0
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:The Un-Portal Page: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:The Un-Portal Page (view source)
Revision as of 13:28, 10 July 2009
, 10 July 2009no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
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> | <br> | ||
=== Adkins === | === Adkins === | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
=== G Fröberg Morris === | === G Fröberg Morris === | ||
I appreciate Lermans insight and thoughts into this and agree with his comments. I'm not convinced the UnPortal really does help with search engine indexing. Given the sheer size of 2 million plus articles in the English Wikipedia and their heavy use of the Portal, they don't seem to be worried about Portal or UnPortal. As far as my experience, generally the Denmark and Sweden content comes up pretty quick using key words in a search engine. Maybe the general standardization of titles and formatting has helped. I do like the UnPortal in relation to ease of use. I'd like to suggest leaving the Portals as a Gate, and using UnPortals for SubPortal, or even individual article pages. <br> | I appreciate Lermans insight and thoughts into this and agree with his comments. I'm not convinced the UnPortal really does help with search engine indexing. Given the sheer size of 2 million plus articles in the English Wikipedia and their heavy use of the Portal, they don't seem to be worried about Portal or UnPortal. As far as my experience, generally the Denmark and Sweden content comes up pretty quick using key words in a search engine. Maybe the general standardization of titles and formatting has helped. I do like the UnPortal in relation to ease of use. I'd like to suggest leaving the Portals as a Gate, and using UnPortals for SubPortal, or even individual article pages. <br> | ||
:Wikipedia is very much "Un-Portal", no boxes to clutter except for info-boxes usually containing basic facts. I've been editing some of the pages there and have yet to see a "Portal" type page. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 08:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | :Wikipedia is very much "Un-Portal", no boxes to clutter except for info-boxes usually containing basic facts. I've been editing some of the pages there and have yet to see a "Portal" type page. [[User:Dsammy|dsammy]] 08:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
I vote for un-Portal. I like the ease, simplicity, flexibility and cleaner look. A user can find plenty on a regular page, and learn to edit it faster in my opinion. | I vote for un-Portal. I like the ease, simplicity, flexibility and cleaner look. A user can find plenty on a regular page, and learn to edit it faster in my opinion. | ||
Whether a portal is easier for search engines to find and list I know not. But I do know trying to create a portal page is much more complex than creating a nice regular page. [[User:Diltsgd|Diltsgd]] 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | Whether a portal is easier for search engines to find and list I know not. But I do know trying to create a portal page is much more complex than creating a nice regular page. [[User:Diltsgd|Diltsgd]] 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== Creedon<br> === | |||
Once again, it is past deadline but I think everyone is overlooking some major points about Portals. Portals are NOT meant to store/present data or information, they are meant to show a condensed set of links to allow you to find a specific sub-topic, and basically make a title page or table of contents just as if you were to make a mini-wiki just for that topic. Several users heretofore have mentioned how Portal pages have significantly fewer edits than "Un-Portal" pages, placing blame on the fact that they are harder to edit, but that is not necessarily the case. Portal pages in Wikipedia rarely are edited because once they have gotten to a certain point of being set up, and all the commonly used links are in place, the layout is set up, and there is no reason to bother them. <br>I would like to further this by pointing out that in almost all cases in Wikipedia, both a Portal and a Mainpage exist because they both serve their own separate purpose: a Portal to show and link available resources, a Mainpage to show information/data/facts, and Sub-Pages to go further in-depth where appropriate. I think it would be useful to follow the pattern established by Wikipedia and use them both.<br>Now arises a new question, where is it that we primarily want to direct our users, the portal page, or the main article? I guess that lies in what will make it easier for the general user-base to find and get what they are looking for. Currently, being tucked away in beta, the general user-base is a bunch of nerds (I don't mean that pejoratively) who have found it and are trying to get it going, but in the long run we want to cater it to a much wider audience.<br>In my wanderings in Family History work, generally speaking, there are two groups of people:<br> | |||
#Those who are just starting and aren't familiar with research methods or sources.<br> | |||
#Those who are more or less experts.<br> | |||
I guess the way I see it is this:<br>Beginners -> Main Articles: Those who are trying to figure stuff out will want to see more text. Start off reading something to get their bearings and try to figure out how to find an ancestor. An example thought process of one of these users would be something like this: "So... it says here that (x information) was recorded in (y location) so I can find my ancestors that way".<br>Experienced Users -> Portals: Usually these users have and idea of what they are specifically looking for. They would rather not have to scroll through a large article trying to find the link that they are looking for. An example case would be something like: "Ok so I know he died in (x location) so I wonder what newspapers would have published his obituary?" The user would then desire to jump from the State to the County to a List of Locally Published Periodicals. This user would ideally want to get to this information with as little scrolling and as few clicks as is possible.<br>Obviously we want the wiki to be accessible to both user types. I think in the long run it would be best to use Main articles as the primary target for links, and keeping portals kind of like a hidden back passageway. As users learn and become more experienced in researching they'll discover how portals work and "graduate" to them.<br> | |||