IP-WARS.NET - a forward command post of the IP Wars
create account| Front Page|Mission|Standard Operating Procedures|Operating Instructions(aka FAQ's)|Privacy Policy|Site Stats/Info|Admin Actions|Search
Sections:General|IP|SCO v World |Microsoft|grok*/OSRM|IPW Site Meta|Logbooks|Diaries|Legal Documents|View All Articles

Site Work Ahead


General News

By JCausey, Section Diary
Posted on Tue Mar 1st, 2005 at 21:54:38 EST

This Diary entry is being set up so I can get some input regarding some potential changes to the IP-Wars.net web site.  Since Scoop is not really a project management tool, but that's what I need for this purpose, I do ask that you help out by sticking to the following guidelines:
  • Please do not post comments in reply to the Diary article itself.  My plan is to use top-level comments to kick off discussion about certain aspects of the site.  By doing this, I hope to be able to quickly identify which threads pertain to which issues.
  • Please pay attention to the instructions in the top level posts.  In some cases, I may be asking for open-ended comment.  In others, I may be conducting a pseudo-poll.  And in still others, I may be attempting to engage in some on-line brainstorming.
  • Please try to keep the threads on-topic.
  • Please try to make the case for your opinion by explaining why the option you support is the best - not trying to convince me/others why some other option is no good.  If you do feel the need to point out a weakness in someone else's proposal, please try to do so by pointing out potential shortcomings of the idea.
Also, just as a form of advanced warning.  I plan to tinker with various site settings, permissions, etc., so I can more fully understand what is within the realm of possibility with the Scoop system as far as solutions.  If you notice some really odd stuff going on, please be patient as I am probably just testing some permission setting or something.

Thanks in advance for your help in building the web site.

Jeff

< An excellent interview with RMS (51 comments) | Novell's Memo in Opposition to Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss (6 comments) >
Display: Sort:
Site Work Ahead | 409 comments (409 topical, 0 editorial, 66 hidden)
Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts (4.33 / 6) (#90)
by JCausey (jcausey@ip-wars.net) on Wed Mar 2nd, 2005 at 13:59:31 EST
(User Info) http://www.ip-wars.net
OK, looks like the threads are headed in this direction, so let me get this up here.  The question is who should be able to view hidden posts?
  • Everyone
  • Trusted Users
  • Registered Users
  • No One
Please keep in mind that viewing hidden posts and rating them are two different things (I'll start a thread on rating them shortly).  I am still not sure whether those actions can be separated from each other (i.e. view but not be able to rate).  If your answer to the question depends on that, please note that in your comments.  

Thanks!!!

