@phelixbtc I've got a list of pools that don't mine Namecoin, why don't you try getting them to mine Namecoin? None of them were hostile to the idea, they just gave up in frustration. Then all the pools would be Namecoin friendly. Why do you point people to P2Pool when merge-mining is basically solo mining?.
@JeremyRand Are you seriously suggestion people don't already rely on Google for most of their navigation? I've done user studies on documentation, I've watched users struggle with an interface and skip the finely curated docs I created for a quick Google search. I was wrong about how I thought users would interact with documentation because of how much effort I put into it.
If you insist on design-by-committee then I'm going to insist on processes designed to protect the UX from death-by-committee. The way we handle this in UX land is through personas, a concensus and data driven process for creating and evaluating use cases. We'll have to setup a meeting of the main developers (or whomever wants to play a major role in website content) to hash out the initial personas. Then I'll setup analytics for the main site and validate whatever personas we come up with. We can even create a page in the documentation for merge-mining and have a section on the main site and quantify the % of visitors looking for that information and how many find it via Google vs internal linking.
That's a lot of work, you could spend that fixing the underlying issues that prevent people from merge-mining Namecoin and choose mining pools over P2Pool. If you think that's a lot of work for a small section on the website, well, for one, I would never dictate coding style to either of you and I have a feeling this won't be the last time I have to argue with you on website content.