Thread: Not wanting to throw a wrench in things
Hello, I don't want to throw a wrench in the launch. I really do want to see the new site go up. However I have a question that has been bugging me for a while. First: Archives Why are there google ads? I didn't say anything at first because well if you look at the ads there is an obvious benefit for Command Prompt to keep our collective mouths shut. However it seems incorrect to have these google ads all over the place. Yes it helps to pay for bandwidth but Command Prompt isn't seeing that money and Command Prompt hosts the archives??? Thus I would like to see the google ads removed. Second: Sponsors Initially the sponsorships seemed to make sense again it helps pay for bandwidth... however much of the bandwidth is now distributed via community members, Command Prompt relays the lists through two servers, we host the archives, and I know there are several other entities that are hosting different services that are not centralized. I believe that there should be recognition for the work that people do to help support the project, but I don't think that we need the sponsored banners to do so. I think a sponsors page is enough. Third: Archives again I know that the person that did the aspseek work for the search engine did a LOT of work but I think we should let google handle our searching. We already do this on techdocs. We also may want to consider this for straight docs. Thoughts? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, [snip] > First: Archives > > Why are there google ads? I didn't say anything at first because [snip] > Second: Sponsors > > Initially the sponsorships seemed to make sense again it helps pay for > bandwidth... however much of the bandwidth is now distributed via [snip] > > Third: Archives again > > I know that the person that did the aspseek work for the search engine > did a LOT of work but I think we should let google handle our searching. > We already do this on techdocs. We also may want to consider this for > straight docs. I agree with all three points. They're easy to fix -- in the design at least :-). > > Thoughts? > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake Gavin
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake > Sent: 20 December 2004 20:59 > To: PostgreSQL www > Subject: [pgsql-www] Not wanting to throw a wrench in things > > Initially the sponsorships seemed to make sense again it helps pay for > bandwidth... however much of the bandwidth is now distributed via > community members, Command Prompt relays the lists through > two servers, > we host the archives, and I know there are several other entities > that are hosting different services that are not centralized. > > I believe that there should be recognition for the work that people > do to help support the project, but I don't think that we need the > sponsored banners to do so. I think a sponsors page is enough. There are over 200 mirror providers who are all entitled to a banner. Adding them or even 25% or so to a single page would be a pita. I have been toying with the idea of adding some SSI code to the footer of the new site, and allowing mirrors to enable SSI and include a non-mirrored file containing their name - resulting in something like: "Mirror sponsored by: XYZ Widget Corp". That of course, doesn't help the FTP mirrors... > Third: Archives again > > I know that the person that did the aspseek work for the search engine > did a LOT of work but I think we should let google handle our > searching. > We already do this on techdocs. We also may want to consider this for > straight docs. It looks naff imho (or can you know re-skin the results?). Regards, Dave.
>>I believe that there should be recognition for the work that people >>do to help support the project, but I don't think that we need the >>sponsored banners to do so. I think a sponsors page is enough. >> >> > >There are over 200 mirror providers who are all entitled to a banner. > > Who don't get one a banner... so how is this any different and no they aren't "entitled". >Adding them or even 25% or so to a single page would be a pita. > > Put the banner on the mirror page. Or again have a sponsors page that has a category: Internet Resource Providers: Mirrors: USA, France ... Relays: ... etc... >I have been toying with the idea of adding some SSI code to the footer >of the new site, and allowing mirrors to enable SSI and include a >non-mirrored file containing their name - resulting in something like: >"Mirror sponsored by: XYZ Widget Corp". > > Ick. I personally wouldn't like that. Why not just allow them to use the footer directive in Apache if they choose? >That of course, doesn't help the FTP mirrors... > > Have their name under the link for the mirror on the mirror page. > > >>Third: Archives again >> >>I know that the person that did the aspseek work for the search engine >>did a LOT of work but I think we should let google handle our >>searching. >>We already do this on techdocs. We also may want to consider this for >>straight docs. >> >> > >It looks naff imho (or can you know re-skin the results?). > > Well we could if we used their API. I might be able to get special permission to get a greater search quota if we did that. Although... in this instance I don't think the "look" is relevant. Google is a huge brand and their search engine is better than anything we are going to come up with. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >Regards, Dave. > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