Jeff

  • What are the realistic options? by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 14:21:15 EST (4.28 / 7)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 14:16:07 EST (3.80 / 5)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by heimdal31, 03/03/2005 15:06:39 EST (3.80 / 5)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by mikey, 03/03/2005 17:33:40 EST (3.80 / 5)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by daveventura, 03/02/2005 14:10:58 EST (3.71 / 7)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 14:29:17 EST (3.42 / 7)
      • What do you want the site to be? by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 15:44:36 EST (3.75 / 8)
        • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Sesostris III, 03/02/2005 16:02:55 EST (3.85 / 7)
          • Re: What do you want the site to be? by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 16:13:50 EST (3.75 / 8)
            • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Sesostris III, 03/02/2005 16:27:32 EST (3.42 / 7)
            • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 19:00:05 EST (2.50 / 8)
        • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 16:01:03 EST (3.44 / 9)
          • Re: What do you want the site to be? by mikey, 03/02/2005 16:16:38 EST (4.50 / 10)
            • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 16:30:46 EST (3.00 / 8)
              • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Sunny, 03/03/2005 10:32:42 EST (4.40 / 5)
                • Re: What do you want the site to be? by sphealey, 03/03/2005 10:38:23 EST (4.14 / 7)
                  • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Sunny, 03/03/2005 11:31:53 EST (3.85 / 7)
                    • Your rating system, I believe by codswallet, 03/03/2005 12:08:47 EST (4.00 / 5)
                      • Re: Your rating system, I believe by Sunny, 03/16/2005 18:35:21 EST (4.00 / 5)
                  • Re: What do you want the site to be? by daveventura, 03/03/2005 11:46:27 EST (3.16 / 6)
              • Re: What do you want the site to be? by total insanity, 03/02/2005 16:48:08 EST (3.62 / 8)
                • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 16:54:00 EST (3.00 / 7)
                • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 19:01:56 EST (1.12 / 8)
              • Re: What do you want the site to be? by AncientBrit, 03/02/2005 19:59:13 EST (3.62 / 8)
                • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 20:18:33 EST (3.37 / 8)
                  • Re: What do you want the site to be? by FrogstarRobot, 03/02/2005 20:37:03 EST (3.57 / 7)
                  • Re: What do you want the site to be? by AncientBrit, 03/02/2005 20:20:51 EST (3.42 / 7)
                    • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 20:36:18 EST (3.71 / 7)
                      • Re: What do you want the site to be? by codswallet, 03/02/2005 20:49:15 EST (3.71 / 7)
                      • Re: What do you want the site to be? by codswallet, 03/02/2005 22:38:45 EST (3.66 / 6)
                      • Re: What do you want the site to be? by AncientBrit, 03/02/2005 21:44:16 EST (3.57 / 7)
                        • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 22:00:02 EST (3.37 / 8)
                          • Re: What do you want the site to be? by AncientBrit, 03/02/2005 22:39:17 EST (3.50 / 8)
                            • Re: What do you want the site to be? by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 22:43:20 EST (3.50 / 8)
                          • Re: What do you want the site to be? by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 22:28:57 EST (3.37 / 8)
              • Re: What do you want the site to be? by codswallet, 03/02/2005 16:54:55 EST (3.28 / 7)
                • Re: What do you want the site to be? by FrogstarRobot, 03/02/2005 17:14:28 EST (3.50 / 6)
                  • Re: What do you want the site to be? by nono2sco, 03/02/2005 18:13:04 EST (3.66 / 6)
                    • Re: What do you want the site to be? by mikey, 03/02/2005 21:30:23 EST (3.83 / 6)
                • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 19:11:31 EST (1.12 / 8)
                • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 19:13:20 EST (1.11 / 9)
              • Re: What do you want the site to be? by mikey, 03/02/2005 16:36:49 EST (3.25 / 8)
                • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 16:44:02 EST (3.40 / 5)
                  • Re: What do you want the site to be? by mikey, 03/02/2005 17:04:02 EST (4.00 / 6)
                    • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 17:32:02 EST (3.50 / 8)
                      • Re: What do you want the site to be? by mikey, 03/02/2005 17:54:57 EST (3.88 / 9)
                        • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 18:38:34 EST (2.57 / 7)
                          • Re: What do you want the site to be? by codswallet, 03/03/2005 09:59:41 EST (4.00 / 6)
                          • Re: What do you want the site to be? by codswallet, 03/02/2005 18:46:57 EST (3.75 / 8)
                            • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 18:59:21 EST (3.12 / 8)
                            • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 19:43:34 EST (2.25 / 8)
                      • Re: What do you want the site to be? by br3n, 03/02/2005 17:50:31 EST (3.80 / 5)
                      • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Sunny, 03/03/2005 10:49:32 EST (3.75 / 4)
                        • Re: What do you want the site to be? by nono2sco, 03/03/2005 15:06:04 EST (3.80 / 5)
                          • Re: What do you want the site to be? by sphealey, 03/03/2005 15:14:38 EST (3.80 / 5)
