Forum:Start relationships with Rune HQ or other fan sites

Forums: Yew Grove > Start relationships with Rune HQ or other fan sites

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page.

I was thinking, shall we start some relations with other fan sites. I know we have some already but that's in wikia and stuff. I', thinking outside the box and increasing runescape wiki's reputation. Shall we give it a go? Mo 55 55 ^Talk|Sign 09:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Support basic link exchange, but I doubt this will pass. If we accept to partner up with one site, more and more will ask to join with us... ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  09:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Support selective fan sites see below. But not rune hq. Sal's realm is fine but not rune hq.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness13:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Support if doable, What makes you think the big names want to affiliate with us? Also whats wrong with Rune HQ? --Serenity1137 21:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think we need to too. Their idea of community and such is different than ours and I don't see why we would need to in the first place. Also, why would they? They, in terms, have succeeded us as they have become recognized by Jagex as a worthy fansite. Why would they want to deter their audience to us and potentially throw ours away?

Bonziiznob ^Talk

22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I said Rune HQ as a example, we don't have to go for them. We can go for sites like zybez, runegamer and any other, not one big popular site. Mo 55 55 ^Talk|Sign 07:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Bonzi. We are already the best. Connections with advertising troll-filled sites like those would only hinder us. We don't need their links. And anyone can take a calculators and plug in the numbers. Doucher4000^******r4000 00:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Isn't the idea to keep users from using other fansites and to use ours instead? I think adding affiliations with other RuneScape fansites will only decrease our amount of viewers seeing as we are giving them the option of going to another RuneScape fansite other than ours. Spencer ^{(Talk | Edits | Contribs)} 03:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Telos and Doucher.--

File:Summoning.gif NuparuMahnika File:Shield2.PNG

03:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - How can you guys support such isolationism? Not only is it an insult to deem any fansite but our own unworthy or troll filled, but its extremely harmful to impose your personal views about something/someone onto the entire community. Also, how can you call a site like RuneHQ troll filled when we have yet to make it more than 7 days without being vandalized by some troll. Finally, the way you become popular is not by closing yourself off and rejecting link exchanges, its by exchanging as many links as you possibly can. Perhaps you forget how sites like Google work. You see, they have a bot that crawls every link on the internet. The more links that bring the bot back to your website, the better your page ranking and higher you show up on search results. TEbuddy 08:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Mo 55 55 ^Talk|Sign 12:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I could give a rat's ass about our link's or our hits when it jeopardizes our community. Now, of course you will come back with some kind of response, because you always do, but I don't want our contributors going to another site by us linking to them. Support Isolationism, meh. Big words kinda make it sound like were the bad guys. Insult to deem any fansite but our own unworthy, can you please find me a quote where someone is saying this in this discussion, besides you? I think your putting words into our mouths. We simply do not want to provide a link exchange. Nobody is saying we are any better than anybody else. Perhaps, considering they are the more popular website, we get their opinion first on a possible link exchange and hear what they have to say about us. That will show us what kind of community their members make and offer, and what they feel about us. With absolutely no means of insult to them (as this is my sole opinion and I may be wrong), a site as large and successful as theirs would most likely see themselves as too worthy to link with us.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I completely agree with Bonziiznob. File:Zaros tally.PNG Oli4burggraa ^{Talk - Sign}File:Runecrafter hat y.PNG 19:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

