Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cumorah"
(response to links restored) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | ==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. [[User:Amaranth|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. | ||
| + | [[User:Tallred|Tallred]] 19:14, 4 August 2006 (MDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:20, 4 August 2006
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)
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)