> -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com] > Sent: 20 December 2004 21:19 > To: Dave Page > Cc: PostgreSQL www > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Not wanting to throw a wrench in things > > > >>I believe that there should be recognition for the work that people > >>do to help support the project, but I don't think that we need the > >>sponsored banners to do so. I think a sponsors page is enough. > >> > >> > > > >There are over 200 mirror providers who are all entitled to a banner. > > > > > Who don't get one a banner... Sorry, don't understand what you mean? so how is this any different and no > they aren't "entitled". Yes they are. That is something they have all been offered in return for hosting a mirror. See http://www.postgresql.org/mirrors-howto.html > > >Adding them or even 25% or so to a single page would be a pita. > > > > > Put the banner on the mirror page. Or again have a sponsors > page that has a category: > > Internet Resource Providers: > Mirrors: USA, France ... > Relays: ... > etc... Can't see that getting many hits ;-) > >I have been toying with the idea of adding some SSI code to > the footer > >of the new site, and allowing mirrors to enable SSI and include a > >non-mirrored file containing their name - resulting in > something like: > >"Mirror sponsored by: XYZ Widget Corp". > > > > > Ick. I personally wouldn't like that. Why not just allow > them to use the footer directive in Apache if they choose? That's a possibility. How badly will it muck up the formatting though? > >That of course, doesn't help the FTP mirrors... > > > > > Have their name under the link for the mirror on the mirror > page. Another possibility, though we would need to tweak the formatting somewhat to accommodate that (even a name like Command Prompt Inc. would need a lot more room than is there now). That would work for the web mirrors as well of course. > Well we could if we used their API. I might be able to get > special permission to get a greater search quota if we did > that. > > Although... in this instance I don't think the "look" is relevant. > Google is a huge brand and their search engine is better than > anything we are going to come up with. Agreed it's a much better engine, but fine tuning queries to specific parts of the sites might be more difficult. Not to mention that we would have to wait up to a month (or whatever the Google cycle currently is) for posts on archives and news etc. to get archived. That is definitely not a option imho. Regards, Dave
>>>There are over 200 mirror providers who are all entitled to a banner. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Who don't get one a banner... >> >> > >Sorry, don't understand what you mean? > > Sorry. What I mean, is they don't have a banner now so what is the difference? > > >>they aren't "entitled". >> >> > >Yes they are. That is something they have all been offered in return for >hosting a mirror. See http://www.postgresql.org/mirrors-howto.html > > O.k. well let me rephrase. They don't have to have a banner. I am not saying they shouldn't get a link. Heck it can even be a larger text link :). Also, let me be specific here. My complaint is with paid banners mostly. They seem completely unneeded. If we want to leave banners to those who contribute then I would not raise a fuss. >>> >>> >>Put the banner on the mirror page. Or again have a sponsors >>page that has a category: >> >>Internet Resource Providers: >> Mirrors: USA, France ... >> Relays: ... >> etc... >> >> > >Can't see that getting many hits ;-) > > True. >>> >>> >>Ick. I personally wouldn't like that. Why not just allow >>them to use the footer directive in Apache if they choose? >> >> > >That's a possibility. How badly will it muck up the formatting though? > > Well it goes out as the last thing in a page so as long as we supply a template for the footer it should be really easy. >>Have their name under the link for the mirror on the mirror >>page. >> >> > >Another possibility, though we would need to tweak the formatting >somewhat to accommodate that (even a name like Command Prompt Inc. would >need a lot more room than is there now). That would work for the web >mirrors as well of course. > > Yes there is true to the space problem but that seems to be a more direct relationship to the service and a little easier to manage overall. >>Well we could if we used their API. I might be able to get >>special permission to get a greater search quota if we did >>that. >> >>Although... in this instance I don't think the "look" is relevant. >>Google is a huge brand and their search engine is better than >>anything we are going to come up with. >> >> > >Agreed it's a much better engine, but fine tuning queries to specific >parts of the sites might be more difficult. > >Not to mention that we would have to wait up to a month (or whatever the >Google cycle currently is) for posts on archives and news etc. to get >archived. That is definitely not a option imho. > > Hey -- what if I can convince them to donate one of their appliances? We would get the google engine and we could make it look any way we want and index as much as we want? J >Regards, Dave > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 16:48, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>Well we could if we used their API. I might be able to get
> >>special permission to get a greater search quota if we did
> >>that.
