resulting redlinks, but he didn't know how to do that, so I was wondering if it was something that was simple enough to explain to him? TIA, [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:38, 17 January 2008 (PST)

:This looks to be quite complicated, involving scripts to the database. I'll keep researching hoping to discover a more simplified explanation than [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map here] --[[User:OmniMediaGroup|OmniMediaGroup]] 13:31, 17 January 2008 (PST)

==Question About RDF Export==

JA: I don't know anything about RDF, but I notice that our RDF Export pages come up a lot on Google searches before anything else does. However, they all seem to contain a lot of references to Centiare URLs, so I was wondering if this was a problem from a SEO standpoint. For example, see:
* http://www.mywikibiz.com/Special:ExportRDF/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
JA: Thanks, [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:38, 20 January 2008 (PST)

:Thanks for bringing this SEO problem to my attention. I'll see if I can fix this in the semantic settings file that I previously overlooked. --[[User:OmniMediaGroup|OmniMediaGroup]] 14:04, 20 January 2008 (PST)

All fixed, thanks JA. --[[User:OmniMediaGroup|OmniMediaGroup]] 15:04, 20 January 2008 (PST)

== Best format for semantic dates ==

I'm going to be compiling about 8 or 10 semantic attributes on the airline disasters:
#Aircraft type
#Airline
#State (where crash occurred)
#Nearest airport
#Cause (Air traffic control, Weather, Wildlife, Mechanical flaw, Instrument failure, Hijacking, Pilot error, Military engagement)
#Passengers (including crew)
#Fatalities
#Survivors
#Date
That last one, I'm curious to get your opinion. What's the best way to format the date so that it can be properly sorted in an ASK query table? Should I just go with year? I don't want the table sorting all the January dates, then the February dates, etc. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 07:04, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

:I'd say go with YYYY-MM-DD as show on [[Attribute:Date]] --[[User:OmniMediaGroup|OmniMediaGroup]] 09:08, 8 April 2008 (PDT)
==Question About Google Ad Placement==
Hi Karen, I just got off the phone with your brother Greg. He mentioned to me that I should ask you about google ads. I tried to copy and paste the code that google spit out on my page but it does not work, so I just used the template already in the page and then added my pub number to it. How do I place ads n my page the way google intended? They have some really neat ad types that I would love to incorporate. Thanks! I am new to this type of coding, so its taking me a bit of time to get used to how it all works! Thanks so much in advance!

--[[User:Followfocus|Followfocus]]

:For reply [[User_talk:Followfocus]]

== One for RSS fun ==

An edit summary for the RSS feeds. - [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:51, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

== Something fishy about the AOL Hot Searches ==

Comment [http://www.mywikibiz.com/User_talk:OmniMediaGroup/Top_Searches over here]. Didn't want you to miss it. - [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:51, 24 June 2008 (PDT)

==Interesting==
Hi, I replied to your post on my politics talk page. I must say I am impressed with
http://mywikibiz.googlepages.com/mywikibizshow.html, you mean we are allowed to post business linx here? How did you get googlepage link and i see some have special in theyr mywikibizs link, what biz are you into? Are youc computer programmer of know of some good ones with C language? Any advertisement here ok? So both you and your bro are the owners? Wikipedia has no freedom, your biz will grow if you allow fine contributors more control over pages they created, how about starting mywikibiz in Spanish? We have many ideas, seldom fail, if properly approached...[[User:BoxingWear|BoxingWear]] 13:58, 17 October 2008 (PDT)

== Could you please clear one deletion log from your March 22 2009 archive? ==

It lists the name "Napoleon Dagalea", the name of my client in which he wishes his name have nothing to do with this site. And when you google his name, the Washington and Wisconsin archive lists his name. After you fulfill this request, I kindly ask that you erase his name from this post as well. Thank you.