                          • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Sunny, 03/16/2005 18:55:21 EST (3.66 / 3)
                      • Re: What do you want the site to be? by codswallet, 03/02/2005 18:12:37 EST (3.50 / 10)
                        • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 18:53:34 EST (3.00 / 7)
                          • Re: What do you want the site to be? by daveventura, 03/02/2005 19:10:33 EST (3.75 / 8)
                          • Re: What do you want the site to be? by codswallet, 03/03/2005 10:03:18 EST (3.66 / 6)
                          • Re: What do you want the site to be? by codswallet, 03/02/2005 19:00:23 EST (3.57 / 7)
                            • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 19:19:13 EST (3.80 / 5)
                              • Re: What do you want the site to be? by codswallet, 03/02/2005 19:40:16 EST (3.57 / 7)
                              • MOVED by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 19:30:34 EST (3.50 / 4)
                            • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 19:06:16 EST (3.42 / 7)
                    • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 17:32:27 EST (1.10 / 10)
                  • Re: What do you want the site to be? by daveventura, 03/02/2005 17:02:24 EST (3.66 / 6)
                    • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 17:25:40 EST (3.33 / 6)
                • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 19:39:02 EST (1.22 / 9)
                  • Re: What do you want the site to be? by nono2sco, 03/02/2005 19:56:56 EST (3.40 / 5)
          • Re: What do you want the site to be? by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 16:02:17 EST (2.57 / 7)
            • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 16:13:19 EST (2.83 / 6)
              • Re: What do you want the site to be? by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 16:15:03 EST (3.00 / 5)
                • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 16:25:27 EST (3.42 / 7)
                  • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 16:36:25 EST (3.50 / 4)
                    • Re: What do you want the site to be? by Sunny, 03/03/2005 11:36:51 EST (3.75 / 4)
                    • Re: What do you want the site to be? by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 16:40:26 EST (3.00 / 5)
                      • Re: What do you want the site to be? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 16:46:20 EST (2.85 / 7)
        • Re: What do you want the site to be? by mikey, 03/02/2005 15:54:29 EST (3.00 / 4)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by mikey, 03/02/2005 15:48:02 EST (3.66 / 6)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 17:02:16 EST (3.33 / 6)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by Sesostris III, 03/02/2005 17:17:49 EST (3.66 / 9)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by daveventura, 03/02/2005 17:47:10 EST (4.14 / 7)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by br3n, 03/02/2005 15:20:02 EST (3.42 / 7)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 15:45:15 EST (2.62 / 8)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 15:48:59 EST (3.57 / 7)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 15:54:59 EST (3.14 / 7)
              • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by Sesostris III, 03/02/2005 16:09:40 EST (3.71 / 7)
                • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by codswallet, 03/03/2005 09:53:45 EST (3.60 / 5)
              • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by total insanity, 03/02/2005 16:03:14 EST (3.57 / 7)
                • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 16:17:34 EST (3.16 / 6)
                  • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by FrogstarRobot, 03/02/2005 17:03:34 EST (4.40 / 10)
                    • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 17:14:19 EST (3.28 / 7)
                      • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by codswallet, 03/02/2005 17:35:54 EST (4.70 / 10)
                      • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by FrogstarRobot, 03/02/2005 17:35:56 EST (4.44 / 9)
                        • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 19:17:44 EST (2.28 / 7)
                          • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by FrogstarRobot, 03/02/2005 19:40:20 EST (3.57 / 7)
                            • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 19:59:06 EST (1.00 / 9)
                            • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by Potential Recruit, 03/03/2005 01:37:45 EST (1.00 / 8)
                      • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by Sesostris III, 03/02/2005 17:24:32 EST (3.71 / 7)
                        • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by mikey, 03/02/2005 18:00:06 EST (4.14 / 7)
                      • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by codswallet, 03/02/2005 18:04:03 EST (3.62 / 8)
                        • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 18:51:46 EST (2.42 / 7)
                          • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by br3n, 03/02/2005 20:09:19 EST (3.40 / 5)
                            • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by FrogstarRobot, 03/02/2005 20:42:32 EST (3.75 / 8)
                              • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by Potential Recruit, 03/04/2005 16:09:00 EST (1.33 / 6)
              • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by mikey, 03/02/2005 16:04:07 EST (3.50 / 6)
                • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 16:18:55 EST (3.50 / 6)
                  • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by mikey, 03/02/2005 16:26:05 EST (3.57 / 7)