> >>
> >>Although... in this instance I don't think the "look" is relevant.
> >>Google is a huge brand and their search engine is better than
> >>anything we are going to come up with.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Agreed it's a much better engine, but fine tuning queries to specific
> >parts of the sites might be more difficult.
> >
> >Not to mention that we would have to wait up to a month (or whatever the
> >Google cycle currently is) for posts on archives and news etc. to get
> >archived. That is definitely not a option imho.
> >
> >
> Hey -- what if I can convince them to donate one of their
> appliances? We would get the google engine and we could make
> it look any way we want and index as much as we want?
>
There is something to be said for using a search engine powered by a
postgresql database.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
> -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com] > Sent: 20 December 2004 21:49 > To: Dave Page > Cc: PostgreSQL www > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Not wanting to throw a wrench in things > > > Sorry. What I mean, is they don't have a banner now so what is > the difference? Ahh, I see. Some do have a banner - Marc should be able to tell us how many exactly. I suspect it's about 10 - 20%. > O.k. well let me rephrase. They don't have to have a banner. > I am not saying they shouldn't get a link. Heck it can even > be a larger text link :). > > Also, let me be specific here. My complaint is with paid > banners mostly. They seem completely unneeded. If we want > to leave banners to those who contribute then I would not > raise a fuss. I believe most of them are the freebies. I'm not adverse to losing the ads altogether, but I do think we should credit the mirrors in a visible way (ie. Not one specific page). On the mirror selection page, or a per-mirror footnote seem the best options. > >That's a possibility. How badly will it muck up the > formatting though? > > > > > Well it goes out as the last thing in a page so as long as > we supply a template for the footer it should be really easy. Assuming they *all* implement it. If some don't (which will probably be the case) we'll be left with some broken HTML. > Hey -- what if I can convince them to donate one of their > appliances? We would get the google engine and we could make > it look any way we want and index as much as we want? If you can persuade them to do that then I would be most impressed :-) However, what problems do you have with the current search? Regards, Dave.
>>> >>> >>Hey -- what if I can convince them to donate one of their >>appliances? We would get the google engine and we could make >>it look any way we want and index as much as we want? >> >> >> > >There is something to be said for using a search engine powered by a >postgresql database. > > I used to think that but now I am not so sure. Sure if everything that we did and said and documented were powered by some uber postgresql backed database... w00t! as they say. To me, search is for people who are looking for things. Google at this time will always return more accurate results than anything we put together. Google is also going to be faster. Using the best tool for the job as they say. Anyway -- that is not a biggy with me. I am more concerned with the whole banner ad thing. > >Robert Treat > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
>> >>Also, let me be specific here. My complaint is with paid >>banners mostly. They seem completely unneeded. If we want >>to leave banners to those who contribute then I would not >>raise a fuss. >> >> > >I believe most of them are the freebies. I'm not adverse to losing the >ads altogether, but I do think we should credit the mirrors in a visible >way (ie. Not one specific page). On the mirror selection page, or a >per-mirror footnote seem the best options. > > I think either of those are good options. > > >>Hey -- what if I can convince them to donate one of their >>appliances? We would get the google engine and we could make >>it look any way we want and index as much as we want? >> >> > >If you can persuade them to do that then I would be most impressed :-) > >However, what problems do you have with the current search? > > Nothing that I would swing a sledgehammer at. It works. However compared to Google it just seems slow which in reality it should be consider Google's resources. As I said in a previous email (just before this one) this is the absolute least of my complaints ... the advertising is my big gripe. If I were to point a single stick it would just be that Google is: 1. A brand the OSS community trusts 2. Provides an incredible search engine 3. Allows us to be site specific 4. Performs faster 5. Its Google I know it is silly but #5 is a big thing right now. Google is the name, and having our search linked via it lends credibility to the results. Just my .02. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >Regards, Dave. > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