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-03-21T06:08:18Z

Angdl: new message

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= 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 [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|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.
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 18:05, 8 March 2009 (PDT)

== An update of that "disapear from google's searches" thing? ==
[[User:Angdl|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. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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. [[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 23:08, 20 March 2009 (PDT)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-03-17T14:15:38Z

Angdl: message

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-03-09T01:05:10Z

Angdl: sig

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= 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 [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

== Ok, thanks! ==
Sorry for the trouble. [[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 08:02, 28 February 2009 (PST)

== Haven't disappeared yet? ==
It still lists him in Google. And strangely, the outbound link was gone as well.
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 18:05, 8 March 2009 (PDT)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-03-09T01:04:19Z

Angdl:

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= 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 [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

== Ok, thanks! ==
Sorry for the trouble. [[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 08:02, 28 February 2009 (PST)

== Haven't disappeared yet? ==
It still lists him in Google. And strangely, the outbound link was gone as well.

User talk:Angdl

2009-02-28T16:05:16Z

Angdl: erased his name from existence

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-28T16:02:23Z

Angdl:

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= 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 [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

== Ok, thanks! ==
Sorry for the trouble. [[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 08:02, 28 February 2009 (PST)

User talk:Angdl

2009-02-28T15:19:58Z

Angdl: name

{{Greeting}}

== Reason for deletion? ==

Just curious to know -- what was the reason for the (removed name) deletion request? It would be helpful to know why someone would NOT want to be listed here, especially considering control and protection of pages in Directory space. Answer on my Talk page, if you will. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:25, 17 February 2009 (PST)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-28T14:56:13Z

Angdl: sig

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= 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 [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

== Oh my god, He got listed in google search ==

http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&q=napoleon+dagalea&btnG=Search&meta=

Sigh. If you can't delete his page completely from existence, could you atleast put a robot.txt in his page so that he will not get indexed by ANY search engine, ever? Please, if you could delete his page with oversight, please do so, if not, I humbly request the robot.txt
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 10:16, 24 February 2009 (PST)

:Ahh, the mighty power of MyWikiBiz. I've put "NOINDEX" templates on the related pages, and submitted a direct request of Google to remove the page from results. If we successfully accomplish what you're striving for, I hope that you'll tell a few friends about the "almost uncontrollable" search engine optimization power of MyWikiBiz. So you know, "Oversight" is an extension to the base Mediawiki software. It's not installed here, and I don't even know if it is compliant with the Semantic Mediawiki extension. Sorry, we're not as advanced in tech management as Wikipedia. If there were a volunteer who would help us with such top-level sysop activities, who we could trust, we would consider a "future ownership" stake in the site. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 11:52, 24 February 2009 (PST)

Another option would be to redirect to another url.

<pre>
<embed>
<%
response.setStatus(301);
response.setHeader( "Location", "http://www.new-url.com/" );
response.setHeader( "Connection", "close" );
%>
</embed>
</pre>

:Thanks! It's not that my friend doesn't want to be affiliated with mywikibiz but it's just that he already has an entry in another notable wiki and you know how google is, it only lists one of all the iki entries you're in and this wiki seemed to top the list, which he didn't like because he didn't know that mywikibiz was a big part of wikipedia some time ago. Oh, well, thanks again!
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (PST)

== How long? ==

Until Google or any other search engine will no longer display it in searches? Did the robots.txt been placed in his page?
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 09:03, 25 February 2009 (PST)
:I don't know how long, but certainly longer than one day. I would guess six to ten days. I did not place a "robots.txt" file, but I did place the "NOINDEX" template that seems to do the trick on Wikipedia, so I hope it does the trick here. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:02, 25 February 2009 (PST)
:Meanwhile, let's get an outbound link to (erased name) in place, to help the search engine juice for that site. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:06, 25 February 2009 (PST)

== But ==
The noindex tag only pretty much is a sign board that says it's not indexed but for the noindex thing to work, it has to have the robots.txt thing in there. You know, kinda like, if a metal fence were to be marked with a "high-voltage" sign, it isn't really an assurance that it's high-voltage, it's the electricity that would assure it's "high-voltageness". But, thanks for the outbound link.
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 21:03, 25 February 2009 (PST)

