Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you trying to say Jimmy Wales is corrupt because he didn't let you have a separate page for every Lord of the Rings character?
Self-dealing is a bad look no matter how you try to spin it. Being fussy about what is and isn't "encyclopedic" (arguably a self-defining idea anyway though) is fine, until it benefits you to rule a certain way, then people are going to speculate. Also, nobody knows how much money Jimmy Wales took home from selling Fandom to TPG/IMC.
There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis
231–240 of 240 posts
Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's paid. Some people use brave because it's free and not google. More than duckduckgo
Free isn’t free, you get what you pay for and you’ll pay one way or another
I generally agree with your sentiment against trusting free services/things.
I agree with paying for Kagi.
But I can see why people try to be frugal with their money and use free services.
The problem is handing over money guarantees nothing.
Money provides the opportunity for the other party to do the right thing by you. But they may take your money and do the shitty thing anyway. Particularly when you have no real way to tell - like most people using the internet.
Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-dealing is a bad look no matter how you try to spin it. Being fussy about what is and isn't "encyclopedic" (arguably a self-defining idea anyway though) is fine, until it benefits you to rule a certain way, then people are going to speculate. Also, nobody knows how much money Jimmy Wales took home from selling Fandom to TPG/IMC.
The problem was in the early days when people were still mocking the idea of a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, journalists would snark about how (for example) the article on Captain Kirk was longer than some historical figure. So you can see how fictional content was seen as "embarrassing"
Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-dealing is a bad look no matter how you try to spin it. Being fussy about what is and isn't "encyclopedic" (arguably a self-defining idea anyway though) is fine, until it benefits you to rule a certain way, then people are going to speculate. Also, nobody knows how much money Jimmy Wales took home from selling Fandom to TPG/IMC.
So when Stack Overflow operates Stack Overflow, for programming questions, and Super User, for usage questions, and directs a computer usage question to Super User, that's corruption?
Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is a person on the other end it’s not someone who has any link to the company, they’ll be an outsourced service, so all you’d be doing is sending graphic porn to a poorly paid worker. It’s like screaming at a cashier because the supermarket head office made annoying changes to the company.
The cashier still gets paid mind you, if he can put up with it it's the company who is inconvenienced by the slower queue.
The cashier is a real human doing a job to put food on the table and has done nothing to deserve it, and may well have been far more hurt by the head office than you.
Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would bet $100 against your prediction. There are multiple game studios with their official wikis on weirdgloop's infra. Runescape players basically live off its wiki, it's that mandatory, and Jagex is well aware and OK with that.
How many are on fandom?
Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Will old domains resell for premiums like low-background-radiation steel? This has been a thing for a long time in domain name resale for speculation or link farming or similar, domains that are aged with "backlinks" sell for more money. https://www.google.com/search?&q=domain+resale+backlinks
Private blog networks is another term in that side of the world. They're explicitly designed to look legit even to a human but give link juice to the spam world (which also look legit to a human). And the HN crowd say "I can spot an AI website a mile away!!!". Well cool, and good for you, but many people cannot. In fact, if you can, they are glad you are so smart and are leaving. Why? Because you wont convert. The ta…
PBNs are designed to look legit to a Google manual review, to remain indexed, to retain whatever value Google gave to the previous legit incarnation of the site. (The key marketplace for sourcing candidate PBN websites are expired domains that recently had strong search engine rankings)
It's a pure organic SEO play, not a human conversion play. The idea is that the PBN site has a retained link value. And that link value is used to (directly or indirectly) link to a site that is the money site, to boost the search rankings of that money site.
The money site isn't going to be an AI-slop site, it's going to be the polished well-optimised, well-performing as it can be. The PBNs that give the money site credence, that varies based on how much work the money-site owner is willing to spend on the network. The lower end is not even AI-slop, but a static website programmatically generated by content spinning and synonym replacement, where the content is scraped from other sites or perhaps even archive.org snapshots of long dead sites.
If enough independent-looking, diverse-seeming, legit-looking sites are linking to a commercial site, that suggests an element of trust and respectability. That's what PBN creators rely on, creating the appearance of authoritativeness good enough to fool/coerce Google into ranking the money site higher.
Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
In recent years I've thought about making blogs, videos, etc to share knowledge, but the incentive is just no longer there. Even before AI, youtube/web search/etc had plenty of problems, and now they're compounded.
My incentive was merely to catalogue some historical things that were not catalogued elsewhere. Google, Wikipedia etc. LLMs knew only what was on Wikipedia. I don't mind that LLMs will find it....I used a bunch of agents to find sources for them and produce summaries of it, and even to build the site. It took a lot of human research too, but all my notes and snippets were sent to LLMs. I hope this means no more of th…
With LLMs replacing Google search results, the incentive for creating website content is changing again.
And I'm reaching the same conclusions as you: "In summary, if the incentive is to find things for your own amusement, the incentive is still there!". I think we are reverting back to our original form of the Web.
Before the commercialisation of content. Also of the early blog days, when we wrote about stuff because we found it interesting, not because of conversion rates and eyeball counts, and session lengths.
And we found great stuff by serendipity and casual mentions in conversation -- like you right here. :-)
I suppose, with a rekindling of writing for our own amusement, we're going to need a catalogue of sites, to help people serendipitously discover these varied interests. yet another hierarchical officious oracle, maybe?
Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis
#239Anyone remember when "Fandom" was called Wikia? It really started going down the gutter when it started TikTokifying itself by trying to act as an entertainment hub. It was supposed to be a neutral resource for people to build community-driven knowledge bases but it turned into some real gamified garbage. I've never really been comfortable with the concept of addressing a "fandom" as one whole anyway, even in general…
I still call it Wikia on reflex.
Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on which part. It is certainly heading down the same route as Wikipedia with all the problems that entails. You're usually better off on a smaller Fandom wiki as it won't have beeb taken over yet. The James Bond wiki is particularly bad, but Memory Alpha seems to be better run.
> Memory Alpha seems to be better run. Some few months ago I couldn't find actors credits for particular roles they had in Star Trek franchise. For whatever reasons these bits were removed but still were present within Wayback Machine. Then again, in the past I've seen hostile take-overs of fan made wikis into wikia/fandom "infrastructure". In one case wiki was copied, in time articles were slightly edited and new co…