> Assuming they *all* implement it. If some don't (which will probably be > the case) we'll be left with some broken HTML. Not if the html is 'made' for it... missing footer should not break the html... <table>header</table> <table>body</table> <table>footer</table> > > Hey -- what if I can convince them to donate one of their > > appliances? We would get the google engine and we could make > > it look any way we want and index as much as we want? > > If you can persuade them to do that then I would be most impressed :-) > > However, what problems do you have with the current search? I was about to ask the same thing.... what seems to be the problem with aspseek? Plus, as Robert said,.... there is something to be said about having a postgresql powered search engine. ... John
Hi guys, Can we discuss this *after* we get the new site online? This thread could get complex, and deserves it's piece, but not any more so than any of the other topics we've all put off until "after the new design". Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- "One who sees the invisible can do the impossible." + Frank Gaines
> Nothing that I would swing a sledgehammer at. It works. > However compared to Google it just seems slow which > in reality it should be consider Google's resources. Granted, Google is faster, but considering it's 'sitting at the end of a damp piece of string in the ozzie outback' as someone once said (Dave?), it's not too bad eh? ... John
Justin Clift wrote: > Hi guys, > > Can we discuss this *after* we get the new site online? Oh... sure... be the voice of reason ;) > > This thread could get complex, and deserves it's piece, but not any > more so than any of the other topics we've all put off until "after > the new design". > > Regards and best wishes, > > Justin Clift > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
John Hansen wrote: >>Nothing that I would swing a sledgehammer at. It works. >>However compared to Google it just seems slow which >>in reality it should be consider Google's resources. >> >> > >Granted, Google is faster, but considering it's 'sitting at the end of a >damp piece of string in the ozzie outback' as someone once said (Dave?), >it's not too bad eh? > > Duly noted and agreed. :) >... John > > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
Hi, Dave Page wrote: > I believe most of them are the freebies. I'm not adverse to losing the > ads altogether, but I do think we should credit the mirrors in a visible > way (ie. Not one specific page). On the mirror selection page, or a > per-mirror footnote seem the best options. I think that the mirror selection page is *the* most natural place to credit the mirrors. Current version of said page provides very little info --- it just repeats the flag and the country name N times where N is the number of that country's active mirrors. Giving the mirror owners' names and probably links to their sites will not hurt here. BTW, sourceforge download page is a nice example of giving credit to mirrors. As for adding the footer, we should consider the technology required for that. Some of the possibilities are: 1) Using SSI 2) Adding a placeholder to the page that the mirror owner can easily replace with relevant banner 3) Using a linked Javascript file to output the banner. All of them have advantages and drawbacks. Option 3) seems the easiest to me.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Alexey Borzov [mailto:borz_off@cs.msu.su] > Sent: 20 December 2004 22:44 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Joshua D. Drake; PostgreSQL www > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Not wanting to throw a wrench in things > > I think that the mirror selection page is *the* most natural > place to credit the > mirrors. Current version of said page provides very little > info --- it just > repeats the flag and the country name N times where N is the > number of that > country's active mirrors. Giving the mirror owners' names and > probably links to > their sites will not hurt here. Yes, I think I've come to that conclusion now as well. > 3) Using a linked Javascript file to output the banner. > > All of them have advantages and drawbacks. Option 3) seems > the easiest to me. Yes. I hadn't considered that idea. Would obviously save the need to enable SSI. Regards, Dave
"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
>> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
>> Also, let me be specific here. My complaint is with paid
>> banners mostly. They seem completely unneeded. If we want
>> to leave banners to those who contribute then I would not
>> raise a fuss.
