From MormonWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

External Links

Here's the thing, we (the More Good Foundation) uses external links on this, and other sites, to promote our other websites, or other sites with good LDS content. We do this through keywords and links. Some of our main keywords are Joseph Smith, Mormon Temples, and Mormon Missionaries so you will find lots of external links to sites about those. Granted, some articles have way too many and the sites linked to are not equally good. If you feel an external links section needs slimming down, that is okay, but please do not eliminate the External Links sections. Thanks. Amaranth 16:38, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

These External Links are unrelated

I understand the importance of using links and keywords to help promote usability as well as search engine optimization. It does us no good to go to this effort of building this site if no one can ever find it. But the 5 links listed are only loosely related to Hill Cumorah via Joseph Smith. Only one site even has the word Cumorah in the entire text (the BBS article). And even that's a pretty weak reference. If we are going to link to external sites, let's make sure they are related. Otherwise we end up with a huge list of links to hundreds of sites on every page. It's pointless and I'm pretty sure Google is smarter than that so you're not tricking them. I suggest we move the links to the page on Joseph Smith and link to that page instead.

On a separate note, I'd like the relationship of the More Good Foundation and MormonWiki explained more clearly. Is it the sponsoring organization that's trying to push forward pro-Mormon ideas and movement or is it really their website and subject to their goals. What happens when the Foundation's goals differ from the general Mormon consensus. Who gets to decide? BTW, I am responding to "(the More Good Foundation) uses external links on this, and other sites, to promote our other websites." If this is true, I think I'm done. Tallred 19:14, 4 August 2006 (MDT)

More Good Foundation

I'm sorry if my previous comment was confusing. In terms of links, I actually agree and have been slowly weeding out unnecessary links. MGF is a small non-profit organization and really, nobody is a complete internet expert here. So how we go about reaching our goals tends to change as we learn better ways of optimizing sites. So there is no confusion let me list a few points:

  • MGF's entire purpose and goal is to promote good LDS content on the internet.
  • MGF operates a number of sites, this being one of them. All of our sites are about Mormonism and helping get honest, sincere information out about the Church. The only agenda of these sites is to help people learn the truth about the LDS Church.
  • The purpose for external links is to help people find out more about Mormonism and strenghten those sites that are positive.
  • Links are one of those areas where we have gotten overzealous and have since hopefully learned better. That means some backtracking however which can be slow with misunderstandings here along the way.

As for MormonWiki, MGF is the sponsoring organization. Since I've been here, MormonWiki has gone from being a sort of stockpile for articles that could be modified and used elsewhere to being a legitimate destination site with the purpose of helping people learn more about Mormon doctrine, history, and life. The site is pretty much left to the hands of users like you, since I'm the only one at MGF really working on it. My job is to keep writing and editing articles, keep things organized, and make sure content is doctrinally and historically sound.

I hope this clears up any confusion. And I hope that you will continue to help out on this site. I will try to address the overabundant link situation soon. Thank you for your help in making this a better, more efficient site. We really appreciate your efforts. Amaranth 13:59, 7 August 2006 (MDT)


Thanks for the explanation. I think more explanations like this will help others understand the site's direction and philosophy. I'm satisfied (for now :). --Tallred 18:03, 7 August 2006 (MDT)