Does anyone watch Google's PageRanking? I'm pretty sure we shot up 1.5 points in the past month.
When I installed my Google toolbar, both [link] and [link] had a (3/10) ranking. Now [link] has a 5/10, and [link] a 4/10.
Willow: It feels like we're going around in circles. Xander: Our circles are going around in circles. We got dizzy circles here.
'Sleeper'
Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
§ ita § - Apr 14, 2004 12:03:53 pm PDT #29 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Lyra Jane - Apr 14, 2004 12:09:26 pm PDT #30 of 10001
Up with the sun
What does the page ranking mean, ita?
And as for the thread title and slug: I liked "Lovesick, my ass" for the thread title. Slug could be something like, "Surrender to destiny and discuss unaired episodes of Wonderfalls here. Please don't request copies."
§ ita § - Apr 14, 2004 12:11:49 pm PDT #31 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
It's "Google's measure of the importance of this page." I think it's generated by how many people link to it.
Jon B. - Apr 14, 2004 12:26:55 pm PDT #32 of 10001
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
Do we want "Wonderfalls" in the slug? I thought we wanted it to be more stealthy.
§ ita § - Apr 14, 2004 12:29:35 pm PDT #33 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Who are we hiding from? Search engines or humans? Do search engines rank proximity? Because the front page will come up for wonderfalls spoilers anyway. Not putting Wonderfalls in the slug might make it come up less high, but the basic ship has sailed.
Lyra Jane - Apr 14, 2004 12:29:53 pm PDT #34 of 10001
Up with the sun
I couldn't remember which way we had gone on that, Jon. I thought it was okay to have it in the slug 'cos it isn't Googleable?
Kat - Apr 14, 2004 12:30:37 pm PDT #35 of 10001
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
I'm for more stealth. I want to be more under the radar rather than less.
And I love the new title of this new thread. It's shiny!
§ ita § - Apr 14, 2004 12:31:57 pm PDT #36 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Terminology check:
Title: Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?
Description:
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Slug: Administrative discussions
Yes?
If so, slugs are googleable, descriptions are not.
Lyra Jane - Apr 14, 2004 12:33:37 pm PDT #37 of 10001
Up with the sun
Thanks, ita.
In that case, replace "Wonderfalls" with "that show" in the slug. Or, you know, something clever-er.
I'm not feeling very clever today.
Aims - Apr 14, 2004 12:34:37 pm PDT #38 of 10001
Shit's all sorts of different now.
Do we absolutely need to have a slug? Can't we just have a title and a description?