== Could you put the robots.txt on his page? ==
Please? It's still listed in Google search. [[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 06:56, 28 February 2009 (PST)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-28T14:47:53Z

Angdl: robots request

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= 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 [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

== Oh my god, He got listed in google search ==

http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&q=napoleon+dagalea&btnG=Search&meta=

Sigh. If you can't delete his page completely from existence, could you atleast put a robot.txt in his page so that he will not get indexed by ANY search engine, ever? Please, if you could delete his page with oversight, please do so, if not, I humbly request the robot.txt
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 10:16, 24 February 2009 (PST)

:Ahh, the mighty power of MyWikiBiz. I've put "NOINDEX" templates on the related pages, and submitted a direct request of Google to remove the page from results. If we successfully accomplish what you're striving for, I hope that you'll tell a few friends about the "almost uncontrollable" search engine optimization power of MyWikiBiz. So you know, "Oversight" is an extension to the base Mediawiki software. It's not installed here, and I don't even know if it is compliant with the Semantic Mediawiki extension. Sorry, we're not as advanced in tech management as Wikipedia. If there were a volunteer who would help us with such top-level sysop activities, who we could trust, we would consider a "future ownership" stake in the site. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 11:52, 24 February 2009 (PST)

Another option would be to redirect to another url.

<pre>
<embed>
<%
response.setStatus(301);
response.setHeader( "Location", "http://www.new-url.com/" );
response.setHeader( "Connection", "close" );
%>
</embed>
</pre>

:Thanks! It's not that my friend doesn't want to be affiliated with mywikibiz but it's just that he already has an entry in another notable wiki and you know how google is, it only lists one of all the iki entries you're in and this wiki seemed to top the list, which he didn't like because he didn't know that mywikibiz was a big part of wikipedia some time ago. Oh, well, thanks again!
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (PST)

== How long? ==

Until Google or any other search engine will no longer display it in searches? Did the robots.txt been placed in his page?
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 09:03, 25 February 2009 (PST)
:I don't know how long, but certainly longer than one day. I would guess six to ten days. I did not place a "robots.txt" file, but I did place the "NOINDEX" template that seems to do the trick on Wikipedia, so I hope it does the trick here. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:02, 25 February 2009 (PST)
:Meanwhile, let's get an outbound link to (erased name) in place, to help the search engine juice for that site. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:06, 25 February 2009 (PST)

== But ==
The noindex tag only pretty much is a sign board that says it's not indexed but for the noindex thing to work, it has to have the robots.txt thing in there. You know, kinda like, if a metal fence were to be marked with a "high-voltage" sign, it isn't really an assurance that it's high-voltage, it's the electricity that would assure it's "high-voltageness". But, thanks for the outbound link.
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 21:03, 25 February 2009 (PST)

== Could you put the robots.txt on his page? ==
Please? It's still listed in Google search.

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-26T15:22:03Z

Angdl: erased name

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= 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 [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

== Oh my god, He got listed in google search ==

http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&q=napoleon+dagalea&btnG=Search&meta=

Sigh. If you can't delete his page completely from existence, could you atleast put a robot.txt in his page so that he will not get indexed by ANY search engine, ever? Please, if you could delete his page with oversight, please do so, if not, I humbly request the robot.txt
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 10:16, 24 February 2009 (PST)

:Ahh, the mighty power of MyWikiBiz. I've put "NOINDEX" templates on the related pages, and submitted a direct request of Google to remove the page from results. If we successfully accomplish what you're striving for, I hope that you'll tell a few friends about the "almost uncontrollable" search engine optimization power of MyWikiBiz. So you know, "Oversight" is an extension to the base Mediawiki software. It's not installed here, and I don't even know if it is compliant with the Semantic Mediawiki extension. Sorry, we're not as advanced in tech management as Wikipedia. If there were a volunteer who would help us with such top-level sysop activities, who we could trust, we would consider a "future ownership" stake in the site. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 11:52, 24 February 2009 (PST)

Another option would be to redirect to another url.

