71
edits
Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions
From Metroid Wiki
→Why do you hate Wikia?
| Line 207: | Line 207: | ||
::::You've just committed a logical fallacy, specifically the straw man fallacy. Our position goes like this: If you're touting your shampoo as the best, you actually have soap in the bottle. You guys are touting your shampoo as the best, but you only have ''water'' in the bottle (something which is illegal in the real world, I should mention). We wouldn't object to you guys using SEO if you had any content. [[User:RAN1|RAN1]] 23:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | ::::You've just committed a logical fallacy, specifically the straw man fallacy. Our position goes like this: If you're touting your shampoo as the best, you actually have soap in the bottle. You guys are touting your shampoo as the best, but you only have ''water'' in the bottle (something which is illegal in the real world, I should mention). We wouldn't object to you guys using SEO if you had any content. [[User:RAN1|RAN1]] 23:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::::No idea why banner ads is listed there. We presently have no plans of putting banner ads on the site, but if some day we did deem it necessary it would never be more than 3. One at the top, bottom, and sidebar. Not 3 or 4 at the top, 2 or 3 on teh side, 3 or 4 at the bottom, and then additional ads throughout the actual content. It's one thing to make profits off a site, it's another to completely monotize the hell of it to a point that it hurts the user experience. | |||
:::::I can understand not liking that term used on the front page from a competitors stand point. I have criticized many Zelda sites for claiming they are the best when it's clear they aren't. Using that shampoo reference, some companies are well aware their shampoo isn't the best, but they say it anyways. They are aware that it wont make your hair 30% shinier, fuller, etc etc. Is it false advertising? I guess, though that term has absolutely NOTHING to do with SEO and the actual advertising of the wiki itself. Now in terms of SEO and everything that is "listed" on that post you guys like to bring up... | |||
:::::None of that is "black seo". We do have content - 166 pages as of this post worth of content. We are taking this content and getting it out there. We aren't telling google to simply rank us #1 because we rock, we are telling them where we want them to spider our site. This does NOT guarentee anything other than that google will repeatedly check said pages for updates, and it is in those updates that we rise up google. When google isn't given a direction to look for content, it does it randomly. It will never spider your whole site in one run, let alone the most relevant content such as game pages or major characters, things that people are actually searching for in google. We also gave google a sitemap, which serves a similar purpose. None of that is black SEO. We aren't telling google to go to pages of content that don't exist. Were telling them to go to pages that will see repeated updates and to take that content and possibly rank it higher. All of what is in that post is an effort to get google to get our pages out there to people. No, we don't have 2,000 articles, but is it wrong to take what we do have and get it out there? No, I would think not. | |||
:::::We are do not lie about our wiki size. It says how big we are right on the front with the article count. It says before you even read that paragraph that we are new. We are not hiding what we are. Speaking in the plainest of senses, neither of our wiki's can be "the authorative source". It would make us an official source... were not, your not. It's just a word on the internet at this point. I honestly don't see (outside of that word) how we have gone out of our way to make us look better than we are. We are simply telling google what pages we want to get ranked for, and in doing so, telling them what pages to continually crawl. We do have content, even if you want to say all you want that have nowhere near the content Wikitroid has. We are not pretending to. We are simply taking what we do have and putting it on google. No crime no foul.[[User:Nathanial Rumphol-Janc|Nathanial Rumphol-Janc]] 06:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Round borders == | == Round borders == | ||
I ported over WiKirby's template for rounding borders easily in most browsers. Just replace -moz-border-radius:Xpx with <nowiki>{{round|x}}</nowiki> to get it done. Treat the template like a style command and place a semicolon after it if it isn't the last item in the styling. The X will be the radius, and it defaults to 15 if it isn't defined.{{:User:Neo/sig}} 16:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC) | I ported over WiKirby's template for rounding borders easily in most browsers. Just replace -moz-border-radius:Xpx with <nowiki>{{round|x}}</nowiki> to get it done. Treat the template like a style command and place a semicolon after it if it isn't the last item in the styling. The X will be the radius, and it defaults to 15 if it isn't defined.{{:User:Neo/sig}} 16:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
