Please AfD the Google_Watch article, It's so bad that I'm embarrassed Options

[Cyclopia]

There are a couple of idiots trying to argue "Keep" on the AfD page. One claimed that my name wasn't even mentioned in the article. I added this comment on that page:

My name is mentioned in the box on that page. Currently Wikipedia's Google_Watch article shows up as number 5 in a search for my name (without quotes around my name) on every one of the 61 Google data centers used by Scroogle. Even if my name wasn't in the box on that page, it would most likely rank the same. Neither Yahoo nor Bing rank on this Wikipedia article for my name. Until Wikipedia does something to control its Google rankings, I consider this a BLP issue. In the meantime, deletion of this article is the only reasonable solution. -- Daniel Brandt ~~~~

(ZOMG! A BANNED USER HAS ADDED A COMMENT! BAN HIM AGAIN! CALL JIMBO!)

That would be Cyclopia, of Miriam Sakewitz fame. This halfwit shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of BLP articles.

Someone called?

[EricBarbour]

(ZOMG! A BANNED USER HAS ADDED A COMMENT! BAN HIM AGAIN! CALL JIMBO!)

That would be Cyclopia, of Miriam Sakewitz fame. This halfwit shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of BLP articles.

Someone called?

Before anyone else comments, just let me say this.

Cyclopia, I think that you are a little shit.

You are helping to make Wikipedia suck, and obviously you also think it's fun.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 10th December 2009, 2:42am

[Tarc]

Some guy just added a "Google for Dummies" type book to the refs, stating that that now cements notability. The lulz just keep on rollin.

This post has been edited by Tarc: Thu 10th December 2009, 3:09am

[Cyclopia]

(ZOMG! A BANNED USER HAS ADDED A COMMENT! BAN HIM AGAIN! CALL JIMBO!)

That would be Cyclopia, of Miriam Sakewitz fame. This halfwit shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of BLP articles.

Someone called?

Before anyone else comments, just let me say this.

Cyclopia, I think that you are a little shit.

You are helping to make Wikipedia suck, and obviously you also think it's fun.

We agree to disagree.

Didn't expect a more constructive comment from WR, however.

If anyone has decent questions, happy to answer, that's the only reason I raised my head up. Other than that, goodbye again.

[Daniel Brandt]

The Google_Watch AfD was closed as a merge into Criticism _of_Google. For now, this means that a purple box is on top of the article. How long is that going to stay there? In other words, the important question is, "When does the Google_Watch article come down?"

Shouldn't there be a "noindex" meta in the article between now and then, so that the bots get the message? Better yet, if you have to save content for a day or two for the sake of the "mergists," why is the thing still in article space? The few paragraphs should be in Talk space or User space.

[Tarc]

No purple box, looks like NuclearWafare already added a blurb about GW to the article, and that should be the end of it.

Until someone fires up the inevitable DRV, of course...

[Daniel Brandt]

No purple box, looks like NuclearWafare already added a blurb about GW to the article, and that should be the end of it.

Until someone fires up the inevitable DRV, of course...

Okay, now the purple box is gone, but Google_Watch redirects to Criticism_of_Google. Wikipedia's redirects aren't really redirects, and now Criticism_of_Google will show up at number 5 in a search for my name on Google.

We went through this when my bio got redirected to the PIR article in June 2007. It took another year to get the PIR article deleted.

I say kill the redirect. It's the only way to purge this link to my name in Google's index. Anything that's on the first page of Google's results in a search for my name, is like low-hanging fruit for the Mark Binmores out there. You will start to see ugly lines about me in Criticism_of_Google that will persist for months or years.

[NuclearWarfare]

No purple box, looks like NuclearWafare already added a blurb about GW to the article, and that should be the end of it.

Until someone fires up the inevitable DRV, of course...

Okay, now the purple box is gone, but Google_Watch redirects to Criticism_of_Google. Wikipedia's redirects aren't really redirects, and now Criticism_of_Google will show up at number 5 in a search for my name on Google.

We went through this when my bio got redirected to the PIR article in June 2007. It took another year to get the PIR article deleted.

I say kill the redirect. It's the only way to purge this link to my name in Google's index.

Would you be OK with the page history being moved to Talk:Criticism of Google/Google Watch and noindexed? The redirect would be deleted in that case.

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare: Sat 12th December 2009, 2:16am

[Daniel Brandt]

Would you be OK with the page history being moved to Talk:Criticism of Google/Google Watch and noindexed? The redirect would be deleted in that case.

No, because archive.org has a history going back to January 15, 2004 for the Google_Watch article, with 27 versions during a four-year span. Having another history on Wikipedia is a wretched excess.

[Cimorene]

No purple box, looks like NuclearWafare already added a blurb about GW to the article, and that should be the end of it.

Until someone fires up the inevitable DRV, of course...

Sigh. Here it is.

[Random832]

Okay, now the purple box is gone, but Google_Watch redirects to Criticism_of_Google. Wikipedia's redirects aren't really redirects, and now Criticism_of_Google will show up at number 5 in a search for my name on Google.

As I've pointed out every time you've said this in the past, this has nothing to do with not being real redirects because Google gives the same treatment to real redirects. Maybe even more so since the page rank of both pages combines.