<pre>
<embed>
<%
response.setStatus(301);
response.setHeader( "Location", "http://www.new-url.com/" );
response.setHeader( "Connection", "close" );
%>
</embed>
</pre>

:Thanks! It's not that my friend doesn't want to be affiliated with mywikibiz but it's just that he already has an entry in another notable wiki and you know how google is, it only lists one of all the iki entries you're in and this wiki seemed to top the list, which he didn't like because he didn't know that mywikibiz was a big part of wikipedia some time ago. Oh, well, thanks again!
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (PST)

== How long? ==

Until Google or any other search engine will no longer display it in searches? Did the robots.txt been placed in his page?
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 09:03, 25 February 2009 (PST)
:I don't know how long, but certainly longer than one day. I would guess six to ten days. I did not place a "robots.txt" file, but I did place the "NOINDEX" template that seems to do the trick on Wikipedia, so I hope it does the trick here. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:02, 25 February 2009 (PST)
:Meanwhile, let's get an outbound link to (erased name) in place, to help the search engine juice for that site. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:06, 25 February 2009 (PST)

== But ==
The noindex tag only pretty much is a sign board that says it's not indexed but for the noindex thing to work, it has to have the robots.txt thing in there. You know, kinda like, if a metal fence were to be marked with a "high-voltage" sign, it isn't really an assurance that it's high-voltage, it's the electricity that would assure it's "high-voltageness". But, thanks for the outbound link.
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 21:03, 25 February 2009 (PST)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-26T05:03:43Z

Angdl: but...

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= 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 [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

== Oh my god, He got listed in google search ==

http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&q=napoleon+dagalea&btnG=Search&meta=

Sigh. If you can't delete his page completely from existence, could you atleast put a robot.txt in his page so that he will not get indexed by ANY search engine, ever? Please, if you could delete his page with oversight, please do so, if not, I humbly request the robot.txt
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 10:16, 24 February 2009 (PST)

:Ahh, the mighty power of MyWikiBiz. I've put "NOINDEX" templates on the related pages, and submitted a direct request of Google to remove the page from results. If we successfully accomplish what you're striving for, I hope that you'll tell a few friends about the "almost uncontrollable" search engine optimization power of MyWikiBiz. So you know, "Oversight" is an extension to the base Mediawiki software. It's not installed here, and I don't even know if it is compliant with the Semantic Mediawiki extension. Sorry, we're not as advanced in tech management as Wikipedia. If there were a volunteer who would help us with such top-level sysop activities, who we could trust, we would consider a "future ownership" stake in the site. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 11:52, 24 February 2009 (PST)

Another option would be to redirect to another url.

<pre>
<embed>
<%
response.setStatus(301);
response.setHeader( "Location", "http://www.new-url.com/" );
response.setHeader( "Connection", "close" );
%>
</embed>
</pre>

:Thanks! It's not that my friend doesn't want to be affiliated with mywikibiz but it's just that he already has an entry in another notable wiki and you know how google is, it only lists one of all the iki entries you're in and this wiki seemed to top the list, which he didn't like because he didn't know that mywikibiz was a big part of wikipedia some time ago. Oh, well, thanks again!
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (PST)

== How long? ==

Until Google or any other search engine will no longer display it in searches? Did the robots.txt been placed in his page?
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 09:03, 25 February 2009 (PST)
:I don't know how long, but certainly longer than one day. I would guess six to ten days. I did not place a "robots.txt" file, but I did place the "NOINDEX" template that seems to do the trick on Wikipedia, so I hope it does the trick here. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:02, 25 February 2009 (PST)
:Meanwhile, let's get an outbound link to [http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Napoleon_Dagalea Napoleon Nalitan Dagalea-Cimpeanu] in place, to help the search engine juice for that site. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:06, 25 February 2009 (PST)

== But ==
The noindex tag only pretty much is a sign board that says it's not indexed but for the noindex thing to work, it has to have the robots.txt thing in there. You know, kinda like, if a metal fence were to be marked with a "high-voltage" sign, it isn't really an assurance that it's high-voltage, it's the electricity that would assure it's "high-voltageness". But, thanks for the outbound link.
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 21:03, 25 February 2009 (PST)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-25T17:03:06Z

Angdl: How long?

