I'm back from Vacation and I brought you all some Release Highlights as souvenirs.
On communities that don't have article comments, walls or Discussions enabled, the reported queue doesn't show filter options anymore that don't apply to that wiki.
Stop killing Categories!
A bug was fixed that sometimes caused fatal exception errors on category pages
The Toolbar isn't shy anymore
The bottom toolbar is no longer collapsed by default on every new wiki you visit.
You gotta picture the destination!
Image hotlinking from other wikis using vignette URLs works on the UCP now.
The ability to automatically sync translations with CrowdIn was re-implemented on the UCP. We had to manually update translations for a few months, due to the jump from 1.19 to 1.33, but now we'll have automatic syncing, which means faster turnaround and better translations!
Design improvements for Message Wall 2.0
Replies don't look so disconnected from their parent post anymore; and when you edit someone else's message, it no longer states "editing your message".
We've got Discussion enhancements brewing now, so keep an eye out for those soon!
Vacation? I thought I saw you working the other day XP
A non-UCP question (forgive me) when can we start seeing updates on certain "team changes" (edit: aka we keep getting told the bad news via blogs but not exactly the new changes replacing) and changes that are not exactly UCP but told to happen with or after UCP is complete (ie. how staff deals with bad admins).
As many volunteer CC members try to inform upset users who come to CC only cause of some sort of grievance- having more information to relay would be welcome.
And just cause I posted this a little while ago on the previous now closed thread I'd just report here:
Something (else) that has been bothering me is that the UCP has both edit and edit source after each header which is bordering on spam IMO (# of headers x2 the word edit on a page). Is there a way to have just edit like before and user pref pulls up your preferred editor? Or even a work around users have found to hide one?
With more features migrating to discussions format, I have a query. Do images posted in anything Discussions show in Googles images (if the proper conditions apply) or is it completely hidden?
Answer: Not completely hidden.
Actually- to go even further, are discussions generally hidden more so than regular articles when google searching?
Edit: aka- if discussions are suppose to be like reddit discussions, are Wiki Discussions actually getting the same exposure? or are they actually more hidden?
But it is disconcerting not all discussions will post an image for one and it was very specific searching (knowing the discussion title). Which makes me wonder if so much is going the discussion route it will be harder information to find compared to forums or reddit via a search engine.
Have you tried the more direct Google approach with something like "site:WIKINAME.fandom.com/f"? It looks like Google may not crawl FANDOM wikis super frequently unless they are really big or popular... i.e. I don't get any 24 hr results for animanga.fandom.com whereas I get alot from starwars.fandom.com.
It's about exposure to those not yet on wiki/fandom.
Some of my articles do decently (without searching the words "wiki" or "fandom") which is how I think I get my traffic (my wikis articles can range to page 1 to top 10 pages to lost in omitted) but my wiki seems to get more exposure under Images for google search which is fine/great. And even then under All, I sometimes have articles on page 1 with top beauty reviewers, the official site(s) and top retailer(s). I also have pages lost in obscurity, which is also fine.
But discussions look almost non-existent or hidden which was why I wondered if discussions are less efficient for exposure (or that you are fully correct and just because it isn't a big popular wiki). One test search I did was the term "urban decay wired" (both article and discussion created feb 1st and 2nd this year) my article was on page 8 (without including omitted) but to find the discussion on the topic it was page 25 under including omitted results. This just seems a shame cause an article is an article with just basic information no review/opinions/in depth discussions.
The long and the short of it is I was hoping discussions would actually bring discussions to my wiki but if it's more hidden people prolly rather reddit (which I get it that is why people go to reddit to start and discussions simply do not compete) but it's not like they are finding it either.
So, I'm not sure how much you know about SEO, but web crawlers don't like links that are mostly a bunch of numbers without actual words and that is what most Discussions URLs look like to web crawlers. Unless FANDOM changes this, it is unlikely that Discussions SEO will improve dramatically.
This is another reason why I don't like Discussions, but I'm not sure FANDOM designed Discussions with SEO in mind since they may not get as much advertising income from them.
Well that makes a lot of sense (but is a sad disappointing way). I was wracking my brain why there was a substantial gap between articles and discussion post. But name vs. an assigned number- named pages do better.
I mean I don't mind if user wall messages (since they are going to discussion format) are hidden from google search but discussions being google search elusive seems retrogressive.
I recall reading somewhere that Fandom sets whatever the "do not crawl" flag is for /f pages but I can't find it again so I might be misremembering things. And if you get results when searching I probably am.