Nicotine poisoning rockets mid e-cig battle

[generic mutant]

Google 'nicotine poisoning rockets'.

That story doesn't show up. This thread does.
(for me inside my search bubble, anyhow...)

Link to it a few more times from a highly ranked site, like this, and it will.

 

[Orb Skewer]

Google 'nicotine poisoning rockets'.

That story doesn't show up. This thread does.
(for me inside my search bubble, anyhow...)

Link to it a few more times from a highly ranked site, like this, and it will.

Yeah GM-10,000 times or more and an indexer might start to pick it up,

there will be the rocketry savant out there that will one day type 'nicotine poisoning rockets' into a search engine though



(maybe searching for a device to spread alertness, from the air, to his/her home town)

 

[generic mutant]

An individual link? An individual phrase?

Irrelevant.

A policy? Makes sense. We aren't needlessly giving poor quality press Google juice. How much of a difference it makes is impossible to quantify, but it does no harm, does it?

(Incidentally, I'm not actually convinced that article qualifies as low quality. I agree with the observation that the bold heading is wrong, but they often are. But whatever...)

 

[Fulgurant]

IMHO trying to damage the ANTZ war machine by breaking links is akin to trying to bring down a Death Star with a pea shooter

We also have a ragtag group of ewoks, former smugglers, and orphaned farm boys.

 

[generic mutant]

Are you suggesting that Stanton Glantz is actually... our father?

 

[Fulgurant]

An individual link? An individual phrase?

Irrelevant.

A policy? Makes sense. We aren't needlessly giving poor quality press Google juice. How much of a difference it makes is impossible to quantify, but it does no harm, does it?

(Incidentally, I'm not actually convinced that article qualifies as low quality. I agree with the observation that the bold heading is wrong, but they often are. But whatever...)

I understand the policy, and I think it's a good one in principle, but it does seem to create confusion -- links broken that shouldn't be, links correctly broken but posted under damning thread titles, links broken in so many places that you need half an hour and a microscope to turn them into useful addresses. One wonders how many more people here on ECF would engage with the troubling immediacy of the e-cig information war if it were a more straightforward matter both to post and to read the relevant material.

On the one hand, we deprive the opposition of real-but-nonetheless-practically-opaque google advantages. On the other hand, we stifle our own discussions. It is perhaps a small sacrifice to make, but it is something. What harm? Just a little.

 

[Orb Skewer]

Are you suggesting that Stanton Glantz is actually... our father?

Wash your mouth out with soup-how very dare you !

 

[generic mutant]

Wash your mouth out with soup-how very dare you !

I guess in a convoluted way...

The smoking bans and the increased knowledge of the smoking link with cancer.

Necessity the mother of invention.

Hon Lik.

And all that nasty business on Hoth.

Huh. Kinda figures.

 

[Traver]

It's to do with the way google works. Every time someone clicks a link google increases it's position in search results. If the link is broken and needs to be copy 'n' pasted to a browser search bar then google doesn't add to the rankings.
By breaking links we deprive articles like this of publicity when someone searches for ,ecigs, nicotine, poisoning or any of the attached keywords.
Breaking the link needn't be filling it up with spaces or extra characters, it's enough to add a space once in the right place.
A small bit of extra effort on our behalf to save the antz propaganda spreading.

I agree.

I understand the policy, and I think it's a good one in principle, but it does seem to create confusion -- links broken that shouldn't be, links correctly broken but posted under damning thread titles, links broken in so many places that you need half an hour and a microscope to turn them into useful addresses. One wonders how many more people here on ECF would engage with the troubling immediacy of the e-cig information war if it were a more straightforward matter both to post and to read the relevant material.

On the one hand, we deprive the opposition of real-but-nonetheless-practically-opaque google advantages. On the other hand, we stifle our own discussions. It is perhaps a small sacrifice to make, but it is something. What harm? Just a little.

I agree.

This creates a bit of a dilemma for me. I find it hard to be for openness and transparency while at the same time being against openness and transparency. When we limit the things we can discuss aren't we creating a fantasy world for ourselves that no longer deals with the real world outside of this forum? On the other hand I do understand why these limitations are in place.

 

[generic mutant]

...
This creates a bit of a dilemma for me. I find it hard to be for openness and transparency while at the same time being against openness and transparency. When we limit the things we can discuss aren't we creating a fantasy world for ourselves that no longer deals with the real world outside of this forum? On the other hand I do understand why these limitations are in place.

We're not limiting discussion if we break links. It really isn't hard to copy / paste into a new tab.

There's a huge grey area, I think some people are overzealous about (as in this case - I wouldn't describe that as 'bad journalism').

But with the number of "ZOMG!!! It's antifreeze!" stories floating around, there's simply no need to provide them Google-juice, and having a policy to not do that makes sense.

 

[Steamix]

Statistically, it may happen eventually. The more vapers, the more liquids. These ' Keep away frpm children and pets' warnings and the childproof caps are there for a reason. It's no guarantee.