comment - I dont know where your coming from here bonzii, but you have somehow got it in your head that a link exchange automatically equals loss of traffic and the degradation of our userbase and content. It shows a gross lack of understanding when it comes to website management when you say "we want our website to be popular, but we don't want to do any link exchanges/partnerships with anyone who also hosts a website about the same field as ours". All the better if you can get link exchanges with extremely successful sites like RuneHQ. The reason I brought up isolationism is because the real world shows us through time that it has generally proven to be counter productive to the desired result, the second borders are open society prospers with new goods and scientific/techological advances. Of course that example can be a bit extreme, but the principle of isolationism in both cases is extremely relevant. And how can you so blatantly ignore what d4k said just a few posts above you? He starts with "we are the best", goes on about how RHQ is "adveritsing and troll filled" (seriously, I count 5 ads on my screen on this page right now), and tops it off with a nice attack on their skill calculators. Also, maybe you should do your research when it comes to trashing RuneHQ and links [1]. It seems to me that your getting a little agitated, so maybe you should calm down before we continue this discussion. TEbuddy 19:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You know tebuddy. I'm sorry if I'm wrong, and I'm not usually one to call people out on things that bug me, but, you bug me. I'm not getting agitated at all, and I really do get the impression that you think you are better than the other editors here. Time and time again I disagree with a majority of your opinions and I always seem to get this attitude from you that you are always right and to hell what others think because you are right and you know what is best, always. So, fine. Have it your way. So, because you are such an expert in where it is generally proven to be counter productive to the desired result, with respect to this discussion, by all means, take our wiki's gross lack of understanding of website management and make it your own. I mean, we've made it this far on our gross lack of management, so superhero Tebuddy can turn this into the next best thing to runescape.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

03:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well don't bother apologizing tomorrow when you realize how much of a silly person you were acting like. Everyone gets angry and has to vent, although this not the behavior I would expect of someone in your position. Granted I can be a bit vicious at times, but I never try to shut anyone down or remove them from the conversation. In case your curious, I think your just so used to the landslide in favor of your opinions without contest and the second I start doing that you get uncomfortable and irritated. TEbuddy 04:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys should both calm down. You're both great members here and you know it. Sure, we all have our opinions, but there's not need to fight. Just discuss. --User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 04:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Civilized conversation, right. =) I won't be apologizing, any day. I'm glad you take the time to raise your concerns and voice your opinions, and I'm totally not upset by that at all. Good for you. You do your research, you know how to speak your mind (which is a plus) and I'm not opposed to you offering or saying anything about anything. The issue I have is with how you address other editors and their opinions. I don't think you do it positively or you respect their opinions without questioning every one of them or turning it around. As for a landslide thingy in my favour, I highly doubt they are in favor of my opinions for the sake of it being me who is saying it. Some of us see eye to eye, some of us don't. That's what makes this community so diverse and that is why we build our solutions on a consensus. As for my behaviour in my position, just because I am an administrator means there is sterotypical behavior I must follow. I think it's good to question other users and let them be aware of their opinions and views, such as what I am doing. But, I must remember to remain civil and polite when doing it, which I think I did to my best extent where I still got my point across. Anyways, while this discussion is underway, I think we should come to a mutuality to agree to disagree. Sound good to you?

Bonziiznob ^Talk

13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Based on what bonzii said, I think it would be smarter to let other sites make the first move. Honestly, I think this site pwns other rs fansites because it has vast quantities of information and a stronger tied communitie, but RuneHQ or sals has more viewers and is considered more populer. Therefore, if we let them make the first move, it makes a big statement about us, and if we ask them, we loose that opertunity. Better business. all per Bonzii. User:Stelercus/Signature 21:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral leaning to support - Kinda per TEBuddy, but I'm thinking more of let them come to us.  @Gaz#7521 21:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

TE makes a good point below. Support, but how would we aproach the other fansites? Almost certainly we'd need to ask them to come to a relevant YG thread, otherwise our community can't get involved properly.  @Gaz#7521 10:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Question to be answered -What would we, the Runescpe Wiki, get from this ordeal? We have far surpassed the rest. We let the people provide the information, resulting in us having the absolute best. Hell, we're more accurate then the Official Manual, written by the people who made the game. Any good suggestion must have an intent of benefitting the Wiki, and this would give us the short end of the stick. Doucher4000^******r4000 04:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Its seem pretty arrogant to assume that we are the best completely ignoring traffic stats, number of active editors, and content. I can also say with confidence that we not more active than websites like Runehq, or sals realm in terms of active users or pageviews.

• "Our members have made a total of 1,212,507 posts

We have 268,468 registered members The newest member is Skatergurl44 Most users ever online was 2,423 on Sep 6 2008, 11:32 AM"

At last count we had I think 300'ish active editors?

