So for most of this it sounds like it's strictly a url change, Gamepedia editing still within, that's all fine and dandy, especially if it truly mitigates Google's unfair algo.
But then you say "we expect that some wikis may experience a loss in SEO caused by content formatting issues."
"Content formatting issues", implying it's actually transferring away from Gamepedia's style of wiki code etc into Fandoms?? I hope I'm misreading as that would otherwise be a huge middle-finger. Being forced to use Fandoms' tools instead of Gamepedias' is the one thing I've feared ever since hearing about the merge.
-Duker (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not staff, answering to the best of my abilities.
- At the moment there were no announcements of further changes except for domain and likely branding. The skin and editor/user experience should not be substantially changed for now, but...
- UCP Phase 2 will seek to unify experience between Fandom and Gamepedia, as well as introduce further feature changes. Substantial changes to tools (the editor) and design are likely, but the skin won't be Oasis (though it might end up similar. Or not similar. Or not even a single skin, but more of a design constructor.)
- I too believe "Content formatting issues" is ambiguous. It might mean that some wikis use editor practices that aren't favorable to SEO, which is likely to further impact SEO after the migration. (Such as maybe misusing description list markup for pseudo-headings and indents? Hardly not a problem on Fandom though)
- As an additional note from me, some information I got makes me believe Google's algorithm favors broad-spectrum large monopolies (just like Google) as opposed to specialized narrow brands. --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, Brandon from staff here. To clarify - content formatting issues refers to what ATCN said, "that some wikis use editor practices that aren't favorable to SEO" and not coding style, tools, or anything like that. When we migrated wikia.com domains to fandom.com, the wikis that had issues were ones where there were sub-standard content practices. For example, pages that had no content, or a sentence of content (despite there being more available information), etc. In those cases we'll be able to work with communities as they feel is needed to help fill some of those gaps via our wiki and content teams. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)