Nonetheless, we've beaten it to death on Groklaw itself (PJ and her cabal must gotten RSI containing that one), on SCOX, CKX, and now here.  Wittingly or unwittingly, I'm starting to believe that PJ is playing us here.  She'll make an outrageous statement that rubs salt in the wounds and gets us stirred again.  Then, of course, the anonymous GL trolls show up.  I'm happy to say that their behaivor has been far more intemperate than ours but if this goes on much longer then it can't be healthy.  

The Potential Recruits are mostly fulla crap but they make one good point.  Most of the posting activity seems to be refutation of GL trolls.  And from the writing styles, there can't be that many of them.  tim_ransom and pencil_nebula are almost certainly two (one?) of them.  We aren't going to smash them into silence with the facts.  At some point, we need to handle them differently.  Brief sarcasm and contempt is best here.  Give them dry bones to chew on if we can't refrain from feeding them.  Once isolated after a long period of being used for comic relief, just mod them to oblivion.  Let them scream we're no better than PJ. They certainly won't have cause to think they haven't been heard.  Any anyway, their "wisdom" will still be there for anyone who really wants to be subjected to it. PJ tends her garden and I think we have better ways to tend ours.

It isn't realistic to expect discussion of PJ to go away.  She's made a lot of people really angry and the wounds are fresh and well rubbed with salt. I think the best way to get it down to a dull roar would be a final release of some kind.  Perhaps a more detailed article of the type Mikey has already written that goes back to when the editorial tone changed and then up to present.  Let's just detail EVERYTHING and invite our trollish little PRs to bring it on.  I have no doubt we can count on the trolls to make PJ and Groklaw look worse than they already are and great fun can be had hammering them with the facts one last time. We really get it out of our systems and then Groklaw can simply be the Other Site.   At some point, it'd be nice see routine GL carping get the IPW equivalent of paperwads thrown.  We can always re-open a contained bitching session when she does something else foolish.

 - Yah is spidered by Google using their defaults and there is no bandwidth problem, and Yah's article cache is presumably much larger than the whole of Grok.

 - Ibiblio presumably have plenty more bandwidth than I do

 - Presumably then she means server load is the issue, not bandwidth.

 - Add a sleep(10); to the Geeklog PHP to be executed when the client IDs itself as a bot (as they all do).  That should be a five minute job to set up and gives total control over bot load.

So I find myself unconvinced by this explanation.  I wonder what Mathfox thinks about this, because I'm sure he can imagine this too.

Next we seem to have some basic communication problems using words like most, majority, minority.

> Most readers thank me for giving them some privacy.

Can it actually be that more than 50% of the Groklaw readership has emailed, or phoned, or sent telepathic messages to PJ to "thank" her for "giving them some privacy"?  This is what she is saying with those words.  If it is not true it would be better to have used different words.

> A vocal few want it different, but they are the minority by far

How can she know?  Did she run a poll asking her readership if they want Groklaw on Google or not?  How can she speak authoritatively, then, that...

> I go with the majority's wishes,

How did she determine that it was the wish of "the majority" to have Grok completely closed off from Google?  Because she has only heard from a "vocal minority" that Grok should be on Google?  How many people contacted her thanking her for NOT sticking Grok on Google?  Even one?  More than those that disagreed?  She assumes that everyone else who has not been asked, but has not offered an opinion is in agreement with her?  Or is it the case again that more than 50% of the readership of Groklaw have been in contact with her, so she can actually properly use that powerful and unqualified word "majority"?

> which also match my own.

Here's an idea.  Let's assume PJ is right to use these words in that way.  There is no harm then in running a poll to see what the readership would actually like in terms of Grok being indexed in Google.  I mean, she talks about the minority and majority as if that is important to her.  Why not get properly democratic about it and run a poll to find out what the majority actually want.  Then one can use terms like most, majority, minority with precision.

I think she may be surprised to find that pretty much 100% of her readership is using Google daily to find stuff and would find it convenient and useful to get Grok results popping up in it.

> We also have a determined few who post
> pornographic links and others who post
> unpleasant threats and disgustingly graphic
> language or just love to troll and then brag
> about it elsewhere.

For example, disallowing new comments after a few days, and only letting Google see the articles after that has happened would solve this.  It's not perfect being several days out of date, but it's way better than no Google at all, and will have had all the crap edited out.  I mean really, are we hearing that mathfox cannot imagine these same solutions, or is he just not being asked?

Slashdot BTW gets indexed with the crap in.  The world did not come to an end.

