Forum:Google rank

I just googled Charlemagne. We're not in the top 100. I googled Charlemagne+family. We're not in the top 100. I googled Charlemagne+genealogy. We're numbers 2 and 3.

So, the good news is that genealogists would find us. I would think, though, that more people would search on family than on genealogy. That suggests that we should more often use the word family. rtol 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the advantage to be found ? So long we don't have a good possibility to upload gedcoms, to search for duplicates and to merge duplicates, so long genealogist with bigger databases are not interested in this site ! At first we have to prepare good possibilities, after that we can succeed to grow. First quality than quantity ! Fred Bergman 20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaning tower of pisa 2.jpge algorithms generally work on the principle of inbound links, not particular terms used. The more people link to us, the higher our rank will get.  The way to get people to link to us is to get them to like us.  People will like us because we are free, collaborative and relatively easy to add rich content to.  We are not comprehensive yet, but I am working on the foundations that will support the massive weight that will be added in the coming months.  Why don't want to have a repeat of what happened at Pisa.
 * It is certainly trivial to dust off the shovel and sling hoards of content into Familypedia. I think you are right that we want to do that without sacrificing quality.  It seems to me that we need an assistance tool that allows people to confirm whether a new Gedcom individual is an identical or not.  To this end, Fred, I am looking at AWB (nl article).  Those of you who are admins can try it out now on our articles (anyone else will be able to use it too, but will need to get approval at wikia central first).  I have assembled a cryptic set of instructions here.  (Please feel free to make improvements, or move the "how to" portion of the setup instructions to the Genealogy:AutoWikiBrowser page).  As it is, it will be able to help people make global search and replace type fixes to familypedia, so folks may want to start working with it now.  This is an extensible tool and I am able to compile my own versions of it along with plugin modules on my machine.  If I can maintain my focus on this project, I envision adding gedcom input to AWB.  The idea is that a familypedia contributor would be able to make sure the article was reasonable before adding in the same way that AWB currently works.  In this way we will be able to avoid the problems on other genealogy sites with shoveled content.  We don't want obvious clones of other individuals, no mangling of critical data like dates, locations or names) before accepting it.  Our competitors can't do it because it requires human eyeballs on these problems they don't have dedicated collaborators.  We do.  That is why familypedia will crush the opposition.  So fear not, brave knight.  We shall prevail. - ~  Ph l o x   16:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * True and not. Our page on Charlemagne did not mention the word "family" at all, so a search for Charlemagne's family does not lead to Familypedia. Links in are indeed very important, but then we first need to offer something worth linking to. rtol 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Richard, for reintroducing the subject and for stressing the value of the word "family". Thank you, Fred and Phlox, for the cautions. Thank you, Phlox, for all the illustrations and pointers. But I feel that crushing the opposition should not be among our aims. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Robin. It looks like television, trying to get most viewers to get highest adverisement income!

If you want to make the content attractive for the outsiders than you must consider to show at the homepage startingpoints for representative and attractive pedigrees and trees! Fred Bergman 07:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fred making the main page attractive with good jumping off points would be a good step forward. As for whether this will directly affect google ranking, google is not significantly impacted by what is on the home page or what words you use.  For more info, consider the following article. Nl article on PageRank.  The en article has more of the detail and math theory involved.
 * The goal is to make familypedia one of the foremost genealogy sites to link to. That is not the case now.  I don't think we have to be like television to make that so.  If folks here aren't motivated by competitive talk in aspiring to that "foremost genealogy site" status, then fine, choose another metaphor.  But we must do much better to raise our quality up a notch. - ~  Ph l o x   08:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We are talking re different goals, or not ? I thought that we want to have at first a real genealogic site; secondly we want as much as possible contributors. Phlox and Richard Tol are working hard to introduce real genealogic tools; Richard is also working hard to make a attractive site with good contents of medieval ancestors, nobles and royalty. Robin tries to coordinate and to drive in the right direction. I am just a consumer contributor. We never get good contributors without good genealogic tools, so that is most important. After having a real genealogic site we need to get the good contributors. Via google we can have their attention. but when we have their attention and they come looking to us, then the site and the first sight at the site, the homepage, must be representative and give an example what here is and the best here is is I think are the results of the work of Richard. A good starting point for a tree is Charlemagne and a good starting point for a pedigree can be Willem Alexander of Oranje Nassau. But first things first! This moment a group of Dutch genealogists are looking for a new possibility to make a genealogic database for a large number of dutch genealogists to cooperate. Richard and I tried these persons to get to Familypedia but they have the opinion that Familypedia is not good enough. They want certain tools and possibilities that Familypedia has not, and they want own parts for each contributor apart from the common base. Fred Bergman 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On the Dutch crowd, what they really wanted is a wiki with proper database functions. We have that now. rtol 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * heb je gelezen: Wie doet mee met 1 gezamenlijke genea database waarbij de aanknopingspunten samengevoegd worden ? ik heb het op de talk page van Robin gezet, hoop dat zijn passieve kennis van nederlands voldoende is. Fred Bergman 21:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, guys, I looked at Fred's correspondence copy, but my Dutch is not up to that. I can get a phrase or two and several isolated words from an average sentence, not the whole thing. I trust that rtol has been able to look at it. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 06:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
If what they want is to own part of the site, then a Wiki by it's very nature will never be good enough, no matter the tools. William Allen Shade 01:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't want to own a site, they want a real genealogic site, but with safety tools and this site hasn't. You are able here easy to make mistakes and the site doesn't give warnings. There are a lot of possibilities to make this site better, this site is not able yet to compete with real genealogic sites.
 * But the real genealogic sites doesn't have one connected common tree and pedigrees, this site has.
 * The best genealogical wiki site is WeRelate.org, but the management there is not reliable and working God based. For that reason the dutch want the WeRelate system en they want to improve that. Fred Bergman 05:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mistakes? On a wiki any mistake can be corrected unless it's maybe a very cunning plan by a rebellious admin. (This site does give some warnings if you let it, e.g. saving with no edit summary.) — Robin Patterson (Talk) 06:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that if they really want the WeRelate system they can have it. It's under GFDL. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 06:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)