From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Mon Dec 09 18:29:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 10 Dec 2002 02:29:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 36153 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 02:29:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 02:29:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 02:29:25 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18La9F-0006Ec-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:29:25 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18La9C-0006EH-00; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:29:22 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:29:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from larch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.164]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18La96-0006E6-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:29:16 -0800 Received: (qmail 20815 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 02:29:14 -0000 Received: from webmail.cc.uic.edu (HELO webmail.uic.edu) (128.248.121.50) by larch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 02:29:14 -0000 X-WebMail-UserID: sbelknap@uic.edu Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 20:28:27 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org X-EXP32-SerialNo: 50000146 Subject: [lojban] My next suggestion Message-ID: <3E053088@webmail.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Mailer: InterChange (Hydra) SMTP v3.62 X-archive-position: 3374 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: sbelknap@uic.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: sbelknap Reply-To: sbelknap@uic.edu X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810567 On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 07:37 PM, Jordan DeLong wrote: >On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 03:08:33PM -0600, sbelknap wrote: >[...] >>There is simply no better way to welcome web surfing Loglanders to >>lojbanistan than to have Loglan as a keyword in our meta content tag. Robin, >>I'm afraid the cluetrain has pulled into your station and you are refusing >>to get on. For more on the ethics of searchengines, see: >> http://www.searchengineethics.com/seoethics.htm >>Put Loglan in the content list, and be quick about it! >What a pile of crap. >It's no more appropriate to have meta content on lojban.org for >Loglan than it is to put klingon or esperanto up there. Hmm. I fear that Jordan may disagree with my next suggestion, which is to mention Esperanto, klingon, and other popular constructed languages in both the text and the meta tags of the main LLG Loglan web page. My reasoning: 1. The goal of our web page is to help those who might be interested in LLG Loglan to find out about our language. 2. Many people interested in other conlangs are likely to be interested in LLG Loglan. 3. Including meta tags and text for other conlangs will cause LLG Loglan to turn up in web searches for other conlangs. 4. There is no downside if we have some content for these conlangs, such as word lists which translate selected LLG Loglan words into these other languages. (First principle of proper keyword selection: there should be actual content directly relevant to a keyword at the site.) 5. Therefore, we should include other conlangs on our web page. Quod erat demonstradum. My proposal: the ten most popular conlangs should be mentioned on the LLG Loglan web site. Each conlang should have its own page, with a glossary translating 10 words of lojban into that conlang. Each of the conlang pages should have a link to the web site for that conlang. We should request that each conlang return the favor with links to the LLG Loglan web site. I request that this proposal be considered by the board. If approved, I pledge to help to create the pages. I am really quite surprised that anyone who uses the web would think that my strategies for improving the hit rate of our web site are even a bit inappropriate. Hyperlinking is what makes the internet work. The objections to my Loglan suggestions remind me of the clueless bozos who design unsuccessful commercial web sites. All the successful commercial web sites are broadly and deeply linked. Anybody here every heard of AMAZON.COM? Anybody noticed that microsoft.com links to Apple.com and apple.com links to microsoft.com? Hasn't anybody here read the cluetrain manifesto? http://www.cluetrain.org/ co'o mi'e la stivn