Talk:Main Page

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

General question about the site? See RationalWiki:Serious Business. Or post here anyways. See if I care.

Adsense

Google adsense has been added to the site, if google decides to display an add it will appear under the donation button on the left of the screen. I tried to arrange things so that it is relatively painless for all of us. This is a test run, provide me feedback on what you think, problems with it, etc. I will evaluate how feasible it is as a mechanism for being able to pay for the site and we will go from there. tmtoulouse ^nettle 14:20, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Uh, Trent, you do realize that a site needs actual traffic for ads to pan out? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:50, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Remember everyone - click away at those ads when you see them! We're getting some good ID hits - I just saw this one advertised. As I expected, this is going to be great - we get more material to defeat with our Mad Skillz, and the ID'ers have to pay us for our clicks! What could be better! DogP 15:12, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) And why did you link me to that orgasm of creationist propaganda? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:28, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm seeing them at the bottom left of the page.--Bayes_yikes 15:26, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Yep, scroll all the way to the bottom, and ads relevant to the page you're on appear. So dig into our pages, find some nutty vendors, and make them pay us! What fun! DogP 15:33, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

It's perfect for you RA - since you can't keep yourself away from RW, just click the Random Page button, and since we have so much anti-wackjob pages, you'll end up at some page with a few ads by wackjobs. Click on that, get some money off them, then return to another Random Page! Repeat until bored, you've just helped RW's pocketbook! DogP 15:37, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Advertising for evil

Gaaah!

Great. We're advertising for the wrong side. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:50, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely - who's money would you prefer we take? It's great research for us too. DogP 15:52, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

What I really need is the color code for the background over there where the add is appearing. Its not pure white and the grey I have now is not it either, anyone have any clue? tmtoulouse ^nettle 16:43, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Digital Color Meter on my mac says its grey 249. #F9F9F9 Apparently, today there is no black or white. Only shades of grey. At least here it is easy to tell the truth from the lies and the foolish from the wise. Well, most cases. Bonus points if you can sing the song. --Shagie 16:49, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

We fade to grey....DogP 17:11, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Human, can you change your user name? When you sign on a talk page I keep seeing ads for "Human resourcing". Genghis^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 06:49, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, that's hilarious! Your sig brings up ads for "Jolly World Domination Through Fishing"... human 13:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I have now started getting Human Resource type magazines in the mail. Boy, those people work fast! human 21:38, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Adsense placement

Some of the AdSense ads are now appearing at the top of the articles, which I definitely don't like - can that be controlled? I don't mind them in the sidebar. DogP 17:43, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Hold tight I am working on some things. tmtoulouse ^nettle 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

So here is what I am playing with, that banner add will not appear for anyone thats logged into the wiki, but anonymous users have roughly a 20 percent chance of having one pop up on an article. It will never appear on the main page or any of the wiki special pages. I am experimenting at the moment and seeing what works/doesn't work. I will also be implementing and "ad free" version that registered users can opt into if they really don't want to see the ads. tmtoulouse ^nettle 18:17, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that seems clever, and gives encouragement to create an account. DogP 18:21, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Good work Trent. Personally, I didn't mind the ads down the bottom left, the top is definitely intrusive. I keep clicking them as I know they help the site - or should I keep quiet about that? Myabe only pi-pledgers get the ad-free version? Genghis^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I really dislike the banner ads. The ads at the sides are fine but a block full of ads screaming creationism at the head of all our articles is very destructive to our credibility.

P.S. Genghis, saying stuff like that could get Trent's adsense revoked. - Icewedge 18:35, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I know, I am sympathetic about the banner ads, but I want to run some tests, there are several reasons that make those banners worth a LOT more than the side ads. I just want to see what it is like. 24.141.66.208 19:46, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Do we really need all that many adds to pay for our hosting costs? We get along the lines of 12K hits/day(RationalWiki:Statistics/Mar2008) which, assuming a CTR of 0.5%, is 60 clicks/day and with a ppc program giving out $0.05 - $0.40 on each click we will have more than enough to cover our costs (which I believe you said was around 50$/month) and have a surplus. - Icewedge 20:43, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

That strikes me as a rather pessimistic view of humanity—surely the number of fools who actually click on such ads is much lower? : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Some sites have reported CTR of greater than 50%; these had banner ads though so I think 1 out of 200 is a reasonable assumption for RW. - Icewedge 21:13, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Costs are greater than $50, and while I am not allowed to quote statistics per TOC we are not quiet where we need to be but it seems promising. It is way to soon to analyze it, but thats why I am experimenting with different things just to see what works/dosen't work, etc. Tell me what you don't like, offer up suggestions and at the end of a couple weeks I will look at the data and make a decision. I will be experimenting with different types of ads and ad placement and we will just see. 24.141.66.208 22:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Why ...

