I agree with the previous poster. There is a wold of difference between what you think your website is (i.e. an authority site) and what it is actually perceived as (well, whatever it is perceived as in this case, not by you and your spouse, but by the average joe). Don't mean to play down the importance of the articles posted here, because they are well-written and researched, but people associate authority with a narrower field of expertise. Is there such a thing for OmniNerd? I don't believe so. Now, if ON were actually OmniNerd for Oil Independence and all you wrote was articles on gas saving tips and peak oil and how global warming is really a hoax perpetrated by the liberal media hawks, then you will probably have a better time trying to convince Wikipedia that you are an authoritative site.
I agree with you though that authority at some point is defined rather subjectively, but still, I don't think ON should not be delusional in believing it will make the list of references in Encyclopedia Britannica (or its more popular, less noble counterpart which is Wikipedia).
On the other hand, if VnutZ were to start a blog hosted on an independent and famed blog platform and build an audience and become an authority for ninja saber fighting, then Vnutz will be quoted on Fox News maybe and then he could say that he is a founding member of ON, an "anything-nerdy-goes" website.

Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics

RSS


RE: Wikipedia, or not?
It seems odd that Omninerd would be considered a reference site at all. I've always thought of it as a nerd news / personnel commentary / authoring and discussion site for like-minded individuals.
Well ... the daily material serves no purpose as reference material. But OmniNerd exists for the original articles which are quite relevant to their topics as reference material. We've just had a dearth of new articles lately!
View Full Discussion