• RuneHQ [2]
• RS Wikia [3]
• Sals Realm [4]

As you can see we are not the top in pageviews, or number of active users. TEbuddy 04:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Quantity =/= Quality. We are one of the best fansites, we're just not that popular yet. I think telling friends about the Wiki would help more than linking with other fansites. I am not against other websites, but why not let them ask us? File:Zaros tally.PNG Oli4burggraa ^{Talk - Sign}File:Runecrafter hat y.PNG 07:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't get your name out there by expecting the door to open itself. If you were to invent a product that everyone said would revolutionize the market, would you wait for the TV executives to come to you? Also, how exactly does quality over quantity apply here? Both sites I linked to provide exactly the same information we do and even more (guides based on certain monsters/areas moneymaking, skill calculators etc). And the content is screened by a select group of people who maintain their website to their own standard of quality. TEbuddy 08:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I said that because you are comparing our numbers of view and users with theirs. This does not mean that we have a better or worse website than they have, does it? I think advertising by just telling your friends about this is best. Oil4 ^Talk 09:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, but its all about exposure. If a link on somewhere like RHQ would generate us 3000 unique pageviews and 1500 were uninterested in what we had to offer, thats still 1500 more interested/curious people than we would have had if we had chosen to avoid the link. I mean the internet is absolutely huge, what catastrophe do you think we are going to avoid by only telling only our friends? We already get constantly assaulted with vandalism, trolls, bots, ads, and whatever other garbage, it sounds to me like allowing only certain methods of exposure is a waste of time. TEbuddy 10:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose This has been spoken of before. There are a few major issues that need to be addressed. First, the adverts on most of those sites are not appropriate for our wiki. Second, why would runehq, and zybez want to link to us? They rely on advertising on their pages, not on ours. What benefit would they receive? Do you think that they would want to lose page views? Third, The communities are totally different. We allow every person to edit any page. Go try and edit a page on runehq. The fact that we are unique and offer unlimited opinions and ideas is what makes this wiki what it is. There is no reason to for a link exchange ‎AtlandyFile:Beer.gif 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - :: The adverts are not appropriate? How do you figure? The last time I checked in there they were very strict about ads breaking any of the Runescape/Jagex rules, and they could actually get them removed immediately (unlike us because we need to go through wikia first).

Why do you assume so much when talking about any other fansite but our own. Why does RHQ or Zybez need to get something out of the deal in order to cooperate with us? Is it so hard to think that maybe the people who run RHQ are fans of the game and may just put our link in because they are dedicated to Runescape and not to ad revenue or X amount of registered users. Maybe the philosophy you like to stick to when making decisions that effect the wiki are similar to the way someone like the webmaster of Zybez would. And for gods sake can we stop talking about other websites like we are competing for slices of the Runescape fan club pie? This all plays into that whole fans of the game thing, why create such turmoil between potential friends when there doesn't need to be any. And the exact reason you list for not wanting to exchange links is a reason I would list as something to look forward to. Maybe a user at RHQ wouldn't know they wanted to participate in an edit on the fly project until they saw it. But how would they ever find out about it if we don't tell them? Each of our communities has different strengths and weaknesses, and opening that portal between each other could not only boost traffic between both sites, but create a partnership.

And the final thing I would like to say is that you guys seem to want to classify traffic as black and white. Why is it you assume that if someone follows a link to the RS wikia from RHQ that they will never return to RHQ for anything ever? Same goes with a link to RHQ from the RS wikia.