> I believe most of them are the freebies. I'm not adverse to losing the
> ads altogether, but I do think we should credit the mirrors in a visible
> way (ie. Not one specific page).
My understanding is that the current deal with the mirror site operators
is specifically "you host a mirror, you get a free banner ad". While
not all may be taking advantage of that, those who are might be pretty
annoyed to find the web team unilaterally renegotiating the deal :-(.
I'd suggest treading carefully in this area, and if possible leaving it
till after the new site design is up and running.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Also, let me be specific here. My complaint is with paid banners mostly. > They seem completely unneeded. If we want to leave banners to those who > contribute then I would not raise a fuss. Most of the banners there are free banners ... there are 3 or 4 that are paid, and they are paid for a year ... probably about 6 months left or so, and there haven't been any new ones added in ages ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, > > I don't want to throw a wrench in the launch. I really do want > to see the new site go up. However I have a question that has > been bugging me for a while. > > First: Archives > > Why are there google ads? I didn't say anything at first because > well if you look at the ads there is an obvious benefit for Command > Prompt to keep our collective mouths shut. However it seems incorrect > to have these google ads all over the place. Yes it helps to pay for > bandwidth but Command Prompt isn't seeing that money and Command Prompt > hosts the archives??? Thus I would like to see the google ads removed. Even easier, I'll just redirect archives back to the master server itself ... no sweat, will do that later this evening, and it gets rid of your primary complaint ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
There, quick change ... done ... back to running on the master server @ EV1 ... On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Also, let me be specific here. My complaint is with paid banners mostly. >> They seem completely unneeded. If we want to leave banners to those who >> contribute then I would not raise a fuss. > > Most of the banners there are free banners ... there are 3 or 4 that are > paid, and they are paid for a year ... probably about 6 months left or so, > and there haven't been any new ones added in ages ... > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
>> >> First: Archives >> >> Why are there google ads? I didn't say anything at first because >> well if you look at the ads there is an obvious benefit for Command >> Prompt to keep our collective mouths shut. However it seems incorrect >> to have these google ads all over the place. Yes it helps to pay for >> bandwidth but Command Prompt isn't seeing that money and Command Prompt >> hosts the archives??? Thus I would like to see the google ads removed. > > > Even easier, I'll just redirect archives back to the master server > itself ... no sweat, will do that later this evening, and it gets rid > of your primary complaint ... Wait a minute... Are you saying that you are going to stop having Command Prompt host the archives? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: > 7615664 -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > There, quick change ... done ... back to running on the master server > @ EV1 ... Woah there cowboy! You are going to just arbitrarily move archives without consent of the web team because the company providing the hosting for archives doesn't want advertising for their own company on the site? So let me understand, Hub doesn't get to make money off of Command Prompt's services that it provides for the community? So the owner of Hub just redirects the traffic? That seems completely wrong to me. To be clear, my primary complaint was not the hosting of archives. Command Prompt is happy to host the archives and almost any other service the community wishes. I don't think anyone on this list thought my complaint was the hosting of archives. My primary complaint was there seemed zero reason for the Google ads. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>> Also, let me be specific here. My complaint is with paid banners >>> mostly. They seem completely unneeded. If we want to leave banners >>> to those who contribute then I would not raise a fuss. >> >> >> Most of the banners there are free banners ... there are 3 or 4 that >> are paid, and they are paid for a year ... probably about 6 months >> left or so, and there haven't been any new ones added in ages ... >> >> ---- >> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services >> (http://www.hub.org) >> Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: >> 7615664 >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if >> your >> joining column's datatypes do not match >> > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: > 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> >>> First: Archives >>> >>> Why are there google ads? I didn't say anything at first because >>> well if you look at the ads there is an obvious benefit for Command >>> Prompt to keep our collective mouths shut. However it seems incorrect >>> to have these google ads all over the place. Yes it helps to pay for >>> bandwidth but Command Prompt isn't seeing that money and Command Prompt >>> hosts the archives??? Thus I would like to see the google ads removed. >> >> >> Even easier, I'll just redirect archives back to the master server itself >> ... no sweat, will do that later this evening, and it gets rid of your >> primary complaint ... > > Wait a minute... Are you saying that you are going to stop having Command > Prompt host the archives? If the Google Ads and Banner Ads offend you, I think that is the best ... It doesn't offend me that Command Prompt is listed at the top of the Google Ads on all pages, and you get traffic as a result, and the EV1 server has sufficient spare cycles for it with the changes that Dave has made as regards the www VM .... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