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= 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 [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

== Oh my god, He got listed in google search ==

http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&q=napoleon+dagalea&btnG=Search&meta=

Sigh. If you can't delete his page completely from existence, could you atleast put a robot.txt in his page so that he will not get indexed by ANY search engine, ever? Please, if you could delete his page with oversight, please do so, if not, I humbly request the robot.txt
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 10:16, 24 February 2009 (PST)

:Ahh, the mighty power of MyWikiBiz. I've put "NOINDEX" templates on the related pages, and submitted a direct request of Google to remove the page from results. If we successfully accomplish what you're striving for, I hope that you'll tell a few friends about the "almost uncontrollable" search engine optimization power of MyWikiBiz. So you know, "Oversight" is an extension to the base Mediawiki software. It's not installed here, and I don't even know if it is compliant with the Semantic Mediawiki extension. Sorry, we're not as advanced in tech management as Wikipedia. If there were a volunteer who would help us with such top-level sysop activities, who we could trust, we would consider a "future ownership" stake in the site. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 11:52, 24 February 2009 (PST)

Another option would be to redirect to another url.

<pre>
<embed>
<%
response.setStatus(301);
response.setHeader( "Location", "http://www.new-url.com/" );
response.setHeader( "Connection", "close" );
%>
</embed>
</pre>

:Thanks! It's not that my friend doesn't want to be affiliated with mywikibiz but it's just that he already has an entry in another notable wiki and you know how google is, it only lists one of all the iki entries you're in and this wiki seemed to top the list, which he didn't like because he didn't know that mywikibiz was a big part of wikipedia some time ago. Oh, well, thanks again!
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (PST)

== How long? ==

Until Google or any other search engine will no longer display it in searches? Did the robots.txt been placed in his page?
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 09:03, 25 February 2009 (PST)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-25T17:02:21Z

Angdl: How long?

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= 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 [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

== Oh my god, He got listed in google search ==

http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&q=napoleon+dagalea&btnG=Search&meta=

Sigh. If you can't delete his page completely from existence, could you atleast put a robot.txt in his page so that he will not get indexed by ANY search engine, ever? Please, if you could delete his page with oversight, please do so, if not, I humbly request the robot.txt
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 10:16, 24 February 2009 (PST)

:Ahh, the mighty power of MyWikiBiz. I've put "NOINDEX" templates on the related pages, and submitted a direct request of Google to remove the page from results. If we successfully accomplish what you're striving for, I hope that you'll tell a few friends about the "almost uncontrollable" search engine optimization power of MyWikiBiz. So you know, "Oversight" is an extension to the base Mediawiki software. It's not installed here, and I don't even know if it is compliant with the Semantic Mediawiki extension. Sorry, we're not as advanced in tech management as Wikipedia. If there were a volunteer who would help us with such top-level sysop activities, who we could trust, we would consider a "future ownership" stake in the site. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 11:52, 24 February 2009 (PST)

Another option would be to redirect to another url.

<pre>
<embed>
<%
response.setStatus(301);
response.setHeader( "Location", "http://www.new-url.com/" );
response.setHeader( "Connection", "close" );
%>
</embed>
</pre>

:Thanks! It's not that my friend doesn't want to be affiliated with mywikibiz but it's just that he already has an entry in another notable wiki and you know how google is, it only lists one of all the iki entries you're in and this wiki seemed to top the list, which he didn't like because he didn't know that mywikibiz was a big part of wikipedia some time ago. Oh, well, thanks again!
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (PST)

== How long? ==

Until Google or any other search engine will no longer display it in searches? Did the robots.txt been placed in his page?