And you can bet your last dime on the ANTZ climbing all over that one accident like flies over a fresh dung heap. Never mind they fact, that the article leaves a few questions unanswered.

And yes, they'll conveniently skip all these other numbers. Like nuclear powperplants were supposed to run without a hitch for so many tenthousand operating years. Well, then we're just having a bad streak or it's already AD 25000 plus. People still die in traffic accidents, despite the advances made in safety technology ( belts, airbags, anti blocking etc etc ). Fatalities with other chemicals found in every household run in the thousands.

Won't stop 'em. ANTZ. ANTZ is a polite denominator. Looking at the mindsets of these people, I'd rather view them as nicotine-nazis and tobacco-taliban.

 

[Traver]

We're not limiting discussion if we break links. It really isn't hard to copy / paste into a new tab.

There's a huge grey area, I think some people are overzealous about (as in this case - I wouldn't describe that as 'bad journalism').

But with the number of "ZOMG!!! It's antifreeze!" stories floating around, there's simply no need to provide them Google-juice, and having a policy to not do that makes sense.

By making it more difficult for people to open a link we are limiting discussion.

 

[generic mutant]

By making it more difficult for people to open a link we are limiting discussion.

It's a question of degree...

We could post every study Prue Talbot comes up with as a sticky at the top of the 'New Members' forum with an "Important! Read this before vaping" heading, in the interest of balance

I respect your stance - I think openness is extremely important. But I think the forum is generally very good at allowing free discussion (at the policy level - no comment about the cultural acceptance of diverse opinions here), apart from on drugs, and I think there's good reason to avoid the drugs thing in the current political climate.

 

[Traver]

It's a question of degree...

We could post every study Prue Talbot comes up with as a sticky at the top of the 'New Members' forum with an "Important! Read this before vaping" heading, in the interest of balance

I respect your stance - I think openness is extremely important. But I think the forum is generally very good at allowing free discussion (at the policy level - no comment about the cultural acceptance of diverse opinions here), apart from on drugs, and I think there's good reason to avoid the drugs thing in the current political climate.

Yes it is a matter of degree.
I am not interested in posting everything just the ones that may be of interest or have something I think is important. I also want to draw in people who don't normally read these articles and take part in these discussions. Those would be the ones who won't bother with links they can't click on.

How much do you think a dozen or two post or even a few hundred views will influence Google rankings?

 

[Orb Skewer]

Yes it is a matter of degree.
I am not interested in posting everything just the ones that may be of interest or have something I think is important. I also want to draw in people who don't normally read these articles and take part in these discussions. Those would be the ones who won't bother with links they can't click on.

How much do you think a dozen or two post or even a few hundred views will influence Google rankings?

*crux* ..................

 

[generic mutant]

Yes it is a matter of degree.
I am not interested in posting everything just the ones that may be of interest or have something I think is important. I also want to draw in people who don't normally read these articles and take part in these discussions. Those would be the ones who won't bother with links they can't click on.

How much do you think a dozen or two post or even a few hundred views will influence Google rankings?

How much do people who are so indifferent they won't copy a link, paste it, remove a character, and hit return, have to add to a discussion?



I don't know how much links from here add to rankings. I doubt anyone really does - proprietary algorithms are proprietary. I think it's well accepted that you can 'game the system' - look at the massive proliferation of SEO companies. To some extent they're selling snake-oil, but ask any web-dev and they'll tell you SEO does work, and the search engines have to fight it.

Read some stuff about 'google bombing' for a few entertaining stories...

 

[rothenbj]

It's a question of degree...

We could post every study Prue Talbot comes up with as a sticky at the top of the 'New Members' forum with an "Important! Read this before vaping" heading, in the interest of balance

I respect your stance - I think openness is extremely important. But I think the forum is generally very good at allowing free discussion (at the policy level - no comment about the cultural acceptance of diverse opinions here), apart from on drugs, and I think there's good reason to avoid the drugs thing in the current political climate.

That would be unless you're from Colorado.

 

[Rickajho]

It's all over now - literally. Go back and google "nicotine poisoning rockets" again and see what you get this time. Exact search or not - doesn't matter. The .SE URL directly to referenced story is the number one ranking, and the first post in this thread is number two.

 

[Traver]

It's all over now - literally. Go back and google "nicotine poisoning rockets" again and see what you get this time. Exact search or not - doesn't matter. The .SE URL directly to referenced story is the number one ranking, and the first post in this thread is number two.

Why would someone google "nicotine poisoning rockets" unless they were looking for that article. If they knew the name of the article and wanted to find why would the rankings matter?

 

[generic mutant]

Why would someone google "nicotine poisoning rockets" unless they were looking for that article. If they knew the name of the article and wanted to find why would the rankings matter?

Maybe because they heard that nicotine poisoning was rocketing?

You're missing the point completely.

Start another thread to a story called "Nicotine poisoning doubles", along with unbroken links.

And another for "Nicotine poisoning on the increase".

And sooner or later there isn't really anything you can type into Google along with 'nicotine' without getting bombarded with information about how much e-cigarettes are going to kill you in the face.