But, more to the point - unlike the time when there was a redirect from your name to the PIR article, your name isn't in this URL. And "google juice" doesn't stay permanently with a page as the content changes, as I'm sure you learned while refining your google-manipulation techniques. As long as the article doesn't mention your name, it should drop off the google results quickly. (Did the PIR article ever not mention your name?)

This post has been edited by Random832: Sat 12th December 2009, 5:16am

[Daniel Brandt]

Okay, now the purple box is gone, but Google_Watch redirects to Criticism_of_Google. Wikipedia's redirects aren't really redirects, and now Criticism_of_Google will show up at number 5 in a search for my name on Google.

As I've pointed out every time you've said this in the past, this has nothing to do with not being real redirects because Google gives the same treatment to real redirects. Maybe even more so since the page rank of both pages combines.

But, more to the point - unlike the time when there was a redirect from your name to the PIR article, your name isn't in this URL. And "google juice" doesn't stay permanently with a page as the content changes, as I'm sure you learned while refining your google-manipulation techniques. As long as the article doesn't mention your name, it should drop off the google results quickly. (Did the PIR article ever not mention your name?)

And I pointed out to you that if my name is in the anchor text of the links pointing to the page (and now that page is the Criticism page, not the original Google_Watch article), then this matters more than whether the name is on the page itself.

I noticed this back in 2002. One blogger in Italy stuck my name in the title of one post, and his blog post shot up to number one in a search for my name.

Do a search for "namebase" in Google. The Public Interest Registry is number 6. I sold the pir.org domain to the Registry in early 2003. There were three full months of redirects to namebase.org written into the contract. I also spent a huge number of hours asking everyone I could find who linked to namebase when it was pir.org, to change their link to namebase.org.

Almost seven years later, what do we see? It's still at number 6. The word "namebase" is nowhere on the pir.org site, and hasn't been since I sold the domain. Is seven years — and still going strong — what you mean by "dropping off the Google results quickly"?

Here's another example: My name is not on the wikipedia-watch.org home page and hasn't been for about two years. Yet that page comes up number one in a search for my name. Why do you think that happens? It's because external links pointing to that page contain my name in the anchor text (or maybe in close proximity to the anchor text, like in the same sentence).

The external links that pointed to the Google_Watch article caused it to show up at number 5 on Google in a search for my name. Yes my name was on that page once, in tiny print. But much more significantly, the external links pointing to that Wikipedia article are providing juice for my name. Now those same external links are providing that exact same juice for my name as it points to the Criticism article. That article doesn't contain my name, but I doubt that this will make a difference. Moreover, can you guarantee that no one will ever insert my name in that article?

Yes, my name was in the PIR article. But that wasn't the most important factor. As soon as the redirect from the bio to PIR was in place, the PIR article slammed into first place for a search on my name. The juice from my name in the PIR article helped somewhat, but the major juice was my name in or close to the anchor text of external links — the links that used to point to my bio. Now they all pointed to the PIR article.

The redirect has to come down, and I'll keep fighting to get it taken down. The question isn't how much you or I know, or don't know, about Google. The real question is why does Wikipedia have to make it so hard for me to get off of their damn site?

[Random832]

I notice that the NameBase article appears nowhere in the search results for your name. How many links are there, in fact, to the Google_Watch url [i.e. now to the Criticism article] that use your name in the anchor text?

[Trick cyclist]

* Google Watch – Closed as MOOT as DRV cannot undo a merge. Merges are a matter for editorial discretion and do not require admin tools to fix. Please see WP:ND3. – Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So I can undo the merge? (Ducks)

This post has been edited by Trick cyclist: Sat 12th December 2009, 6:36pm

[Daniel Brandt]

* Google Watch – Closed as MOOT as DRV cannot undo a merge. Merges are a matter for editorial discretion and do not require admin tools to fix. Please see WP:ND3. – Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So I can undo the merge? (Ducks)

NuclearWarfare should kill the redirect. In the AfD, there were only four recommendations for a redirect among the eighteen "Delete" votes. I don't think NuclearWarfare was aware of the problem with redirects, and the fact that I would object to a redirect.

If it goes to DRV after killing the redirect, well, I'll take my chances in DRV. If I lose in DRV and Google_Watch comes back, I'll just resume the battle.

[Alison]

NuclearWarfare should kill the redirect. In the AfD, there were only four recommendations for a redirect among the eighteen "Delete" votes. I don't think NuclearWarfare was aware of the problem with redirects, and the fact that I would object to a redirect.

And he's done just that

[NuclearWarfare]

NuclearWarfare should kill the redirect. In the AfD, there were only four recommendations for a redirect among the eighteen "Delete" votes. I don't think NuclearWarfare was aware of the problem with redirects, and the fact that I would object to a redirect.

And he's done just that

It's also gone to DRV (again), so don't get your hopes up.

[Trick cyclist]

Hmm the only supports so far for deletion come from well-known WR trolls MZMcBride and Lar. (Even prominent ED admin Alison hasn't supported.) Clearly this is a WR conspiracy.

[EricBarbour]

It's also gone to DRV (again), so don't get your hopes up.

There need to be userboxes for fledgling DRV inclusionist trolls. Coffee and Cyclopia are on the shortlist.

[NuclearWarfare]

It's also gone to DRV (again), so don't get your hopes up.

There need to be userboxes for fledgling DRV inclusionist trolls. Coffee and Cyclopia are on the shortlist.

Coffee? An inclusionist? Are you sure you aren't confusing him with someone else?