2,322
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
This is a bit screwy. The main name of the article is the ALIAS, and one is redirected from the true name to the ALIAS -- absurd
[[User:PaulR|PaulR]]
The google cache will not live forever -- may want to import it. [[User:Zardoz|Zardoz]] 16:15, 22 Feb 2005 (EST)
The next time, PaulR, step up and be a "man" about it and say "AI, this is a bit screwy." But, I don't agree, it's a simple matter of math:
*Yahoo! Search finds 145,000 hits for "Jeff Gannon" and 24,200 for "James Guckert" .. a ratio of 6:1
*Google Search finds 271,000 hits for "Jeff Gannon" and 32,800 for "James Guckert" .. a ratio of 8.3:1
The most obvious answer is that there is more interest, more emphasis, and a whole lot more folks who are looking for, writing about, and concerned about the "ALIAS", as you put it.
Another hint was that both the ''Wikipedia'' and ''dKosopedia'', as well as many others, are using the "Jeff Gannon" label.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon "Jeff Gannon"] in the ''Wikipedia''.
*[http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Jeff_Gannon "Jeff Gannon"] in the dKosopedia.
I could go on ... but, that's my two-cents worth, for what it's worth.
AI UPDATED 18:13 EST 22 Feb 2005
== still odd ==
>>The next time, PaulR, step up and be a "man" about it and say "AI, this is a bit screwy." But, I don't agree, it's a simple matter of math: <<
So, to meet this odd Google thingie you create an oddity in SW. If folks look for Gannon -- they can also be redirected to the main entry via Gannon --> Main Article (Guckert). I don't see why this would hamper Google.
Furthermore, is that the objective of SW to strive to be at the top of Google? Hmmm...
AI, I still think this is awkward. And I don't see why one should have to be a "man" to say that.
[[User:PaulR|PaulR]]
1. You have missed the point, PaulR. Since I was the one who changed the main article's name, then it would perhaps have been a bit less awkward had you addressed me about it directly and not in the abstract. Hence the phrase to "step up and be a 'man' about it."
2. Since I have been working intensely on following the various blogs, etc., on this particular article for several days, it became patently clear that the focus, regardless of the area of interest, the predominant use of the man's name is "Jeff Gannon." It is "Jeff" who worked for Talon, if is "Jeff" who was the "reporter" in the WH press room, it is "Jeff" who appears in the bylines, it is even "Jeff" who is represented on his web sites and in his chosen "profession." We only know of him by his given name because it was discovered.
It is, therefore, perhaps, for that reason that the hits for "Jeff" surpass those for "James Guckert" ...
3. It is not, as you put it, "to strive to be at the top of Google" that I made the decision to change the focus name. It is because I felt it appropriate to conform to what appeared to be -- in all my searching -- the most common denominator, i.e. "Jeff".
4. And, yes, I do believe that SW is more than just a repository ... it is a resource and as a resource is only useful when it is used. In the internet world, that means SW wants others to find what they are looking for and be of use. The redirect from "James Guckert" to "Jeff Gannon" accomplishes that for those out there who are looking for "James Guckert", it is clear that, based on the statistics, is less frequently employed by writers.
5. I don't recall that this had anything to do with Google. It has to do with the commonality, which just happens to be that Google proves the predominance of Gannon over Guckert.
Ok .. enough ... back to constructive work ..
AI 5/23/05 06:19 EST
clearout