I also wanted more information on this argument from difference between our communities, why should we not allow open link exchange just because we work on a different system or choose to make decisions a different way. The United States consistently trades with other nations that may not agree with how we run things for ourselves, but that isn't grounds for immediate closing of borders. TEbuddy 12:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The adverts on runehq for example advertise an auto-miner program. Is that appropriate? As far as asking zybez or runehq getting something out of the deal....go ahead TE, ask them. Nobody is stopping you by asking them if they would put a link to our site. If anyone wants to use other site, we all know the addresses. If you google runescape help, many sites pop up. If you think that they would do a link exchange, then see if they are willing to. ‎AtlandyFile:Beer.gif 12:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure we have had buy gold adverts atlandy.On the overall issue I think we should stay independent, as sal's realm. rune hq etc. are full of people who go on there to get Their unfair runescape advantage. If those lot came here, we would be vandal ridden, and full of under-age people. We are very different to other fansites, and should not associate with them.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 17:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We do not have any adverts that claim to break any rules of rs. All of the editors report them to central wiki and they get removed. ‎AtlandyFile:Beer.gif 18:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just I have seen many How to become an RS billionare ads. Anyway, lets not hijack the topic.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 18:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Under age and vandal ridden? I seriously cant believe I have heard three people in this thread say that. For starters, Atlandy you need to actually visit RHQ and familiarize yourself with their rules and philosiphy before you say they support an unfair advantage and autominers. It seems to me like your just throwing some pretty unsubstantiated assumptions toward any site you don't personally use without verifying your information. Second of all, 2+2 the majority (probably 80%) of our editors as of now are under 18 years old. And third, have you seen a period of more than a day or two when we haven't been attacked by some form of vandalism? Can you prove the majority of the RHQ community intends to cause us harm? Or is it just another judgement?

It seems to me as this conversation folds out that we are holding ourselves in too high a regard and consider ourselves "better" than other fansites when realistically we have nothing more to offer anyone except a chance to edit here and there under the supervision of strict rules. And unfortunately as much as you want to embrace it or not, we are not as popular as websites like RHQ or Zybez. Now you can go ahead and keep saying "oh well thats because of this, thats because of that, they just dont agree with our philosophy, they are all immature and impure" or whatever else you can conjure up. How about for once we stop playing the waiting game and become a little more aggressive. I have been around this community around four months, and in that time I have seen four different requests for opening up link exchanges with misceallanous Runescape fansites all get rejected for one ridiculous reason or another. I say if this independent reject all friendly related websites unwritten policy we have would have worked, then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Another thing, Runescape gold ads and Runescape billionaire/guide ads are totally different. One is an illegal gold vendor, and one is similar to how Prima peddles strategy guides for games and sells them for 15-30 bucks a piece. One is totally illegal and one actually may be useful to someone somewhere. This is why they have not been removed. TEbuddy 18:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I know most of us are under 18. I am. I mean under 13 which is not allowed on wiki's.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 15:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to get too far off-topic, the auto-miner ad on runehq is not allowed by runescape standards. Like I mentioned before TE, if you want to reach out, please, by all means, take the time, and I would love to see what their response is. I would love to welcome in new users and wikians, the more the merrier, but until someone takes the time to talk to them and get a link in return, this will never move forward. This link exchange should be a two-way street. My main concerns are their advertising (which breaks rules) and are they going to do the same for us in return? ‎AtlandyFile:Beer.gif 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What autominer? I dont see any illegal software being endorsed by RHQ or their ads at the time I am writing this reply. And while I would love to begin contacting every fan website owner, I am not allowed to until we reach a decision here. TEbuddy 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Doucher. We really are the best. We don't need them.

bad_fetus^talk 08:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed to oppose - Some of the above arguments (primarily by D4K) changed my mind. We may not be the most popular but I do believe we are the best. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  10:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for closure - It didn't work. Mo 55 55 ^Talk|Sign 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with RS:CONSENSUS before trying to close an active discussion. TEbuddy 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything on the consensus page by searching 'closure' 'closed' 'finish' or 'end'. --Serenity1137 22:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Try reading through RS:CONSENSUS#Process and RS:CONSENSUS#What_consensus_is_not.... TEbuddy 22:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A Consensus can be made. The author has requested closure, and based on rough consensus, which is present, with a little over 18% in support, it can be safe to close this discussion. I however recommend not doing so. Silence to some speaks for a consensus, as dictated, but this discussion is to knew to apply that. Some users may not have even logged on since the discussion was made. Also, I am not an inactive admin on this discussion, therefore my closing it would be bias.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

While I feel my claims have yet to be answered and I disagree with the authors choice to withdraw support, its clear that no one is really interested in talking it out and everyone feels the Runescape Wiki is "the best" and that any website but the Runescape Wiki is troll filled and underage. Go for it.

Update

As per atlandys suggestion a day or so back I went ahead and contacted Zybez to see if they would be interested in partnering up with us and this was my response from W, the current webmaster.

