[GET-dev] web hits ranking

krobasky at gmail.com krobasky at gmail.com
Thu Jun 24 16:46:05 EDT 2010

I say a little of both works great, in my experience. Link if they  
link to you but only if the link adds value to your users. Further, Id  
bet anybody we ask for a link will give it to us, so the link back  
thing really shouldn't be an issue. Still, I wouldn't be stingy, a  
good resource might be in your link directory, regardless of linkbacks

And don't believe what you read, search engines absolutely do reward  
this behavior, though theyd like you to believe otherwise.

In my experience, adwords is for websites devoid of useful content. We  
should never need adwords.

The biggest win on link exchange is to get our interactive banner all  
over the place, making web ratings really accessible and ubiquitous.  
Maybe I should make a mockup to explain this better.

Now about the curator role, who will be the curator?  I thought we had  
no curator... I sure don't want that job ;) if we are to use Sashas  
idea of crowd sourcing, we need to get past the idea of a single  
moderator. How does that work on a wiki?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 24, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Tom Clegg <tom at tomclegg.net> wrote:

>> Are you familiar with the webhosting "link exchange" strategy?
> IMO our decision to advertise/link to x, y, z should be completely
> independent of whether they [intend to] link to us.  Much better to
> select them based on how useful they are to our users.
> Philosophically, but also because I assume search engines do their
> best to distinguish "link exchange" links from "honest reference"
> links.  If we need some more publicity, I'd be more inclined to use
> adwords.
> In any case, based on Trait-o-matic's search index performance, I
> predict GET-Evidence will do extremely well on Google et al. based on
> content alone.
> I do like the ideas about providing incentives for "all-star
> contributors" and "all-star referrals".
> More ideas for collecting info to rate editors (with basically  
> random # values):
> * curator accepts edit: editor gets +1 (basically "non-spam edit")

> * user endorses edit: editor gets +10 (e.g. curator hits "non-trivial
> edit" when accepting?)
> * user endorses page: each editor gets +5
> * user endorses editor: editor gets +50
> * max +score for a single article: 50
> AFAIK the reason robots.txt is still there is that we don't yet have
> "curator" functionality (i.e. newcomers shouldn't be able to post
> publicly-viewable spam).  So, we should focus on doing that in such a
> way that editors accumulate points as the edits are accepted.  Then
> add other ways of accumulating points.
> I think it would also be helpful if editors (who have had edits
> accepted) can provide some basic info like affiliation or an "about
> me" page, so users can get a better idea of whose stuff they're
> reading/editing.
> (Ideally all openids would *be* "about me" links, like Madeleine's...
> but afaik there is no way to achieve that with Google, for example.)
> Tom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.arvados.org/pipermail/arvados/attachments/20100624/283357fa/attachment.html>

More information about the Arvados mailing list