Re: PG "Users" page?

From: Damien Clochard
Subject: Re: PG "Users" page?
Date: ,
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: PG "Users" page?  ("Jonathan S. Katz")
Responses: Re: PG "Users" page?  (Petr Jelinek)
Re: PG "Users" page?  (Justin Clift)
List: pgsql-advocacy

Tree view

PG "Users" page?  (Justin Clift, )
 Re: PG "Users" page?  (Dave Page, )
  Re: PG "Users" page?  (Justin Clift, )
   Re: PG "Users" page?  (Justin Clift, )
   Re: PG "Users" page?  (Dave Page, )
    Re: [MASSMAIL]Re: PG "Users" page?  ("Gilberto Castillo", )
  Re: PG "Users" page?  (Magnus Hagander, )
   Re: PG "Users" page?  ("Jonathan S. Katz", )
    Re: PG "Users" page?  (Damien Clochard, )
     Re: PG "Users" page?  (Petr Jelinek, )
     Re: PG "Users" page?  (Justin Clift, )

Le 12.09.2016 16:53, Jonathan S. Katz a écrit :
>> On Sep 12, 2016, at 8:49 AM, Magnus Hagander <>
>> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Dave Page <>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 11 Sep 2016, at 16:55, Justin Clift <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi us,
>>>> Just noticed that our Featured Users page has “Sun
>>> Microsystems” listed:
>>>> [1]
>>>> (Under “Technology” at the bottom)
>>>> Should we update that to say “Oracle” :D … or maybe just
>>> nuke that entry?
>>> That page is completely unmaintained. I proposed removing it a
>>> couple of years back, but was met with strong objections coupled
>>> with a complete lack of volunteers to actually do the work to keep
>>> it up to date.
>>> I strongly feel it should be removed still - it is probably
>>> responsible for 25% of emails to webmaster@ from random companies
>>> requesting inclusion.
>> Given that it really isn't being maintained, and that it actually
>> takes a decent amount of time for somebody to maintain it in a way
>> to make it actually *valuable* to visitors, I'll give a strong +1
>> for removing it.
> +1
>> If we want just a list of users, we could do that and make it
>> self-service (meaning you just sign up and fill in your details -
>> like we have for professional services). But that's something very
>> different from being a featured user.
> +1 - but it goes back to Dave’s point of lack of criteria for how
> users get listed, even if we make it self-signup.  We would probably
> want to moderate it similar to the self-published content to avoid
> spam, etc.

I think that such a list served its purpose 10 years ago when people
were asking "Who's using PostgreSQL ?" . But we're way beyond that now.
My experience is that PostgreSQL is used almost everywhere (at least in
France) and the question is more "What can I do with PostgreSQL ?"

A list of company names (no matter how big they are) doesn't say much
about how PostgreSQL is used inside these companies. Access is used in
many companies too...

So instead of long list of names or logos, I think I'd be more powerful
to have 3 or 4 curated usecases for the most frequently asked situations

* A Multi-Terabytes database
* An Oracle to Postgres migration success story
* A mission-critical application
* A nosql example

Each usecase doesn't have to be very long. 1500 characters would be
enough I think. And the 4 usecases could be found easily... The hard
part is to update the page on a regular basis because a usecase can get
old very quickly.

Currently the "case studies" page is even worse than the
"users" page :

Some studies in there were written in 2003.... This is a very bad
message. Like for the "users" page, it should be removed until someone
takes the time to gather relevant and up-to-date info.

Maybe one way to do it would be to continue the work done on the "case
study" page :

Every time one of us sees a PostgreSQL use case in the media, on a blog
or a conference, he/she adds it to the wiki. And then once a year,
someone cherrypicks the best exemples to be featured on the website.

I'm not saying it's easy but that's the most realistic approach I can

Damien Clochard

pgsql-advocacy by date:

From: Justin Clift
Subject: Re: PG "Users" page?
From: Josh Berkus
Subject: Re: DRAFT 9.6 release -- new wording