FamilySearch Wiki talk:The Un-Portal Page: Difference between revisions

From FamilySearch Wiki
(Opinion)
(Opinion)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Problem ==
== Problem ==
The subpages located in Portal Pages are not being indexed by search engines, and also complicate editing for contributors. [[User:Nixiao|nixiao]] 14:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


== Proposed Solution ==
The subpages located in Portal Pages are not being indexed by search engines, and also complicate editing for contributors. [[User:Nixiao|nixiao]] 14:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Using a similar layout, pages may be created without the boxes and subpages that currently reside in Portal Pages. For an example of such a page, known as an Un-Portal page, please see [[United States|United States]]. If as a community we determine that Portal pages will be moved to Un-Portal pages, we will need to migrate the content from the existing pages into newly created Un-Portal pages. See instructions on [[How to create an Un-Portal Page|how to migrate a Portal to an Un-Portal page]]. You are encouraged to use one of our many [https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Special:Search?fulltext=true&search=Sandbox Sandboxes] to practice this process before weighing in on this decision.


== Deadline ==
== Proposed Solution  ==
We need your feedback to determine how to proceed, but this discussion will close on '''3 July 2009 at 3:00 PM''', and the final decision will be added to the Manual of Style.[[User:Nixiao|nixiao]] 14:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 
Using a similar layout, pages may be created without the boxes and subpages that currently reside in Portal Pages. For an example of such a page, known as an Un-Portal page, please see [[United States|United States]]. If as a community we determine that Portal pages will be moved to Un-Portal pages, we will need to migrate the content from the existing pages into newly created Un-Portal pages. See instructions on [[How to create an Un-Portal Page|how to migrate a Portal to an Un-Portal page]]. You are encouraged to use one of our many [https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Special:Search?fulltext=true&search=Sandbox Sandboxes] to practice this process before weighing in on this decision.
 
== Deadline ==
 
We need your feedback to determine how to proceed, but this discussion will close on '''3 July 2009 at 3:00 PM''', and the final decision will be added to the Manual of Style.[[User:Nixiao|nixiao]] 14:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)  


== Discussion  ==
== Discussion  ==
=== Lerman ===


Having dealt with search engines and looking at the source for a portal page, I do not think I agree with the statement that says that search engines do not index portal pages or has problems indexing portal pages.  
Having dealt with search engines and looking at the source for a portal page, I do not think I agree with the statement that says that search engines do not index portal pages or has problems indexing portal pages.  
Line 31: Line 36:
#*If not, then the portal may be a little easier as it truncates the page to fit.
#*If not, then the portal may be a little easier as it truncates the page to fit.


Well, that is all for now. I cannot think of anything else at this moment, maybe because I have to run to another appointment. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is all for now. I cannot think of anything else at this moment, maybe because I have to run to another appointment. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)  
 
<br>
 
=== Adkins ===
Portal or no, the format of it is very important.
 
The current US un-portal and the previous US portal both drop very important links out of site on the first page. Those links are to topics for the country. The most important links to&nbsp;at least start&nbsp;on the first screen (without scrolling) are:
 
1) Getting started, research process, or something of that ilk.
 
2) States (or counties for a state un-portal)
 
3) Topics
 
News, if long, should be a teaser at the most, then a link. It should never be regarded as more important to display than&nbsp;research items, as&nbsp;above.

Revision as of 11:32, 2 July 2009

Problem[edit source]

The subpages located in Portal Pages are not being indexed by search engines, and also complicate editing for contributors. nixiao 14:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Solution[edit source]

Using a similar layout, pages may be created without the boxes and subpages that currently reside in Portal Pages. For an example of such a page, known as an Un-Portal page, please see United States. If as a community we determine that Portal pages will be moved to Un-Portal pages, we will need to migrate the content from the existing pages into newly created Un-Portal pages. See instructions on how to migrate a Portal to an Un-Portal page. You are encouraged to use one of our many Sandboxes to practice this process before weighing in on this decision.

Deadline[edit source]

We need your feedback to determine how to proceed, but this discussion will close on 3 July 2009 at 3:00 PM, and the final decision will be added to the Manual of Style.nixiao 14:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Lerman[edit source]

Having dealt with search engines and looking at the source for a portal page, I do not think I agree with the statement that says that search engines do not index portal pages or has problems indexing portal pages.

I looked at the source of one of the portal pages and found all of the "sub-pages" within DIV tags, with specific STYLE, etc. They were not hidden within includes, imports, frames, JavaScript, etc. which would make it more difficult for a search engine to find. In other words, each displayed page is assembled on the server before the user or search engine even sees it.

So, if search engines are having problems indexing a page, my experience tells me that the search engine has not got around to re-indexing that particular page on this particular site. With the above knowledge, it does not make any logical sense to me that going to the "un-portal" style of article will cause anything to be re-indexed any faster.

The above does not mean that I am against the idea. I just want to make sure we make the decision based upon all of the information. It is possible that I am missing information as well. For me, the real questions are whether the portal/un-portal question make it easier, the same, or harder for these categories of people (in this order). It is possible that they may be broken into sub-categories ranging from very experienced users to newbies.

  1. The user that is trying to find information for researching their family.
  2. The contributor that is just wanting to edit a bit of information.
  3. The contributor that is trying to create a page.

It seems that a completed portal page and an un-portal page should look and act nearly identical. If this is the case, the experience & use of #1 should be identical which would be a moot point. This would leave the real questions on #2 & #3.

I will be lazy for a moment by lumping #2 & #3 into the same category for now. Below are some of the advantages/disadvantages that come to mind at this moment:

  1. Contributors have the freedom to completely rearrange the un-portal page and/or make it look completely different. This may be an advantage, but also could be a disadvantage.
  2. I do not remember off hand how one aspect of the portal pages works. My question here is . . . Are the sub-pages always included in its entirety?
    • If so, then it would seem that the un-portal may be easier as one can edit it in place a bit easier instead of having to go to a separate page to edit and it is somewhat out of context.
    • If not, then the portal may be a little easier as it truncates the page to fit.

Well, that is all for now. I cannot think of anything else at this moment, maybe because I have to run to another appointment. Thomas Lerman 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Adkins[edit source]

Portal or no, the format of it is very important.

The current US un-portal and the previous US portal both drop very important links out of site on the first page. Those links are to topics for the country. The most important links to at least start on the first screen (without scrolling) are:

1) Getting started, research process, or something of that ilk.

2) States (or counties for a state un-portal)

3) Topics

News, if long, should be a teaser at the most, then a link. It should never be regarded as more important to display than research items, as above.