> > If the Google Ads and Banner Ads offend you, I think that is the best ... Who said anything about offense? Marc you need to back up and have a beer. Based on your argument, people only get to support the community as long as they agree with you. Guess what... most people on this list don't want those ads. I was simply stating my opinion. I was not offering an ultimatum. I will go the direction the community wants. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > It doesn't offend me that Command Prompt is listed at the top of the > Google Ads on all pages, and you get traffic as a result, and the EV1 > server has sufficient spare cycles for it with the changes that Dave > has made as regards the www VM .... > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: > 7615664 -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Guess what... most people on this list don't want those ads. Guess what ... over 4500 ppl that clicked through in Nov obviously do ... and almost 2000 this month ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Guess what... most people on this list don't want those ads. > > > Guess what ... over 4500 ppl that clicked through in Nov obviously do > ... and almost 2000 this month ... And? I was talking about people on the list... not people visiting the site. What you have just said is, 4500 ppl clicked through in Nov, so Hub made some money and visitors left the .Org site to visit Command Prompt's site or somebody elses... Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: > 7615664 -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>> Guess what... most people on this list don't want those ads. >> >> >> Guess what ... over 4500 ppl that clicked through in Nov obviously do ... >> and almost 2000 this month ... > > And? I was talking about people on the list... not people visiting the site. Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about the community, not just a dozen ppl or so ... my mistake ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
>> >> And? I was talking about people on the list... not people visiting >> the site. > > > Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about the community, not just a > dozen ppl or so ... my mistake ... I am not sure what I have done to rub you wrong as all I have ever done is offer my assistance where I can. I am sorry for whatever I have done, and we are available if you wish us to host the archives again. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: > 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> >>> And? I was talking about people on the list... not people visiting the >>> site. >> >> >> Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about the community, not just a dozen >> ppl or so ... my mistake ... > > > > I am not sure what I have done to rub you wrong as all I have ever done > is offer my assistance where I can. Not you personally (or singularly) ... you are just the 'focal point' ... everyone touting 'the community' when their sample is *usually* less then 10 ppl that are the vocal minority instead of majority ... You have a half dozen ppl on this list that don't like it (and, as I posted in a seperate thread, agreeing with you, I don't like the 'old banners' on the new site ... I think it detracts from it, and advocate, like you, removing them) ... I throw back at you 4500 members of the community that *use* the google ads to find other resources, and you throw back a 'who cares about them, they aren't on this list' sort of response ... Personally ... I think its *good* that we promote and help ppl find the commercial side of PostgreSQL ... if you go search archives and don't find an answer you are looking for, is there anything wrong with clicking on the link to Command Prompt and looking for commercial help instead? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Joshua D. Drake wrote: <snip> > I am sorry for whatever I have done, and we are available if you wish us > to host the archives again. Heh, and let that be a lesson to you! ;-> (Ok, that *was* sarcastic if someone wasn't sure) Um, can we get back to the topic of "lets make the new design live" before we get distracted with stuff like say, banner adds, who's hosting what bits, etc? Sorry for being a persistent reminder here, but we're *really* close to having the new site live I reckon. :) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- "One who sees the invisible can do the impossible." + Frank Gaines
