Hiding off-topic from unregistered users

[Ebonic Tutor]

I know that this opinion might be unpopular ....

But your ratings might benefit from breaking up megathreads.

700 pages is a lot to read for anybody and if guests come on with a naive opinion, they are often shouted down and insulted and run off the road. Of course they GTFO, and take their negative opinion with them.

In the real world, that amounts to a shit-ass reputation, and people will avoid the site when it comes up in their Google searches.

The assholes aside, they might lose interest when they see 600 pages of reading.

Well-tagged, briefer threads might be the way to go.

If you are looking to increase page-views and clicks, fostering a culture run by an exclusive "in-group" of shitposters won't be competitive for your site, moving forward.

Oh look another talking point from when the SA Troon Squad shit up GBS a few years back.

"I don't understand the culture here and I want it to bend to my will"

Doing all that shit on SA did fuck-all for it's SEO ratings as well, in fact they went down as people got tired and just quit coming back cause it wasn't the site they joined in the first place.

We know Google does fucky things with the search results if they don't like you or your ideas, and guess who the troons don't like? Guess who Google employs a lot of? It's not complicated, but it's hard to prove.

 

[Non-Expert!]

Oh look another talking point from when the SA Troon Squad shit up GBS a few years back.

"I don't understand the culture here and I want it to bend to my will"

Doing all that shit on SA did fuck-all for it's SEO ratings as well, in fact they went down as people got tired and just quit coming back cause it wasn't the site they joined in the first place.

We know Google does fucky things with the search results if they don't like you or your ideas, and guess who the troons don't like? Guess who Google employs a lot of? It's not complicated, but it's hard to prove.

Not quite clear on your "talking points" and "troon" and "GBS" references, I am sorry.

And absolutely on Google tweaking search results. I was reluctant to "go there" because I don't like presenting information if it is hurtful, demoralizing and difficult to prove and even more difficult to solve.

However, since you did ...

Nazi, And look at the search results for Nazi .... looks awfully curated to me ....

One reddish flag for me, is that if you are writing a paper on Nazi Germany, your instructor won't allow you to cite Wikipedia because the content is always in flux.

Unfortunately it appears that Google is something of a mother hen.

We sat in on an internal Google meeting where they talked about changing the search algorithm — here's what we learned

CNBC sat in on a launch review meeting for a change to Google's search algorithm. It was predictably data-driven and hyper-specific.

www.cnbc.com

They tweaked the results of the search "did the holocaust really happen?" to answer "yes" and prevent holocaust deniers from getting a word in edgewise. See above article for specifics.

Here is another one:

Google Algorithm Update History - Penguin, Panda and more.

This chart lists EVERY known or suspected algorithm change plus other factors that could affect your site's ranking. Latest Penguin/Panda update dates too.

www.mariehaynes.com

I also think that the suggestions of having an internal rating system for content is not all about "making the site comfortable for me-me-me-me." Web content and people's browsing needs do evolve. Yahoo Answers is an excellent example of adapting to current needs. Not that they did a good job. But they undergone many metamorphoses because after awhile most of the world's questions had been answered and accessible.

EDIT:

Lol "mad at the internet" rating

Pretty damn insightful considering that one corporation controls the flow of information? And sideline this site because it questions hypocrisies we are forced to live by?

 

[Kosher Salt]

One reddish flag for me, is that if you are writing a paper on Nazi Germany, your instructor won't allow you to cite Wikipedia because the content is always in flux.

Wikipedia is NEVER a scholarly reference about ANYTHING.

Wikipedia cites its sources. If you want to include something that you read on Wikipedia, you're supposed to go to the source where they got it, and cite that.

 

[Non-Expert!]

Wikipedia is NEVER a scholarly reference about ANYTHING.

Wikipedia cites its sources. If you want to include something that you read on Wikipedia, you're supposed to go to the source where they got it, and cite that.

Right... we are on the same page there. But is this something that the majority know?

Don't want to derail. My only point is, that of millions of sources on Nazi Germany, it appears that Wikipedia was hand-picked.

If you do a search for allergic rhinitis, Mayo Clinic shows up first, despite Wikipedia having its own page on the topic.

More people in general search Wikipedia, so why is Mayo Clinic, also one of hundreds of medical information sources, first?

 

[HOMO FOR LIFE]

Wikipedia may come up first because the site is the most relevant to the topic, pages are categorized and edits are made in constant. Google sends out little spider bots across the er...web and finds out the most relevant, most newest and most popular website in connection to the search inquiry.

Forum is TERRIBLE for that kind of result because contents in general are usually irrelevant and uncategorized.