... when free hosting has been offered is this necessary? Susan^{Talk(if you must)} 17:17, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

First comment, nice page space whore of a sig you have there, Susan!!! human 01:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The person who offered free hosting has since left the site, which highlights one of several reasons I didn't want to make such a move. It puts the existence of this site out of my control. I have pledged to keep this site up and running for as long as possible and have bent over backwards and made many sacrifices to ensure there is little to no interruption.....turning the site over to someone else like that endangers things too much, and as is evidenced by the case in point no matter how "in our camp" someone might be you never know how the fates will turn. tmtoulouse ^nettle 17:24, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Yep, I support that TMT. And I'm really enjoying taking money off them and doing some batshit research while I'm at it. DogP 17:29, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I must admit that when I saw the first creationist/ID ads I was taken aback. But now I realise that clicking on on of their adds costs them money and raises funds for RW then I'm quite satisfied. How much do we get for each click-through? However, as a pi-pledger I would like to know just what is the state of our finances (although maybe somwehere a bit more private). Genghis^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:53, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

That's a fair point - me too. Trent would answer but he's driving his Ferrari down to the country house for a yacht trip. DogP 18:05, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Basically the site currently costs (with some plus or minus depending on various factors) $80 a month, as things stand I get about $20 a month average from donations, and have received several larger one time donations on the order of magnitude of $10-$40. So if RationalWiki is an entity outside of me (which it isn't as of this time) it would owe me several hundred dollars. I swear I am not making a dime of this endeavor :). If something were to happen such that the site were to earn more income then it costs to run in a month I would just move the money into savings for leaner months. If we were to consistently make more money per month then it costs to run we could consider scaling back or investing in advertising the site or whatever. But as it stands it is not paying for itself yet which is what I am trying to do. If that doesn't answer questions or anyone wants more info go ahead and post or I can always be contacted in private over any matter at all. I may not be as active on the site during the semester but I am always checking mail. tmtoulouse ^nettle 18:07, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

If it hasn't already been said Trent, thanks for starting this, keeping it going out of your own pocket, providing us with such an entertaining forum and putting up with all the shit. Now, how do you intend to recompense me for the number of hours I have lost to this damn project? Eh?! DogP 18:15, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Saaaaaay, Trent... how much do we get per click? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:38, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Dogged, recompense comes from that warm and fuzzy feeling you get knowing that schlafly curses us every night. RA, I am not allowed to say actually, turns out google is very particular about this point and made me "sign" and express agreement not to reveal that information. It is way early yet to tell but I am going to try this out for a little while and get an assesment of it and give some general feedback in a few weeks. tmtoulouse ^nettle 18:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Trent, I never meant to imply that you were benefiting financially from RW. I just wanted to know what sort of sums we need cough up to keep the site afloat. From your $20 a month quote I guess that makes six of us actively contributing. Come on you guys, thats less than a Starbucks coffee a month and is non-fattening. Genghis^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:46, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

(undent) I didn't even notice the ads, until I came to the mainpage edits and read this. Personally, I think that the crazier the ads, the better! I'll add more later... human 01:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Ads give a good set of targets to debunk. Which in turn adds more content for us, which in turn adds more for the people looking for it finds us. --Shagie 01:59, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I must say that I don't like these advertisements. How are they selected? Or is this covered by the confidentiality agreement?--Bob^{bing up} 16:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

No, one doesn't have control over placement - AdSense ads are placed by the GoogleBorg on pages that the GoogleBorg deems relevant. Basically, it treats the entire contents of whatever page you're on as input to the Google search engine, than puts ads there that it thinks are relevant. In our case, since we have so much talk about conservatives, evangelicals, and nutjob YEC beliefs, it puts those kind of ads here. There's a positive side to it Bob, and in fairness to Trent, I think if one is not already a Pi Pledger, there's no entitlement to have an opinion. Someone has to pay for it, after all. DogP 16:46, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, I am a Pi Pledger and I don't like them. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 04:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Good-looking turds are still turds