“

Hey Josiah, I'd love to do a link-exchange with you. I was skeptical at first about RunescapeWiki but you guys have really proven yourselves. Keep up the good work. You may either provide a normal link or a button, as you wish. Buttons available here: http://www.zybez.net/links.php Once you've placed the link, hit me back, and I'll add your link to our links page on Zybez.net Take care, W.

”

Seeing as how all I did was send the guy a nice e-mail and I got such a positive response, how much more complicated would it be to establish relations with RHQ or any of the other popular Runescape websites? Please also note that Zybez, if not the largest, is definitely in the top 5 largest Runescape fan websites. [5] TEbuddy 00:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per my post above. TEbuddy 00:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Link exchange is good I didn't think a big one like Zybex would be interested, but with that email I say we have to go for it. Increased traffic to our site should bring us even more knowledgeable people. Nice work Tebuddy.--Degenret01 00:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Link Exchange - Admittedly I doubted they would be interested, however if this is the type of friendly response we receive, it is both ignorant and arrogant of us to display such an "holier than thou" attitude. A simple link exchange cannot hurt and to those whom think us better than any other site, we'll have no risk of losing users and have nothing to lose, but more users to gain, with such an arrangement.--

Azaz129 ^{Talk Edits Contribs}

00:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Last I heard was that we have 376 active editors. Hopefully, by linking with other fansites hopefully we can gain more active editors. I have earlier heard that a concern is that it will bring more trolls and vandals to the wiki. We have active users with rollback, and admins that can swiftly block the vandals, so vandalism will not be a large problem. ~Muz^Talk 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Slight Support for Link Exchange - Per Azaz. I'm wondering, what if the vandals happens to be from the other fan sites? They would probably target us to help "remove competition" since anyone can edit. -- Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 00:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If we could survive dedicated trolls such as Total Rune or Bucknell or Jaghater or our recent friend the vandalbot, I'm quite sure we can handle increased vandalism. Also, there's really isn't anything keeping them from doing that now, being on good terms with the webmaster can't hurt either.--

Azaz129 ^{Talk Edits Contribs}

01:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Well, there you have it. Congratulations Tebuddy. Although I am unfamiliar with their community, I`m willing to give it a go. I hope it works.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

02:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning toward oppose - The biggest problem I have with Zybez is their advertisements promoting rulebreaking and such. We recently disassociated with the UnRuneScape Wiki because we found their ideals questionable. If that is so, I believe we should err on the cautious side in this regard. Butterman62 (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Jagex approves of Zybex, they can't be too bad.--Degenret01 03:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - We have a unique thing going on here. I don't see any reason that we need to affiliate. All this will do is lead to battles over which fansites to partner with, especialy regarding RuneHQ which seems to be universaly looked down upon by every other major fansite. Randox 04:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Slight Support - Zybez seems fine to me. What about Tip.it? They're a good website (although they have a lot of bad ads). Oil4 ^Talk 05:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Tip.it is a good site. I use them quite a bit, and ads aside I would consider them the best of the major fansites, though that is of course opinion. Its a quality sight run by good, competant people. Randox 06:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - We need to stick to the big picture for now guys. After we actually get consensus to open ourselves up and begin accepting link/banner exchanges, then we can make a new thread accepting/denying exchanges with certain fan sites that we can pick and choose from. Hopefully this discussion will close soon seeing as how it looks like most of the opposers switched sides already. TEbuddy 09:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Definite support A link exchange allows people from both sites to choose which is better, and I think we will gain more viewers than we will lose from this. It'll be good to supply links to good calcs as well, till we develop our own. --Serenity1137 15:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Link Exchange - Like others, I think that a link exchange would be beneficial to the wiki. C.Chiam^Talk 15:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Id like to request closure, its obvious now that everyone was a little weary of making contact with any other popular websites, but seeing the good intentions of Zybez put everyone at ease. TEbuddy 19:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - This is pretty much the same suggestion as above, only with a specific site. How come everyone changed to support? ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  07:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Because most of the people opposed assumed popular websites like Zybez or RHQ would scoff at us or demand some type of payment or agreement. If they are willing to accept us for what we are, then unless your actually an isolationist you would be able to see the benefits of a link exchange. TEbuddy 07:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see why you would want to link to other fansites. Zybez has always been hated by Jagex because they use to refuse to remove RWT ads. Jagex only just added them to the approved websites, after having 100s of posts arguing for its addition. It also doesn't seem logical to advertise a website that is in competition with us. There is a reason why McDonalds doesn't advertise KFC and Vice versa. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk

