[Bf-docboard] Redirecting old 2.3 docs: help needed!

Sat Nov 5 18:47:51 CET 2011

Hi,

On 11/05/2011 06:42 PM, Kesten Broughton wrote:
> if someone can explain to me the workflow, i'm ready to start mapping
> 2.4 docs to 2.5/2.6 with content corrections and new screenshots
> reflecting the updates.  I'd start with game engine and physics stuff. 
> I could at least be creating the updated content in a sandbox until the
> linking/SEO is finalized.

please wait until we align the structures as explained at

http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-docboard/2011-November/003772.html

Thanks!

Luca

> 
> k
> 
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 8:30 AM, mindrones <mindrones at gmail.com
> <mailto:mindrones at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi all,
> 
>     On 11/03/2011 02:35 PM, Jaagup Irve wrote:
>     > Mindrones: I'd be willing to help if I'm online at the time. You are 1
>     > timezone away but I'm sometimes able to postpone my sleep. I can be
>     > found at skype under jaagup.irve user if I'm not in the IRC (which
>     > happens sometimes).
> 
>     On 11/05/2011 02:21 AM, Fade S wrote:
>     > I'm happy to help with this.
> 
> 
>     Cool thanks guys :)
> 
>     I see Irve in irc quite often; Fade, never tried to join #blenderwiki?
> 
> 
> 
>     On 11/05/2011 02:21 AM, Fade S wrote:
>     > How do you want to split up the work to
>     > avoid duplication? Maybe we can assign volunteers a section in the
>     order
>     > they've emailed. e.g. you take Section 1: Introduction to Blender,
>     > Jaagup takes Section 2: Modelling, materials and lights, I take
>     Section
>     > 3: etc.
> 
>     First of all,
> 
>     http://www.blender.org/documentation/htmlII/
> 
>     is a Reference and we can redirect these after we have done the
>     automatic reference, so let's focus on
> 
>     http://www.blender.org/documentation/htmlI/
> 
>     There we have 180 links:
> 
>     A)
>     From: I. Introduction to Blender
>     To:   II. Modelling, Materials and Lights
>     ----------------------------------------------
>     88 links
> 
>     B)
>     From: III. Animation
>     To:   Glossary
>     ----------------------------------------------
>     92 links
> 
> 
>     What about: Irve -> A | Fade -> B, so I can go ahead on other stuff? :)
> 
>     Is that ok?
> 
> 
>     > I do have a few queries though. Why are we mapping it to the 2.4
>     manual
>     > and not the 2.6 manual? From the mapping and your later post here:
>     >
>     >
>     http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-docboard/2011-November/003772.html
>     >
>     > It seems like we'll be mapping 2.3-->2.4, then aligning 2.4 to 2.6 as
>     > much as possible. If I've understood this and the later SEO
>     discussions
>     > correctly (and very likely I haven't ;)), it means that people will
>     > search for "blender extrusion", find the 2.3 page, get shifted over to
>     > the 2.4 manual via the server mapping and then redirected to 2.
> 
>     > If you're going to align 2.4 and 2.6, would it not be simpler to wait
>     > until that is done, then just map 2.3 directly to 2.6?
> 
> 
>     After the mapping, google will know that a certain 2.3 page is now
>     Doc:2.4/Manual/Foo.
> 
>     But Doc:2.4/Manual/Foo is crosslinked to Doc:2.5/Manual/Foo and google
>     knows this :)
> 
>     So, by searching for "blender foo" in the search results stack we will
>     hopefully find Doc:2.6/Manual/Foo alongside of Doc:2.4/Manual/Foo.
>     By choosing 2.6, we're saying google that we prefer 2.6 and I think
>     google takes in account the human choice too, to calculate a page
>     ranking.
> 
>     This way we won't damage articles linking to old pages (think to the
>     animation chapters which are quite different and partly incompatible).
> 
>     Hope this makes sense for you guys too?
> 
> 
> 
>     On 11/05/2011 09:49 AM, Raindrops From Sky wrote:
>     > Another aspect:
>     >
>     > The 2.3 -> 2.4 (or 3.6) redirect will be within the same website
>     > (blender.org <http://blender.org> <http://blender.org>).
>     > Such links may not help in increasing the rating at all.
> 
>     These would not be links, but permanent redirects.
> 
> 
>     > For higher ranking, the pages need inbound links from OTHER websites.
>     > In fact, the tag analysis points out that there are no inbound links
>     at present.
> 
>     These pages won't link to wiki, because they won't exist anymore, so
>     there wouldn't be backlinks at all.
> 
>     The reason to use a permanent redirect is to tell the search engine
>     where to go look when they won't find the high rank pages anymore.
> 
>     I'm not sure if this will attribute the high rank to the wiki pages
>     somehow, but surely this is better than just removing the pages and hope
>     that this will make the wiki pages jump up of 1 step in the results
>     stack :)
> 
> 
> 
>     Regards,
>     Luca
> 
>     _____________________________
> 
>     http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Mindrones
>     http://www.mindrones.com
>     _______________________________________________
>     Bf-docboard mailing list
>     Bf-docboard at blender.org <mailto:Bf-docboard at blender.org>
>     http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Kesten Broughton
> President and Technology Director,
> Solar Mobile Trailers
> kesten at solarmobiletrailers.com
> www.sunfarmkitchens.ca <http://www.sunfarmkitchens.ca>
> 512 701 4209
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-docboard mailing list
> Bf-docboard at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard

-- 

Regards,
Luca

_____________________________

http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Mindrones
http://www.mindrones.com