Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Human (Talk | contribs) at 19:27, 29 April 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

An idea to build more internet traffic to Conservapedia

Wikipedia gives the top 1,000 articles for its website as can be seen here: http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=1000&month=04%2F2007&mode=view

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:

- United States

- Columbine High School massacre

- World War II

- Global warming

- World War I

- Adolf Hitler

- Battle of Thermopylae

- Canada

- William Shakespeare

- Holocaust

- Abraham Lincoln

- Jesus

- Vietnam War

- China


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. Therefore, I believe from a strategic point of view in regards to creating internet traffic to Conservapedia it makes a lot of sense to start a 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

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 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 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 tags. 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?

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)
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". Conservative 20:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Inlinks are key

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)