BoyWiki:Agora/3 April 2016

Agora/3 April 2016

BoyWiki doesn't seem to be being read very much.

Why do you think that is? Do you think BW needs some kind of publicity? User4 (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think we don't get that many hits? --Etenne 18:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know how many total "hits" the site gets, or how many older articles/news articles are being accessed. So, uh, perhaps I should be more specific. Newer articles don't seem to be being read very much, if at all. Maybe people cannot find new articles? User4 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The only advice on that I can give is that it maybe a naming issue on particular entries. Names that are too specific or uncommon are unlikely to be picked up by people doing searches. As to your question about "Do you think BW needs some kind of publicity?" I spend at least 50 percent of my time on-line doing just that and working on getting the word out. --Etenne 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm...

"Names that are too specific or uncommon are unlikely to be picked up by people doing searches"

...well, the articles which are books titles are unique, as there is only one book by that title and author, and I cannot change the titles to make the books show up better in searches, can I? User4 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The other option is internal advertising through internal linking as well as on BoyWiki's main page and the respective portals, however the entries need to be complete i.e. not fledglings and have a presentation that is clean to meet the criteria for inclusions on those pages. --Etenne 17:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think that it's a good idea to depend on people taking the initiative to do their own searches to try to find what is on BW? It seems to me that there should be a way to let people know what materials are here, and let them know when new materials are added to BW, don't you think? User4 (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? --Etenne 17:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... I've given it only a little thought so far. One thing that I notice is that the main page (until you scroll down) appears static. And unless the user can remember exactly what was on the page before, it is difficult for them to know what materials are new. (I know that you do indicate some of the new materials that are added.)

How about some kind of "What's New/What's Been Improved" section, right up near the top of the main page? The problem is that sometimes links to important materials are added to old articles, and no-one would think (nor would they have the time) to continually go back and re-read old articles on the off-chance that something of interest to them has been added to the article. There must be a way that BW could let people know what is knew/improved, don't you think? User4 (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that so long as you are willing to create and maintain such a page with good and at least semi-professional standards :) Meaning the page itself has to look good and the entries it links to have to be readable i.e. not stubs or half finished entries.My advice would be to go to Wikipedia or another wiki and see how they make such pages and use that as a template for your design. --Etenne 19:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Uh, couldn't it be something as simple as what you already do with the news items--you put a "one-liner" describing news stories of interest, while you could begin to put a "one-liner" for new/improved BW articles, with a link to the article/section? For example:

BoyLove in Japan--a new section on BLAH-BLAH-BLAH has now been added.

The article on XXXX now has one/several link(s) to other external sites of interest.

The book, The Man Without a Face (see the article) is now available for on-line reading/downloading.

etc. etc. etc.

What do you think? User4 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I am fixable so long as we are presenting quality content that is presentable :) The best we have to offer... not simply new. The entries can't have gaping structural issues or opinions that aren't supported by authoritative references... beyond that, I am good --Etenne 19:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... so many of the articles that we now have do not meet such strict requirements. And if few people are reading the articles anyway, there is very little incentive to make them just as professional as any article found in The Journal of Homosexuality, or something equal. Are such standards for BW realistic, given the knowledge limitations and the limited language abilities of the "typical" BW editor? Maybe we should just aim to get articles that are just fairly good out in front of the public. Good information, even if it is poorly formatted, is still good information, isn't it? User4 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)