                    • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 16:40:14 EST (3.37 / 8)
                      • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by mikey, 03/02/2005 17:10:08 EST (3.60 / 5)
                        • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 17:20:05 EST (2.83 / 6)
                          • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by codswallet, 03/02/2005 17:47:44 EST (3.66 / 6)
                            • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 17:56:51 EST (3.62 / 8)
                              • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 19:23:34 EST (3.37 / 8)
                              • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by nono2sco, 03/02/2005 18:18:56 EST (3.33 / 6)
                          • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by mikey, 03/02/2005 18:02:23 EST (2.80 / 5)
                            • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 19:21:57 EST (2.80 / 5)
                      • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by codswallet, 03/02/2005 18:43:36 EST (3.50 / 8)
                        • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 19:00:40 EST (3.00 / 8)
                          • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by codswallet, 03/02/2005 19:35:32 EST (4.22 / 9)
                            • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by nono2sco, 03/02/2005 20:08:41 EST (3.71 / 7)
                              • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by br3n, 03/02/2005 20:29:44 EST (3.66 / 6)
                          • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by nono2sco, 03/02/2005 19:27:38 EST (3.50 / 4)
                    • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 16:44:38 EST (1.00 / 10)
                  • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 16:22:12 EST (3.50 / 6)
                    • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 16:33:22 EST (3.11 / 9)
                    • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by Potential Recruit, 03/03/2005 04:25:24 EST (1.00 / 11)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 17:05:07 EST (3.00 / 7)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by Sesostris III, 03/02/2005 14:23:25 EST (3.62 / 8)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by sphealey, 03/02/2005 15:39:56 EST (3.62 / 8)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by sphealey, 03/02/2005 15:41:05 EST (3.75 / 8)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by Sesostris III, 03/02/2005 15:49:32 EST (3.71 / 7)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by br3n, 03/02/2005 14:15:39 EST (3.60 / 5)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by nono2sco, 03/02/2005 14:14:48 EST (3.50 / 4)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by matesrates, 03/02/2005 14:20:40 EST (3.50 / 6)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by heurtley, 03/03/2005 09:39:42 EST (3.50 / 8)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Viewing Hidden Posts by codswallet, 03/03/2005 09:49:36 EST (3.88 / 9)
  • Nice turn of the topic to what is/not spam by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 18:03:22 EST (3.40 / 5)
    • Re: Nice turn of the topic to what is/not spam by matesrates, 03/02/2005 18:50:24 EST (3.00 / 5)
      • Re: Nice turn of the topic to what is/not spam by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 18:52:53 EST (3.62 / 8)
        • McCarthysim!!! by Sesostris III, 03/03/2005 00:38:19 EST (3.81 / 11)
          • Get a grip by codswallet, 03/03/2005 10:16:11 EST (3.83 / 6)
            • Re: Get a grip by matesrates, 03/03/2005 18:58:34 EST (3.66 / 3)
              • Re: Get a grip by codswallet, 03/03/2005 19:16:23 EST (4.25 / 4)
                • Re: Get a grip by matesrates, 03/03/2005 20:01:02 EST (4.00 / 6)
                  • Re: Get a grip by codswallet, 03/03/2005 20:56:02 EST (4.00 / 5)
                    • Re: Get a grip by mrbuttle, 03/03/2005 22:11:13 EST (4.00 / 5)
                      • Re: Get a grip by codswallet, 03/03/2005 22:30:28 EST (3.83 / 6)
                        • Re: Get a grip by mrbuttle, 03/03/2005 22:49:27 EST (3.80 / 5)
                        • Re: Get a grip by mikey, 03/04/2005 00:12:54 EST (3.00 / 5)
                        • Re: Get a grip by mikey, 03/04/2005 00:13:09 EST (none / 2)
                  • Re: Get a grip by AncientBrit, 03/03/2005 20:42:06 EST (3.66 / 6)
                    • Re: Get a grip by matesrates, 03/03/2005 21:49:53 EST (3.50 / 6)
                      • Re: Get a grip by codswallet, 03/03/2005 22:17:59 EST (4.50 / 6)
                      • Re: Get a grip by AncientBrit, 03/04/2005 14:40:24 EST (3.37 / 8)
                        • Re: Get a grip by matesrates, 03/04/2005 15:36:41 EST (3.50 / 6)
                          • Re: Get a grip by AncientBrit, 03/04/2005 17:24:53 EST (3.80 / 5)
          • Re: McCarthysim!!! by daveventura, 03/03/2005 01:12:52 EST (3.75 / 8)
          • MOVED by ColonelZen, 03/03/2005 01:22:09 EST (3.20 / 5)
        • Re: Nice turn of the topic to what is/not spam by matesrates, 03/02/2005 19:16:04 EST (3.60 / 10)
Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? (4.28 / 7) (#1)
by JCausey (jcausey@ip-wars.net) on Tue Mar 1st, 2005 at 22:08:46 EST
(User Info) http://www.ip-wars.net
OK, this one is pretty deep and serious. I normally would have liked to have started with something a little more light-hearted (or perhaps not so basic to the operation of the site) to make sure this methodology of getting input will work. But, since this one can have some profound impact on how I might proceed with other issues, it probably needs to go first.

