Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive
An idea to build more internet traffic to Conservapedia
I think we might be able to drive more http://www.google.com and other traffic to Conservapedia if we make the following articles at Conservapedia better based on the first 100 or so most popular articles at Wikipedia:
What do you think about starting a Conservapedia improvement drive for these articles? Clearly these are serious subjects that people are interested in based on Wikipedia statistics. I also think that a lot of people gave their lives in regards to these issues (WWI, WWI, Jesus, etc.) and it is important that these subjects be covered. Therefore, I believe from a priority view of creating important articles and from a strategic point of view in regards to creating internet traffic to Conservapedia, it makes a lot of sense to start an improvement drive in regards to these Conservapedia articles. Conservative 22:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- It's a great idea, Conservative!--Aschlafly 23:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Getting Google to build our website traffic - Part II
If we are going to get http://www.google.com to build our web traffic for us I think the article improvement drive we are engaging in is the answer and I think the article improvement drive should focus on serious subjects that have broad appeal. With that being said, I don't think it is enough for our specific World War I, World War II, Jesus, and Adolf Hitler articles to have quality. They must offer depth of information too. What do I mean by depth of information? What I mean is that they must have quality articles associated with them though the internal links, see also sections, and articles available though the Category tags.
I believe there are 5 ways to have lots of articles associated with the above topics (for example, World War I and WWII). The first is to have second, third, and fourth waves of article improvement using the main/front page (for example, have an article improvement drive for "Western front". The second is to have an article improvement page. The fourth is to make sure all the articles have category tags. The fifth is to send emails to groups that would be interested in building these articles.
Here is an email I sent the group whose webpage is http://www.worldwar1.com/ (World War I - Trenches on the Web):
Dear Mr. Hanlon,
I and some others are looking to build the most comprehensive WWI resource on the internet. The resource will be located at http://www.conservapedia.org If you could spread the news it would be appreciated as we are looking for volunteers.
What do you think of my idea? And if you like it, what steps are we going to take to achieve this goal?
Conservative 20:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- Great ideas, Conservative!
- My only reservation, and it is a minor one, is that I want our resource to remain concise like a real encyclopedia. Wikipedia made a big mistake by encouraging more and more words in an entry. Now many of their entries are too long to be useful as an easy reference. Here, let's use links rather than stuffing more into one entry. In fact, a recommended maximum length for entries might be a good idea. Anyway, God bless you for looking for ways to improve.--Aschlafly 20:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
One thing that will help is good inlinks - places where specific articles are referenced that have high context. Like, say, on political blogs, esp. conservative ones. That does two things - one is simply bringing in traffic (readers and new contributors), the other is to up the pagerank at Google. Surely some of you are active elsewhere, have your own blogs or websites, etc., and can do this once in a while? Human 21:27, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Focusing one one of those topics and getting more volunteers
I think that concentrating our efforts is important. I think we should focus on World War II first. I also think we should send emails to vet groups and WWII buffs, and war buffs to increase our volunteer base. Conservative 23:14, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- Getting more writers is crucial to the project's success. I agree with recruiting amateurs as you suggest above. We can also ask prominent figures to "donate" portions of their published works.