It doesn't matter why they were added to the list of APPROVED websites because ultimately Jagex and only Jagex has control of who makes it and who doesnt. When you have you known Jagex to grudgingly do something? Were not sticking a "visit Zybez over us" sticker on our homepage, just a link. The situation surrounding Zybez and Jagex is not as clear as it would seem. The reason Zybez would not remove the ads is because they could not (similar to our problem). Ads are generated based on keywords, with hundreds of thousands of gold sellers, RWT ads dominated searches and hence search engine generated advertising. Sure you can blacklist them, but that doesn't stop a new one from popping up the next day. The problem with this was that switching a website that gets the traffic load that Zybez does over to a completely different advertising scheme is not easy when the bills don't care what the situation demands. It also been established by bigger players than us, that linking with other websites is generally benficial in every way. [6] [7]. TEbuddy 09:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem logical for big sites to link to smaller sites. I can see linking being beneficial in some scenarios. If RS wiki was just starting up and needed views, it would be very helpful to link to get the name out there. The problem is that Wiki has established itself as a major fansite and will get a steady stream of players as a result of that. Major sites don't link since it only works in small scale. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I read your post and at first interpret it as if you didn't realize the webmaster of Zybez has willingly agreed to link up with us. But I don't understand why your getting your gears tripped on a link exchange benefits only affecting small sites (which is false). Even if we don't get much flow directly from the link on Zybez, we will move up in search results due to how well linked up their entire website is with other fan based communities. I don't know if you have been keeping tabs on the recently proposed main page changes for SEO efficiency (we rank 8th below a bunch of gold sellers in search results). The reason for that is because we don't have any incoming links because we don't link to anyone because no one here ever considered a partnership before. Don't get me wrong, 300 active editors and a few thousand pageviews are nice, but why not get the exposure when the alternative is having none. Especially when it comes with a big partner like Zybez who undoubtedly have thousands of juicy incoming links just waiting to connect to the RS wikia. TEbuddy 10:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not really read the front page changes thing at all. I normally try to stay as far away from Yew Grove as possible. I horribly failed this time. With the exception of you, not a single person has said anything about our google performance on this whole thread. Ignoring google for a moment (I can return to it later), can you explain how it would be beneficial to more then just small communities of sites. You skimmed over it in the last reply. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 11:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it for him, this is the theory behind it. Lots more people go to other websites than go to ours, this is not because of their websites being better (for the most part we hope) but because not enough people have given us a chance, through a link exchange we can presume that people from both websites will try out the other one. We are fairly confident that we won't lose many people through this (as most people visiting the wiki will have heard of zybez), and that we will gain quite a few (as most people visiting zybez haven't visited the wiki). Hope this clears up our reasoning for you, --Serenity1137 14:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not how it will work and TEBuddy knows it. "Even if we don't get much flow directly from the link on Zybez, we will move up in search results". I just want to know how it would be beneficial. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I made it sound like I was skeptical, but I do not doubt we will definitely see some traffic from directly from Zybez. My point was that even if we don't see much traffic from the link, Google counts the number of inbound links (people linking to zybez), and then sees that in some way those links end up leading you to the RS wiki (via Zybez links section), this increases our pagerank based on Runescape keywords, and we move up in search results. So its really win win however you look at it TEbuddy 06:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I must be the skeptical one since I am the one with the negative slant on everything to do with linking.