In researching some different ways to improve the site, one idea I ran across involved changing the paradigm that a Scoop site works under. As currently setup, there is a basic premise that in order to be a "trusted user", one has to earn that.

This proposal would involve lowering the threshold to become a trusted user to something like 3.0 or possibly even a tick lower (2.75? 2.50?). This is different in that it assumes any registered user is trusted to be part of the community and help deal with problems like spam, crapfloods, etc. Thus, they have the same ability as anyone to view and rate hidden posts. It effectively means the only ones who would not have the ability to see the hidden posts/rate them would be those registered members who were acting in such a way as to lose trust. (OK, anonymous visitors as well - that is a different topic that I will be addressing. Let's stick with tweaks for the registered members first. :-) )

Please reply with your thoughts on this.

Good idea?
Bad idea?
Does it prompt some other idea you have?

Thanks for your help!

Jeff

  • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by codswallet, 03/01/2005 23:33:49 EST (4.50 / 12)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by ColonelZen, 03/01/2005 23:40:49 EST (4.00 / 8)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 01:10:16 EST (1.44 / 9)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by nono2sco, 03/02/2005 02:16:35 EST (3.33 / 6)
          • Hey! by sphealey, 03/02/2005 12:26:41 EST (3.25 / 4)
            • Re: Hey! by nono2sco, 03/02/2005 12:53:15 EST (3.75 / 4)
              • Re: Hey! by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 13:04:17 EST (4.28 / 7)
                • Re: Hey! by system5, 03/02/2005 14:39:58 EST (3.40 / 5)
                  • Re: Hey! by JCausey, 03/02/2005 16:04:15 EST (3.83 / 6)
                • Re: Hey! by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 16:17:54 EST (1.12 / 8)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 19:26:18 EST (2.50 / 6)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by nono2sco, 03/02/2005 19:43:34 EST (3.50 / 6)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by JCausey, 03/01/2005 23:58:08 EST (3.66 / 6)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 01:06:29 EST (2.25 / 8)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Sesostris III, 03/02/2005 04:47:29 EST (3.57 / 7)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by heimdal31, 03/02/2005 10:40:43 EST (3.66 / 6)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by total insanity, 03/02/2005 13:50:54 EST (3.66 / 6)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by codswallet, 03/02/2005 12:23:53 EST (4.33 / 6)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by mikey, 03/01/2005 22:28:51 EST (4.11 / 9)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by JCausey, 03/01/2005 23:46:46 EST (4.00 / 8)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by heurtley, 03/02/2005 09:30:32 EST (4.33 / 6)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by ColonelZen, 03/01/2005 23:57:12 EST (4.00 / 8)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 04:22:32 EST (2.62 / 8)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by nathanh, 03/02/2005 06:42:07 EST (2.27 / 11)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 08:50:46 EST (1.45 / 11)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by mikey, 03/02/2005 03:20:28 EST (4.00 / 5)
        • IP firewalling vs. hiding by heimdal31, 03/02/2005 10:55:56 EST (3.75 / 4)
          • Re: IP firewalling vs. hiding by mikey, 03/02/2005 11:14:48 EST (4.33 / 6)
            • Re: IP firewalling vs. hiding by codswallet, 03/02/2005 12:01:48 EST (3.66 / 6)
              • Re: IP firewalling vs. hiding by mikey, 03/02/2005 12:16:01 EST (4.00 / 4)
                • Re: IP firewalling vs. hiding by codswallet, 03/02/2005 12:28:30 EST (3.50 / 6)
                  • Re: IP firewalling vs. hiding by mikey, 03/02/2005 15:41:37 EST (4.00 / 5)
                  • Re: IP firewalling vs. hiding by mikey, 03/02/2005 15:45:52 EST (4.00 / 4)
                  • Re: IP firewalling vs. hiding by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 12:32:53 EST (3.80 / 5)