> Comments are copyrighted and they can't be
> used without the author's permission as well
> as my permission. I hold copyright on the site
> as a collective work. If bots grab them, we'd
> end up in the policing-the- copyright
> business, which would be a distraction, a lot
> of work, a financial drain, and something I
> can largely avoid by our no-bots policy.

Gosh, you know usually Blogs are really over the moon to get Google coming and indexing them, since it means more visitors and publicity.  Somehow those indexed blogs survive without all this awful policing/ distraction /work /financial drain that PJ sees.

> But I can't wait for everyone to get it. I see
> the game now, and I am in charge of protecting
> Groklaw.

Damn me, but I'm getting tired of this PJ/Groklaw crap. No offense, mikey, but I would not have voted this to the front page. Yes, you and others have legitimate gripes (too put it mildly) about PJ and her policies. Yes, there are important issues that should not be ignored, but please lets give it a rest. I am not a temperate person, my personality dictates that anything worth doing is worth doing in excess, but I think we're about at the dry heaves stage of the "party till you puke" thing.

This article has garnered over 260+ comments in the last 24 hours [if I'm reading this right] and to me, that says the content of this story hits home.  Principle is involved here, and when that is the driving force, no matter how you couch it, common sense [if you have it] prevails.  

This [ip-wars.net] is a site that is open for discussion.  It has also conveniently attracted the anonymous PJ bandwagon, of late, to diligently monitor any indifference to PJ/GL just like has been done on SCOX & CKX.  

["hmmm"...If we are to succeed, would you have time to monitor the CKX board?  It's not that I care - GL is secure, it's just that this Y board may be counter productive and interfere with what we know is in tact.]  My musings alone, and perhaps not your bubble-script, but certainly possible.

I'm sorry that fact and open views must be stomped out at every turn here - it need not be that way unless an agenda needs to stay on top.

Jeff - thanks so much for all your efforts here and for soliciting advice and opinion on how to make this site FOSS friendly, supportive, and judicially correct as need be.... ^5, I'm sure it hasn't been easy.

This site also demonstrates to me that we never have the answers all the time and that constructive comments are welcome because we want to make it better, not more exclusive.  

Many thanks to everyone who contributes - and to all - the very best to you and yours during the up-coming holiday

Here is an extract from the HTML from Groklaw. This is the same, except for the title text, on every page I look at.

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<title>GrokLaw - Digging for Truth</title>
<!--
<meta http-equiv="Pragma" content="no-cache">
-->


Note the meta pragma no-cache. This tells browsers not to cache this page. This is commented out however, so I think your browser still caches the page. It is rather interesting to see this here even commented out. If I was on a dial-up connection, I would be outraged if my browser was told not to cache groklaw pages. Consider also that this being enabled would add far more load to the groklaw servers than allowing search engine robots would. Perhaps that's why it is commented out.

Here is what they would add to tell all robots not to cache the page:

<meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOARCHIVE">

With that tag in place, no search engine will cache or archive the page. Not even the wayback machine.

The notion of the privacy of comments posted to a public blog is simply absurd. It's like posting a love letter to your SO on the bulletin board at the grocery store and then complaining about an invasion of privacy when people read it. If your comment is private, then don't post it on a public web server. Sheesh.

The Potential Recruits can't see an article in the submission queue that discusses (in the editorial comments) among other things taking legal action in order to precipitate change.  In my opinion this would do nothing but harm to all involved, and I do not share this goal.  Nor do most of the respondents who are participating in the discussion.

It has become obvious to me that the only meaningful dialog has to include PJ.  She is the only single individual who start the process to bring about closure to the situation.  None of  us, the Potential Recruits, nor AllParadox can do anything but speculate.  

It has been suggested to collaborate on something like an open letter to PJ, outlining the concerns of people who have them.  This would need to be done very tactfully, and in my opinion it should start everyone involved in a different direction.

I thought I would let you know that this pro-GL post and mine below it (see below) were deleted and the IP address that I posted from was sandboxed.  You might want to check that you are not sandboxed or deleted on GL.

Below is the complete text of my controversial message that resulted in sandboxing.

What is OSRM's business model?

Authored by: PJ on Saturday, November 20 2004 @ 05:47 PM EST

Well, one advantage of resigning is I am completely free to speak. So here is your answer: legal matters can't be handled in the open source manner. They just can't. Not if you wish to win. The community seriously needs to learn to trust and support with greater loyalty those putting themselves on the line. Or reserve judgment if you wish. But to assume the worst renders you less powerful than you could be.