(Found thanks to Adsense!) I somehow doubt the U.S. navy advocated chelation therapy for its sailors. Also, the picture of that "doctor", Mr. Cutler—my, what perfect teeth you have. And how tall you are. And white... -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:24, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Hehe

"But who cares when Republicans say offensive things? It's expected of them. " Thanks (ames? gulik?) I LOLed. SHahB 22:12, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Not me, Bohdan. Sadly, it _is_ true. Look at all the crapola Conservatives get away with because all the True Believers discard it as Liberal Slander, and everyone else just has Nixon flashbacks. --Gulik 15:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Constitution:Immigration

Quote: "No more anchor babies. Thanks to extra-constitutional court decisions, babies born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents immediately become U.S. citizens. This was never the intent of the authors of the Constitution." (http://www.conservativeusa.org/immigration.htm) What is the constitutional position on immigration, if any? I'd have thought that it (the constitution) predated any concerns.   ^Contribs_Talk 14:12, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

“”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...

—Amendment XIV, Constitution of the United States[1] [italics mine—Ed.]

Oh, dear. Unfortunately for the members of the only church acceptable among conservatives, Church of the Holy and Divinely Infallible Founding Fathers, what the Constitution actually says trumps what its writer's "intended". -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:13, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Hah, Conservapedia doesn't need "facts" or "history." Schlafly simply knows these things with 95% certainty. Thunderkatz^Ho! 15:16, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

So: in addition to "Cafeteria Christians" we've got "Cafeteria Constitutionalists"!   ^Contribs_Talk 15:19, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

You couldn't tell that already from their support of torture, warrantless wiretapping, and state-endorsed religion? Thunderkatz^Ho! 15:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

"Original intent" is a creepy methodology used mostly by archconservatives when it's convenient for them. They never raise a fuss over what the 2nd amendment must have meant by "arms"... human 15:26, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Yup! that's what I thought.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:29, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

The founders "originally intended" for slavery to be legal... Sterile^xx 18:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, yeah, but that original intention was amended eventually. In theory, at least. human 18:43, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Help!

My browser doesn't appear to be loading pages here correctly anymore. Is anyone else having trouble? --Horace 20:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... Seems Ok now. False alarm. --Horace 20:38, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I had a problem too just a while ago, I think it may be Trent editing the adsense. - Icewedge 21:19, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) Think I'm getting this problem too, or something similar. The navigation bar either disappears or appears where the page itself should be.58.120.227.83 21:21, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, the "top banners" have yielded some weird stuff. Although none trashed the page loading for me, who knows what that crazy grad student is up to? human 21:32, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

All right screw it I will nix the banners...........but it was really fun coming up with all the crazy php code for it. 24.141.66.208 22:30, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Jesus Made Me Puke

This retreat reminds me of some place on the web...--TimS 12:29, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Ham

I like ham, especially honey ham, Virginia ham, and chipped ham. i like ham sandwiches, ham salad, ham and eggs, and deviled ham. I sometimes like to ham it up, but I am ham handed. I know some ham radio buffs. Wasn't there some guy in the bible named ham too? Even jeebus must like ham. There is that dish at IHOP I believe called moons over my ham me. They know. They know. Ham rules. Does anyone else have any ham memories or a special fondness for ham that they might like to share?

On another topic I think banner ads about how to do banner ads are pretty funny. But not as good as ham! ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 17:56, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Ham smells like pig shit. Fox 18:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Ham does have a distinct smokey-savory aroma but . . . it does originate from the nether regions of the swine. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 18:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I second Fox on the nasty smell bit. I'd also like to say that this is a very unhealthy obsession you have. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:59, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Fox, have you ever really smelled the south end of a north-facing pig? And then compared it to some well-smoked bacon, or some lovely Black Forestish ham? I think not. Your religious prejudices against tasty pork "products" are showing! You know, it is the "other white meat" - no alternativeffirmative action required! human 21:45, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Nay, nay and thrice nay! Pig meat really does have a tang of pig pooh about it. As for knowing the smell - yes, I know it alright: that's a question only a townie would ask :D I once lived in an extremely rural area (by English standards, ie in a farmhouse at the bottom of a dirt track accessible by a narrow lane running through the marshes, an hour's drive from Tesco) and trust me, there were plenty of pigs on the surrounding farms. Mind you, a far worse smell was when the local baron decided to try out "nitrogen cakes" for fertilizer... Which is a posh way of saying dried, compressed human sewage sludge. That was one helluva summer, believe me. Fox 03:25, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Interesting how one's Bible-based prejudices can color one's experience of reality. Rational Ed^perception 08:13, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Not the case at all - I don't particularly like the taste or smell of beef, either, and last time I checked I was not a Hindu. Fox 08:17, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