                    • Additional followup re mirroring hiddens by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 12:37:34 EST (4.00 / 5)
                    • Re: IP firewalling vs. hiding by Potential Recruit, 03/03/2005 04:30:41 EST (1.00 / 8)
            • Re: IP firewalling vs. hiding by br3n, 03/02/2005 12:52:43 EST (3.60 / 5)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by nono2sco, 03/01/2005 23:53:37 EST (3.71 / 7)
        • When Trusted status is calculated. by heimdal31, 03/02/2005 10:48:19 EST (4.00 / 5)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 01:15:15 EST (1.88 / 9)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by nathanh, 03/02/2005 03:35:15 EST (2.70 / 10)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 04:10:12 EST (1.55 / 9)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by nathanh, 03/02/2005 04:44:37 EST (2.50 / 12)
              • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Potential Recruit, 03/03/2005 01:46:23 EST (1.00 / 9)
  • PROPOSAL: Disallow PR posting. by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 11:45:59 EST (4.00 / 5)
    • Re: PROPOSAL: Disallow PR posting. by codswallet, 03/02/2005 12:08:37 EST (3.60 / 5)
      • Re: PROPOSAL: Disallow PR posting. by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 12:11:30 EST (3.75 / 4)
    • Re: PROPOSAL: Disallow PR posting. by nono2sco, 03/02/2005 12:14:39 EST (3.50 / 4)
      • Re: PROPOSAL: Disallow PR posting. by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 12:22:10 EST (3.75 / 4)
    • Re: PROPOSAL: Disallow PR posting. by matesrates, 03/02/2005 12:06:30 EST (3.20 / 5)
      • Re: PROPOSAL: Disallow PR posting. by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 13:47:39 EST (1.42 / 7)
  • members only diaries by codswallet, 03/02/2005 21:20:00 EST (4.00 / 4)
  • PROPOSAL: No post display before TU rating by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 12:19:40 EST (3.80 / 5)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by nono2sco, 03/01/2005 22:37:19 EST (3.71 / 7)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by ColonelZen, 03/01/2005 22:57:36 EST (4.16 / 6)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by JCausey, 03/01/2005 23:48:42 EST (3.66 / 6)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by mikey, 03/02/2005 10:53:08 EST (4.00 / 4)
          • Decaying posting threshold? by heimdal31, 03/02/2005 11:06:33 EST (4.00 / 4)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by JCausey, 03/02/2005 11:01:03 EST (3.80 / 5)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by mikey, 03/02/2005 11:17:36 EST (4.00 / 3)
              • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by nono2sco, 03/02/2005 12:02:06 EST (3.66 / 3)
                • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 12:09:49 EST (4.00 / 5)
                • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 12:11:39 EST (3.66 / 6)
              • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by codswallet, 03/02/2005 12:03:48 EST (3.60 / 5)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by nono2sco, 03/01/2005 23:43:05 EST (3.50 / 6)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by mikey, 03/02/2005 03:25:17 EST (4.40 / 5)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by JCausey, 03/01/2005 23:54:11 EST (3.71 / 7)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Sunny, 03/16/2005 18:49:36 EST (4.00 / 3)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Potential Recruit, 03/03/2005 04:37:31 EST (1.80 / 10)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by nono2sco, 03/03/2005 14:43:31 EST (3.50 / 6)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by sphealey, 03/03/2005 14:59:06 EST (3.57 / 7)
              • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by nono2sco, 03/03/2005 15:24:49 EST (3.83 / 6)
                • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Sunny, 03/16/2005 18:52:39 EST (3.83 / 6)