> > You have a half dozen ppl on this list that don't like it (and, as I > posted in a seperate thread, agreeing with you, I don't like the 'old > banners' on the new site ... I think it detracts from it, and > advocate, like you, removing them) ... I throw back at you 4500 > members of the community that *use* the google ads to find other > resources, and you throw back a 'who cares about them, they aren't on > this list' sort of response ... That is not exactly what I meant but I do see what you mean. > > Personally ... I think its *good* that we promote and help ppl find > the commercial side of PostgreSQL ... if you go search archives and > don't find an answer you are looking for, is there anything wrong with > clicking on the link to Command Prompt and looking for commercial help > instead? From a commercial perspective of course, it is not quite fiscally responsible for me to suggest otherwise. It just seemed that people didn't want them there so I was voicing that I, as a community member (not as CMD) wouldn't mind having them removed. Anyway man, I just want to help. As I said I will go in the direction of the community in regards to, well whatever. We are happy to host the archives in whatever form as well as anything else the community wants. Just let us know. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: > 7615664 -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I don't want to throw a wrench in the launch. I really do want > > to see the new site go up. However I have a question that has > > been bugging me for a while. > > > > First: Archives > > > > Why are there google ads? I didn't say anything at first because > > well if you look at the ads there is an obvious benefit for Command > > Prompt to keep our collective mouths shut. However it seems incorrect > > to have these google ads all over the place. Yes it helps to pay for > > bandwidth but Command Prompt isn't seeing that money and Command Prompt > > hosts the archives??? Thus I would like to see the google ads removed. > > Even easier, I'll just redirect archives back to the master server itself > ... no sweat, will do that later this evening, and it gets rid of your > primary complaint ... Huh? Pulling the archives from command prompt because you have a disagreement with Joshua seems completely irresponsible. Gavin
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Anyway man, I just want to help. As I said I will go in the direction of > the community in regards to, well whatever. We are happy to host the > archives in whatever form as well as anything else the community wants. > Just let us know. Sorry for jumping down your throat on this ... you are right, I need a beer, or 12 ... its been much too long ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Gavin Sherry wrote: > Pulling the archives from command prompt because you have a disagreement > with Joshua seems completely irresponsible. You are right, which is why I reversed it about as quickly as I did it ... and why I've apologized to Joshua for 'jumping down his throat' ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
> > Sorry for jumping down your throat on this ... you are right, I need a > beer, or 12 ... its been much too long ... It's cool man... just remember we are all on the same team :). I strongly suggest Guiness... light on calories but a real beer :) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: > 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> >> Sorry for jumping down your throat on this ... you are right, I need a >> beer, or 12 ... its been much too long ... > > It's cool man... just remember we are all on the same team :). I strongly > suggest Guiness... light on calories but > a real beer :) I'm into pale ale's myself ... :) been so long, though, that 3 gives me a buzz *sigh* ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> Third: Archives again
>
> I know that the person that did the aspseek work for the search engine
> did a LOT of work but I think we should let google handle our searching.
> We already do this on techdocs. We also may want to consider this for
> straight docs.
>
> Thoughts?
I agree only if we know Google is kind enough to index our documents
thoroughly and keep index actual. Unfortunately, Google is not good
for small, personal sites, it was developed for different purposes.
Searching techdocs using google for 'plpgsql' I got 7 documents which
is obviously too little.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Also, let me be specific here. My complaint is with paid
>>> banners mostly. They seem completely unneeded. If we want
>>> to leave banners to those who contribute then I would not
>>> raise a fuss.
>>>
>>
>> I believe most of them are the freebies. I'm not adverse to losing the
>> ads altogether, but I do think we should credit the mirrors in a visible
>> way (ie. Not one specific page). On the mirror selection page, or a
>> per-mirror footnote seem the best options.
>>
> I think either of those are good options.
>
>
>>
>>> Hey -- what if I can convince them to donate one of their
>>> appliances? We would get the google engine and we could make
>>> it look any way we want and index as much as we want?
>>>
>>
>> If you can persuade them to do that then I would be most impressed :-)
>>
>> However, what problems do you have with the current search?
>>
> Nothing that I would swing a sledgehammer at. It works.
> However compared to Google it just seems slow which
> in reality it should be consider Google's resources.
>
> As I said in a previous email (just before this one) this
> is the absolute least of my complaints ... the advertising
> is my big gripe.