Go search "Chris Chan" and I bet you kiwifarms doesn't show up the slightest and if you don't show up on first page, you might as well as be dead.

Also backlinks help alot but no fucking sane person is going to link back to kiwifarms intentionally

 

[Non-Expert!]

Google's quality rating system

Sorry cumbersome read.

Null is right about the plagiarism problem influencing a potentially downwardly spiraling feedback loop: mechanically assigned poor page quality -> lowering page rank -> reduction of page views and clicks-> decrease in exposure and enrollment-> less fresh content -> subsequent loss of popularity-> empowering competition -> mechanically assigned poor page quality ->

Based on the read from Google I detect other factors that are triggering the big-brother-type rubric/rating system, that has caused this season's downturn,

But this forum is his baby, and love-child and he is a bright guy who can figure it out. Unsolicited advice can be taken as criticism. There are also many, many bright and tech-savvy individuals on this site. If he wants suggestions he knows where and how to ask.

I personally don't see gloom and doom. There is ALWAYS a workaround.

 

[Unog]

I'll readily admit that I'm not knowledgeable on how websites work, but why is the SEO for the farms tanking such an apocalyptically terrible scenario? I'd understand if the site were run off of ad money, but it doesn't really make much sense to me since it (afaik) isn't.

 

[Bad Headspace]

Any positive effect since that subforum was hidden?

 

[Unog]

Any positive effect since that subforum was hidden?

A few people achieved hands-free orgasm, apparently.

 

[Bad Headspace]

A few people achieved hands-free orgasm, apparently.

Worth it.

 

[Ira the Weatherman]

If you are looking to increase page-views and clicks, fostering a culture run by an exclusive "in-group" of shitposters won't be competitive for your site, moving forward.

I agree that some of the megathreads could benefit from a more orderly OP detailing major events in the thread's history. Reading through a 1000+ page thread where long and detailed posts are the norm can take literal weeks, even if you're a NEET slob, which might be too much for folks who just want to chuckle to themselves about weirdos a few minutes a day.

I have to disagree with the quoted part, though. I'm still a newfag and this forum probably already has one of the most mellow and inclusive cultures you can expect from a site like this, which is one of the things I like about it. Everything you need to know rule-wise is calmly and clearly explained to you, and everything that isn't can be learned by way of the time-tested strategy of lurking the fuck moar, which works even better for this site than it does for the chans. I fail to see how you could make it even more 'inclusive' without using some coercive and speech-restricting methods, which would go firmly against the underlying philosophy of this place and would alienate the existing base far more than it would attract newcomers.

 

[Non-Expert!]

I agree that some of the megathreads could benefit from a more orderly OP detailing major events in the thread's history. Reading through a 1000+ page thread where long and detailed posts are the norm can take literal weeks, even if you're a NEET slob, which might be too much for folks who just want to chuckle to themselves about weirdos a few minutes a day.

I have to disagree with the quoted part, though. I'm still a newfag and this forum probably already has one of the most mellow and inclusive cultures you can expect from a site like this, which is one of the things I like about it. Everything you need to know rule-wise is calmly and clearly explained to you, and everything that isn't can be learned by way of the time-tested strategy of lurking the fuck moar, which works even better for this site than it does for the chans. I fail to see how you could make it even more 'inclusive' without using some coercive and speech-restricting methods, which would go firmly against the underlying philosophy of this place and would alienate the existing base far more than it would attract newcomers.

The issue at hand is the site's ratings and page-views, not what you or I personally think about some people, who say certain things and do certain things and act in certain ways.

Literally.no.one.gives.a.rats.ass, for the purposes of this discussion. The only way that our sentiments and comfort levels are relevant, are as a metric for how others might feel when they decide if they want to keep clicking here or gtfo and never look back.

Google has openly published a manual for their quality control web editors, some 4,000 of them all over the world. So basically they have an internal rating system for websites, that is open and publicly available. You have right there, a laundry list of metrics they apply to determine if a site is low quality or high quality, based purely on the content and the mission of the site.

Our dear friends at Stormfront got knocked all the way down to the bottom of the barrel, due to the content of the site. That effectively made them invisible to potential new recruits.

Google doesn't seem to have the same appreciation or tolerance for genuine diversity as we do. So if you do a search on "White homeland," which is one of their major themes, Stormfront doesn't even appear. But who the hell is researching a topic like that, except for people who want one? Nobody else discusses this. Except, of course, dorks like myself.

So they sacrificed visibility, for their own particular culture, since they are stuck playing by Google's rules.