What I think it comes down to is that linking will not help increase views through getting the Wiki name out there, will not help to increase the amount of editers, it will be hard for it to be a fair trade since the wiki's link will be found in the terms and conditions and wiki is put into a gentleman's agreement where if Zybez or any other fansite gets hated by Jagex again, we will kind of feel obliged to stick by them. I really don't think it is worth it. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong opposeSee my comments below - Per Evil Yanks and Telos. We are not your average fansite. We have rules. And also same reasons as I have put above.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We have rules and policies, yes. But, saying that other fansites don't have rules is untrue. I took a quick scan over the three fansites that are considered to be the largest, Rune Tips, Runehq, and Zybez. The forums on Rune Tips has a set of rules located here, have a list of IRC rules, and the ability to report bad advertisements. Runehq has a list of rules set here. Zybez has a list of forum rules here, and also have smaller rules around the different forums. So saying that other fansites don't have rules and policies is a bit harsh and jumping to conclusions. ~Muz^Talk 18:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Stong Support - I would consider the improvement to google searches quite valuble to us. Also, if Zybez is already extending partnership, I belive that act of good faith deserves one from us in return. Looking over arguments again, I see that we have next to nothing to lose in this, and a substantial ammount to gain. We can not be afraid of having new people come who may, or may not, be aware of our rules if we wish to grow as a community. Randox 17:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sorry, but I nearly burst out laughing when I saw the email response. People were saying "oh, why would they ever be interested in us?", "let them come to us" and the like, but when someone went and asked, they turned out to be very willing.

Anyway, Zybez has had a history of appearing to be the rule-breaking sort, but, in recent times, they have stepped up to the metaphorical plate and managed the ads and such better, enough so that Jagex lifted their embargo with them, and even partnered with them. If Jagex partnered with them, they can't be that bad of a site, right?

On the basis of what we would receive, it would essentially be any allocation of the following:

• more page views and publicity
• more users (you never know, but one or two of which could end up being our next b'crat)
• more vandals and trolls

Though, no vandal nor troll has been able to make a lasting dent in our site or community. Vandalbot was the worst in recent times. And what happened? We cleaned everything up in a few hours tops. What if the most likely worst-case scenario of three vandal bots came at once? Yeah, it might seem like a whole lot of damage to the administrator watching the metaphorical borders at the time, but a simple block and several clicks of rollback would fix it.

It's not like the Wiki's going to collapse over a simple link. If anything, good will come from it. Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said TEbuddy 22:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you. :) Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 23:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support per Chia. Brux ^Talk 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - TEbuddy is pretty convincing, as is chia... --— ^En_ig^ma 06:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Chia did it for me. It seems I was editing with my eyes closed.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 16:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I just thought of something. If this is accepted, where will the link go?? Zybez will put the link on the links page, which can only be found in the terms and conditions section of the page. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk07:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

At the very bottom of every page is a template with the text "link to us", clicking on that reveals their links pag. Our link to them will probably go in the left hand side navigation with a new section titles links or something similar. But thats not what this discussion is about, once we get consensus for actually approving of relations with other fansites then we can make another official discussion on where the links will go and develop a criteria for accepting/rejecting websites. TEbuddy 07:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that we could add them to the sidebar under the "sister wikis" area, but change it to either "partner sites" or "sister sites". Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 20:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking similar to chia, but maybe also something on pages were calculators would be realy great but we don't have them. --Serenity1137 09:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - No one looses traffic, it's just opening up a bridge. Theres info that the RS Wiki has that Zybez doesn't, and theres info that Zybez has that the RS Wiki doesn't. ...But we're a wiki so we can just add the info we don't have --— ^En_ig^ma 16:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per reasons above. We should still be cautious about the sites we link with. †Blade^#† 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to close

16 in favor of support and two opposed (starting after the update section) brings us to a little more than 88% in favor of a link exchange. Those opposed who have not yet changed their votes have either only posted once or have yet to post any solid evidence to back up their reasoning. With little room for a modified proposal I think that is enough to move and start a new thread crafting criteria for accepting and rejecting sites and where we shall place links to partner sites. TEbuddy 02:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Support for closure - I support for closure. Due to many others changing their vote seeing the response from Zybez. I shall wait for the new thread if the closure request is accepted. ~Muz^Talk 03:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Support for closure, a slightly rough consensus but consensusy enough for me --Serenity1137 08:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Closed - This page is getting quite long. I'm going to close this as a successful proposal to the mentioned. I feel it's not bias of me, even though I have voiced an opinion due to the support this discussion has achieved and the length of the topic. You are free to make the necessary changes, TEbuddy.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

16:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)