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-25T01:23:31Z

Angdl: thank you

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= 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 [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

== Oh my god, He got listed in google search ==

http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&q=napoleon+dagalea&btnG=Search&meta=

Sigh. If you can't delete his page completely from existence, could you atleast put a robot.txt in his page so that he will not get indexed by ANY search engine, ever? Please, if you could delete his page with oversight, please do so, if not, I humbly request the robot.txt
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 10:16, 24 February 2009 (PST)

:Ahh, the mighty power of MyWikiBiz. I've put "NOINDEX" templates on the related pages, and submitted a direct request of Google to remove the page from results. If we successfully accomplish what you're striving for, I hope that you'll tell a few friends about the "almost uncontrollable" search engine optimization power of MyWikiBiz. So you know, "Oversight" is an extension to the base Mediawiki software. It's not installed here, and I don't even know if it is compliant with the Semantic Mediawiki extension. Sorry, we're not as advanced in tech management as Wikipedia. If there were a volunteer who would help us with such top-level sysop activities, who we could trust, we would consider a "future ownership" stake in the site. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 11:52, 24 February 2009 (PST)

Another option would be to redirect to another url.

<pre>
<embed>
<%
response.setStatus(301);
response.setHeader( "Location", "http://www.new-url.com/" );
response.setHeader( "Connection", "close" );
%>
</embed>
</pre>

:Thanks! It's not that my friend doesn't want to be affiliated with mywikibiz but it's just that he already has an entry in another notable wiki and you know how google is, it only lists one of all the iki entries you're in and this wiki seemed to top the list, which he didn't like because he didn't know that mywikibiz was a big part of wikipedia some time ago. Oh, well, thanks again!
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (PST)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-24T18:16:14Z

Angdl: got indexed by google

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= 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 [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

== Oh my god, He got listed in google search ==

http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&q=napoleon+dagalea&btnG=Search&meta=

Sigh. If you can't delete his page completely from existence, could you atleast put a robot.txt in his page so that he will not get indexed by ANY search engine, ever? Please, if you could delete his page with oversight, please do so, if not, I humbly request the robot.txt
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 10:16, 24 February 2009 (PST)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-24T18:16:05Z

Angdl: got indexed by google

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|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 [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= 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 [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

== Oh my god, He got listed in google search ==

http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&q=napoleon+dagalea&btnG=Search&meta=

Sigh. If you can't delete his page completely from existence, could you atleast put a robot.txt in his page so that he will not get indexed by ANY search engine, ever? Please, if you could delete his page with oversight, please do so, if not, I humbly request the robot.txt

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-21T05:01:06Z

Angdl: ok

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:19, 10 February 2009 (PST)

== Please delete my article ==

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Napoleon_Dagalea
I personally blanked it and it's redirects, but the article still exist. Please delete it without a trace. I like your wiki, but the person himself said that he didn't want to be uploaded here. So, I have to go by his request. Please delete it ASAP.
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 20:07, 17 February 2009 (PST)

:The person is my friend, I didn't ask him why, he just didn't want to. If you have oversight authority, could you use that to delete the article? Please and thank you! [[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 07:07, 19 February 2009 (PST)

::Okay. I did delete the article, to the very limit of my sysop tools. I don't have the capacity of going into the server logs and removing the bare traces of the content. For what it's worth, it is gone from public view. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 07:26, 19 February 2009 (PST)

Wait, I clicked the link and though the article was blanked, his name is still in there. Could you delete that page please? [[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 02:02, 20 February 2009 (PST)

:I'm afraid I cannot delete any further in the system than what I did. I can "move" the article to a spurious title, and that may effective spurn any realistic traces of it. One thing is for sure, it won't show up (or at least survive a second pass by) any search engine results. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 07:31, 20 February 2009 (PST)

:Okay, I think I have successful rendered the above name virtually "unsearchable" on MyWikiBiz. Except for the above, of course, which you are welcome to change to "Wellington Aelagad", if you wish. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 07:56, 20 February 2009 (PST)

*Hmmm....could you change the name of the article to that then? And then delete the redirect page? I was thinking, do you know of the robot.txt? What it does is to make pages with that txt unsearchable by search engines.

