Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,627
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 37:
Line 37: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive (view source)
Revision as of 01:18, April 30, 2007
, 01:18, April 30, 2007no edit summary
: It's a great idea, Conservative!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
: It's a great idea, Conservative!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
== Getting Google to build our website traffic - Part II ==
Dear Andy,
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 wildly popular subjects. 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 tag]]s.
I believe there are 5 ways to have lots of articles associated with the above topics (for example, [[WWI]] and [[WWII]]. The first is to have second, third, and fourth waves of article improvement using the main/front page (for example, have a article improvement drive for "Western front". The second is to have a article improvement page. The fourth is to make sure all the articles have [[category tag]]s. The fifth is to send emails to groups that would be interested in building these articles.
Here is a 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?
[[User:Conservative|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Andy, that reservation can be overcome by having "See also" articles and lots of internal links and associated [[Category tag]] articles. For example, "See also" could have "Hitler and the occult". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)