I'll readily admit that I'm not knowledgeable on how websites work, but why is the SEO for the farms tanking such an apocalyptically terrible scenario? I'd understand if the site were run off of ad money, but it doesn't really make much sense to me since it (afaik) isn't.

The answer to your question:

Because it is so. No sarcasm intended.

 

[Ira the Weatherman]

The issue at hand is the site's ratings and page-views, not what you or I personally think about some people, who say certain things and do certain things and act in certain ways.

I'm aware of that. The point was that there doesn't seem to be any evidence that making this place more 'inclusive' is going to benefit Google's algorithms, which seems to move in mysterious ways, but that it might in fact be counterproductive. I think the average Kiwi recruit would be turned away by a more safe board culture, rather than enticed. They will naturally lean towards free speech absolutism and edgy humor, and be skeptical of MSM branding of things as fascist or racist, if they are already entertaining the notion of this place as their new stomping ground.

Our dear friends at Stormfront got knocked all the way down to the bottom of the barrel, due to the content of the site. That effectively made them invisible to potential new recruits.

I'm pretty sure Stormfront never really got massive traction because of random Google searches, but that most people that post there got there through word of mouth and mentions of the sites in more mainstream communities. And I think that applies in large part to this site as well. I discovered this site because people talked about it on a certain now-nuked subreddits, not because I stumbled on it while googling lol cows I wouldn't have known about without this forum in the first place. I think you'll always have people trickling in organically through these means, regardless of nominal visibility, and major happenings like Nool's response to Worst Kiwi land will dramatically increase the site's profile among netizens, even if that is in inverse proportion to Google ratings.

 

[Non-Expert!]

I'm aware of that. The point was that there doesn't seem to be any evidence that making this place more 'inclusive' is going to benefit Google's algorithms, which seems to move in mysterious ways, but that it might in fact be counterproductive. I think the average Kiwi recruit would be turned away by a more safe board culture, rather than enticed. They will naturally lean towards free speech absolutism and edgy humor, and be skeptical of MSM branding of things as fascist or racist, if they are already entertaining the notion of this place as their new stomping ground.

I'm pretty sure Stormfront never really got massive traction because of random Google searches, but that most people that post there got there through word of mouth and mentions of the sites in more mainstream communities. And I think that applies in large part to this site as well. I discovered this site because people talked about it on a certain now-nuked subreddits, not because I stumbled on it while googling lol cows I wouldn't have known about without this forum in the first place. I think you'll always have people trickling in organically through these means, regardless of nominal visibility, and major happenings like Nool's response to Worst Kiwi land will dramatically increase the site's profile among netizens, even if that is in inverse proportion to Google ratings.

The only person who can make these decisions is Null himself. He has information to work with, he can apply it how he wishes and strategize given the constraints he faces, or doesn't face, depending on his point of view.

 

[HOMO FOR LIFE]

Null should consider attaching wikiformat to enhance the website visibility. Forum is terrible for SEO and generating search engine traffic from random searches.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

Any positive effect since that subforum was hidden?

More shitposters.

That's a positive, right?

Edit: Oops. Had an old quote in there.

 

[Non-Expert!]

Null should consider attaching wikiformat to enhance the website visibility. Forum is terrible for SEO and generating search engine traffic from random searches.

Just out of curiosity, how do you do that?

Doesn't that spell the end for a discussion forum, where every post is content contributed by one sole user?

 

[HOMO FOR LIFE]

Just out of curiosity, how do you do that?

Doesn't that spell the end for a discussion forum, where every post is content contributed by one sole user?

There will be wikisection and there will be "current discussion" forum section.

But this is for the sake of SEO and us appearing on Google search for terms like Chris Chan and whatever lolcow is out there.

Obviously I haven't thought this out and is rather a nugget of an idea.

 

[Non-Expert!]

There will be wikisection and there will be "current discussion" forum section.

But this is for the sake of SEO and us appearing on Google search for terms like Chris Chan and whatever lolcow is out there.

Obviously I haven't thought this out and is rather a nugget of an idea.

Ooh like a wiki-section where it looks like the general public is contributing, explaining what is going on ... like defining incels for example, and summarizing the content of the thread .... while loading it up with keywords and presenting an index system?

I can see Google loving the justification and explanation of the site's quirkiness ...

Except the user base would, for lack of a better term .... fucking hate it.

Is this kind of where you are going?

That would have a Greek chorus type of effect.

 

[Null]

You can see the number of valid pages reduced significantly around the time this thread was made, with an inverse association with our impression count. Removing A&H plagiarism had an immediate affect on search engine favoritism.