My next suggestion

[sbelknap <sbelknap@uic.edu>]

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