So just all-around olfactorily challenged. My condolences. Rational Ed^perception 08:18, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps the opposite - with such a highly developed olfactory sense I am able to detect the pungent odour of dead things and their previous dietary habits a little more clearly than most others :P Fox 08:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Fox, that's an unhealthy obsession, and you should seek professional help. Gives the phrase "Sixth Sense" a new and rather disgusting meaning ("I smell dead pigs"). Rational Ed^perception 08:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

GMT

Informative article on GMT at Conservapedia: "Greenwich Mean Time, or GMT is the mean time that the earth takes to rotate from noon-to-noon." ^{— Unsigned, by: 67.168.25.232 / talk / contribs}

Idea for the future of RationalWiki

I don't believe that the future of RationalWiki is According to. I believe it's future is WIGO. Not WIGO as we know it today, but a WIGO that moves beyond Conservapedia.

"According to" has limited appeal to the community here because the items it discusses are not "Web 2.0". That is, they are not interactive. The appeal of the CP-specific WIGO lies in that the experience is (a) interactive and (b) it involves clashes of personality. "According to" passively reports on news concerning nutjobs. Furthermore, the sites they link to are static, and lack the joy of watching nutjobs interact with each other, as on WIGO.

Now, the loony sort of conservatives we find on CP aren't exactly common on the 'net—liberals are far more dominant. New Age communities, as well with crackpot-heavy communities in general, however, are plentiful. We would ideally comment on whatever New-Agey/crackpot wikis, forums, and blogs we can find, as well as whatever ultra-right-wing communities blogs, wikis, and forums we can hunt down, and establish a WIGO for them. We would get all the trappings of the CP-specific WIGO we have now—we would get to watch the internal workings of such communities (in particular, enjoying the clashes of personality), get to jump in and participate in the other communities if we lose patience with being a mere bystander, and, ideally, we would get to watch their reactions to us and our WIGO. And don't forget, we get to be snarky in our entries.

Granted, there would be some caveats. We wouldn't be able to attain the same level of familiarity with many disparate sites that we would with just one (Conservapedia), so to avoid confusion, we would have to state the site we are commenting on, as well as link to relevant profiles of the personalities involved. This would make entries longer (though hopefully no less witty). If the we choose to cover forums and blogs as well, it would be more difficult to track changes in the text; one would need to take a lot of screenshots to do so. Also, other communities may not be as tolerant of us as Conservapedia is.

There is a second goal within this plan. A number of people here have expressed that they dream of RationalWiki becoming a dependable resource for debunking the anti-science movements, crackpots, and various other movements and personalities. Realistically, it is highly unlikely that will ever come to pass. We're just too small, and there are already many other, more-established sites that do this. This also overlooks our greatest strength: our community.

In the process of commenting on so the internet communities described above, we will inevitably come across people who have waded into the alien morass on their own, and are attempting to inject some sense into them. We should do exactly what we do with such people on Conservapedia, and set ourselves up as a "recovery station" for these adventurers (with the goal of retaining them for the long term). We should quietly invite them to our site, via email if possible, or via a post on the wiki/forum/blog if necessary. Most may not accept, but if even a handful did accept it would greatly expand our membership. Even invitations that are turned down would serve to build "brand awareness", by getting our name out there and increasing the likelihood of new people finding us. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

So, what do you think? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

An interesting proposal worthy of consideration. But do you imagine one big WIGO; various WIGO's; subdivisions of one big one or what? To be honest each possibility is less than perfect - but I like the idea of going somewhere else. --Bob^{bing up} 12:42, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Good proposal, but as you say - at present we don't have the familiarity with other sites. Maybe we should target them one at a time and create a new WIGO for each as we go on?   ^Contribs_Talk 12:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Just be careful of the increasing our membership thing. If that's your goal, then fine. But remember what the most common corollaries are, namely increased admin, increased costs (bandwidth, etc.), loss of "tight-knittedness", and, maybe most importantly, the potential breeding of your own nutjobs. The latter is the scourge of any large internet community.

I'm not saying what you propose above is a good idea in general but specifically any drive to increase one's membership should be considered carefully. Sometimes small really is beautiful. Ajkgordon 12:49, 7 May 2008 (EDT)