Think about SCO v. IBM. SCO blabbed and blabbed all over the place. IBM said nothing. Which one showed wisdom? DId IBM's silence mean they don't get open source? Don't have the right attitude toward the GPL? No. It meant they are smart about legal things. Legal matters are different than writing software. You guys must learn that, or you will ruin everything. Yes. You.

So she doesn't see her behavior as hypocritical, because it doesn't have anything to do with software.

I'm a little bit confused about her example, though.  IBM may have said little, but PJ said a lot, and it had a large PUBLIC effect (but probably a negligible legal one).  SCO said a lot and it pumped up their stock price.  The legal ramifications may have been negative, but that might have been irrelevant in their motivations.
IBM could have said much of what PJ said, and I don't think it would have made a difference, legally.  The problem with SCO's comments is that they were FALSE, not that they were public.

I also thought I would add a quick refresher course for those of you here on how we can get articles on IPW into google.

Google lives for links. For Google to find our articles we need to link to the IPW home page, and also link to articles that we consider interesting.

If you have a blog, mention the article in your blog. All those little mentions add up. And if you don't have your own website or a blog, why not go out and get one.

When ranking a page for specific search terms, google considers the text used when you link. So if you are linking to some legal docs on the IBM case it is best to use text like "SCO v. IBM legal documents" instead of "legal blizzard of paperwork".

It is also very helpful to consider your title when posting an article. While "PJ Reaches a New Pinacle of Hypocracy" is rather catchy, it does not provide any real information to the search engine (or the reader) as to the fact that the article concerns the hypocracy of groklaw not allowing google to index the site.

If Groklaw is unwilling to allow the truth of about SCO's case to push the lies out of the top spots in Google, then hopefully this site can displace some of the lies.

For most website admins their sole goal is appearing at the top of a google search - and she thinks she is so much better than them that she can not only refuse googling but expect them to do her research for her.

Maybe her volunteers are deserting by the shipload!

...

Oh of course it's because google provides a public service and because she provides a 'private' service.

I can imagine that google would last about 2 seconds if each of their searches returned 'Sorry but your request could infringe someone's vital IP so although we could provide you with lots of links unfortunately we can't because of the legal advice we've taken!'

It's the freaking internet after all. Anyone who is not a complete fool realises that when you publish on the internet we can all read it - it's free and not as in beer.

Just had to get that out of my system. feel much better now

sigh

She is quite willing to play fast and loose with comment attributions, yet she says she wants to stop the bots so she can protect copyrights. These are all clearly excuses.

Although PJ provides a link in the article to the Google FAQ, she has apparently not read it herself, or even asked her tech volunteers about this. As another commenter on groklaw points out, google caching can be turned off with a simple meta tag. This is explained in the very FAQ that PJ provides a link to in her article.

All of our licenses - PROHIBIT - licensees from "distributing the Work with - ANY TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES THAT CONTROL ACCESS OR USE OF THE WORK - in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement."

Is Creative Commons involved in digital rights management (DRM)?

No; we prefer to describe the technical aspect of our work as digital rights description. Whereas digital rights management tools try to prevent certain uses of copyright works and restrict your rights, we're trying to promote certain uses and grant you rights.

Instead of having software say, "No, you cannot modify this file," we want it to say something more like "The author will let you modify this file, but in return, give her credit." While the tools are similar, our goals are different.

Instead of using one of the many DRM formats, we've chosen to go with the W3C's RDF/XML format.

Instead of saying "We're not placing these restrictions," we say "We grant you these permissions," so that search engines and other applications can easily find generously licensed works and sort them.

A physical analogy may be helpful. It's DRM's job to put up signs that say "No Trespassing." It would seem silly to take those signs and change them to say "Yes Trespassing," which is what using a DRM format to express our licenses would be like. Instead, we're building new signs that say "Welcome, Please Come In," and that use different colors and designs to convey their different messages.

We're leaving "enforcement" to the law, social norms, and the good faith of the participants. Our tools act as informative aids, not instruments of control.

We want to help copyright holders notify others of their obligations and freedoms, and to help everyone find places on the Internet where creative reuses are encouraged.

What happens if someone tries to protect a CC-licensed work with digital rights management (DRM) tools?

If a person uses DRM tools to restrict any of the rights granted in the license, that person violates the license.

All of our licenses prohibit licensees from "distributing the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement."

http://creativecommons.org/faq

If Google is going to make law documents searchable, it means that I can search for all my nabours to see if they have been in contact with the law. And anybody can do the same about me.

But I fail to understand how ranting more about it helps in any way fight for OSS, OR how it's productive and informative.

I didn't think IP-Wars was a site about Groklaw...