>
> If I were to point a single stick it would just be that
> Google is:
>
> 1. A brand the OSS community trusts
> 2. Provides an incredible search engine
> 3. Allows us to be site specific
> 4. Performs faster
> 5. Its Google
>
> I know it is silly but #5 is a big thing right now. Google is
> the name, and having our search linked via it lends credibility
> to the results.
I don't like the motivation that "sitting down next to Google" will
somehow rise our credibility. We need to improve our code !
>
> Just my .02.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>> Regards, Dave.
>>
>
>
>
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Sent: 21 December 2004 00:37 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Joshua D. Drake; PostgreSQL www > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Not wanting to throw a wrench in things > > "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes: > >> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com] > >> Also, let me be specific here. My complaint is with paid > >> banners mostly. They seem completely unneeded. If we want > >> to leave banners to those who contribute then I would not > >> raise a fuss. > > > I believe most of them are the freebies. I'm not adverse to > losing the > > ads altogether, but I do think we should credit the mirrors > in a visible > > way (ie. Not one specific page). > > My understanding is that the current deal with the mirror > site operators > is specifically "you host a mirror, you get a free banner ad". While > not all may be taking advantage of that, those who are might be pretty > annoyed to find the web team unilaterally renegotiating the deal :-(. > I'd suggest treading carefully in this area, and if possible > leaving it > till after the new site design is up and running. Absolutely agree Tom - hence my insistence that they should be credited in a visible way. I also agree about leaving it for now. I'd like to get the new site out the door this week.... Regards, Dave.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > My understanding is that the current deal with the mirror site operators > is specifically "you host a mirror, you get a free banner ad". While > not all may be taking advantage of that, those who are might be pretty > annoyed to find the web team unilaterally renegotiating the deal :-(. > I'd suggest treading carefully in this area, and if possible leaving it > till after the new site design is up and running. Can we move away from this policy if we have not already, so we can possibly reach a site with no banners someday? (like most other open source sites) I will reiterate my offer to chip in money to have the banners removed for the first month after 8.0 is released. Is this possible with the current arrangement, and if so, how much would need to be raised? If not, can we at least lock any future promises into month-by-month agreements? - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200412212053 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFByNOlvJuQZxSWSsgRAqe+AKDdmxKVjfhb7AwITGAZrWPcAoth2QCgkmmu viNfkgRULy8c+6cSWako0nA= =bmrV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
> [quoting me]
>> My understanding is that the current deal with the mirror site operators
>> is specifically "you host a mirror, you get a free banner ad". While
>> not all may be taking advantage of that, those who are might be pretty
>> annoyed to find the web team unilaterally renegotiating the deal :-(.
>> I'd suggest treading carefully in this area, and if possible leaving it
>> till after the new site design is up and running.
> Can we move away from this policy if we have not already, so we can possibly
> reach a site with no banners someday? (like most other open source sites)
I have no problem with moving away from it, I'm just saying that it's
not nice to blindside the mirror operators with a new deal. Over a
reasonable period of time, we could let people know that we want to move
to a new site design without banner ads, with such-and-such recognition
for mirrors instead. Them that don't like the new deal can drop out,
and then we change. But it's just not polite to make such a change
without fair advance notice to all parties.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >> My understanding is that the current deal with the mirror site operators >> is specifically "you host a mirror, you get a free banner ad". While >> not all may be taking advantage of that, those who are might be pretty >> annoyed to find the web team unilaterally renegotiating the deal :-(. >> I'd suggest treading carefully in this area, and if possible leaving it >> till after the new site design is up and running. > > Can we move away from this policy if we have not already, so we can possibly > reach a site with no banners someday? (like most other open source sites) > > I will reiterate my offer to chip in money to have the banners removed for > the first month after 8.0 is released. Is this possible with the current > arrangement, and if so, how much would need to be raised? If not, can we > at least lock any future promises into month-by-month agreements? I've already suggested that the banners should be removed from the new site design, as they just don't *fit* ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664