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-20T10:02:07Z

Angdl: Redo

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:19, 10 February 2009 (PST)

== Please delete my article ==

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Napoleon_Dagalea
I personally blanked it and it's redirects, but the article still exist. Please delete it without a trace. I like your wiki, but the person himself said that he didn't want to be uploaded here. So, I have to go by his request. Please delete it ASAP.
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 20:07, 17 February 2009 (PST)

:The person is my friend, I didn't ask him why, he just didn't want to. If you have oversight authority, could you use that to delete the article? Please and thank you! [[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 07:07, 19 February 2009 (PST)

::Okay. I did delete the article, to the very limit of my sysop tools. I don't have the capacity of going into the server logs and removing the bare traces of the content. For what it's worth, it is gone from public view. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 07:26, 19 February 2009 (PST)

Wait, I clicked the link and though the article was blanked, his name is still in there. Could you delete that page please? [[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 02:02, 20 February 2009 (PST)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-20T09:53:02Z

Angdl: Blanked my post so that no search engines will find this page with his name on it.

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-20T09:48:37Z

Angdl: Thanks!

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:19, 10 February 2009 (PST)

== Please delete my article ==

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Napoleon_Dagalea
I personally blanked it and it's redirects, but the article still exist. Please delete it without a trace. I like your wiki, but the person himself said that he didn't want to be uploaded here. So, I have to go by his request. Please delete it ASAP.
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 20:07, 17 February 2009 (PST)

:The person is my friend, I didn't ask him why, he just didn't want to. If you have oversight authority, could you use that to delete the article? Please and thank you! [[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 07:07, 19 February 2009 (PST)

::Okay. I did delete the article, to the very limit of my sysop tools. I don't have the capacity of going into the server logs and removing the bare traces of the content. For what it's worth, it is gone from public view. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 07:26, 19 February 2009 (PST)

Thank you. [[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 01:48, 20 February 2009 (PST)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-19T15:07:41Z

Angdl: Reason for deletion

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:19, 10 February 2009 (PST)

== Please delete my article ==

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Napoleon_Dagalea
I personally blanked it and it's redirects, but the article still exist. Please delete it without a trace. I like your wiki, but the person himself said that he didn't want to be uploaded here. So, I have to go by his request. Please delete it ASAP.
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 20:07, 17 February 2009 (PST)

== Because ==
The person is my friend, I didn't ask him why, he just didn't want to. If you have oversight authority, could you use that to delete the article? Please and thank you! [[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 07:07, 19 February 2009 (PST)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-18T04:07:53Z

Angdl: Added my sig.

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:19, 10 February 2009 (PST)

== Please delete my article ==

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Napoleon_Dagalea
I personally blanked it and it's redirects, but the article still exist. Please delete it without a trace. I like your wiki, but the person himself said that he didn't want to be uploaded here. So, I have to go by his request. Please delete it ASAP.
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 20:07, 17 February 2009 (PST)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-02-18T04:07:26Z

Angdl: An article for deletion.

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

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.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

: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)
:: 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)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[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)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

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
[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)

: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)

::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. -- [[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%"
|
'''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... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|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, [[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)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search 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 [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:19, 10 February 2009 (PST)

== Please delete my article ==

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Napoleon_Dagalea
I personally blanked it and it's redirects, but the article still exist. Please delete it without a trace. I like your wiki, but the person himself said that he didn't want to be uploaded here. So, I have to go by his request. Please delete it ASAP.