                  • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by nono2sco, 03/17/2005 10:04:23 EST (4.20 / 5)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Potential Recruit, 03/03/2005 18:40:24 EST (2.12 / 8)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 01:18:33 EST (1.62 / 8)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Paradigm shift? by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 11:40:20 EST (3.20 / 5)
Site Work Topic: Ratings (4.28 / 7) (#320)
by JCausey (jcausey@ip-wars.net) on Thu Mar 3rd, 2005 at 15:00:11 EST
(User Info) http://www.ip-wars.net
I'm getting nervous about this one. My next topic is really a comprehensive, multi-part question that requires essay answers.  I am looking into some revisions to the wording regarding the rating guidelines for the site and what each rating means. Below is the current text:
   * 0 - (zero), this is the lowest rating a comment can be given and is only available to users who have "trusted user" status. This rating should only be used for comments that are obviously spam (by obviously spam, I mean something like providing nothing but a link to some other site, usually selling something questionable) or porn. Use caution in using this rating - it should only be deployed in cases of obvious abuse of the site.
    * 1 - (one), this is the lowest rating that can be assigned by normal users of the site. Probably it's most effective usage would be in rating obvious trolls. If a comment is just way off-topic, is comprised of nothing but ad hominem attacks, so poorly written as to be almost unintelligible, then it may qualify for a 1 rating.
    * 2 - (two), the next rating up indicates there is perhaps something of value in the comment. But perhaps the writer included a lot of extra material that really had nothing to do with the topic, or their presentation was pretty bad due to language or gross generalizations, exceedingly faulty logic. Basically, a good try, but keep working on it if you want to earn some respect.
    * 3 - (three), this is the average rating for comments on the site. The comment makes a good point or two or contains some good, worthwhile information.
    * 4 - (four), is where we start to move up in the range to comments that include good points, provide some good information, something that makes us think, to go "hmmm". Or, at least puts a smile on your face. The writer keeps the post on topic and stays away from cheap techniques like name-calling.
    * 5 - (five), the top of the range, this should be reserved for posts that are exceedingly well written. Perhaps they make a point or include information that sticks in your mind even after you leave the site. Perhaps it inspires you to do your own research. But in at least some way, you think it is something that everyone should read.
I am asking that anyone interested submit their ideas on how they would reword this section.  The can be minor tweaks or wholesale rewrites.  I've seen some folks suggest the available ratings be expanded (e.g. a 1-10 scale or something).  Now would be the time to submit that along with the descriptions for each rating.  Also, as you rewrite these, please include what you think the labels should read in the dropdown box to be used when folks are rating stuff. Note: if your suggestion only involves changes to the labels in the dropdown box, please do not post that here.  I'll be asking for that separately.  I only need those that contemplate new labels based on the new definitions they are proposing.

Thanks!!!!

Jeff

  • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by nono2sco, 03/03/2005 15:28:11 EST (4.00 / 5)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by Potential Recruit, 03/03/2005 18:45:32 EST (2.50 / 8)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by hgc, 03/03/2005 19:42:01 EST (4.80 / 10)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by Potential Recruit, 03/04/2005 00:43:12 EST (3.71 / 7)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by hgc, 03/04/2005 03:22:26 EST (4.57 / 7)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by sphealey, 03/04/2005 07:57:18 EST (4.50 / 10)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by mikey, 03/04/2005 13:37:51 EST (4.50 / 4)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by Potential Recruit, 03/04/2005 14:11:51 EST (1.50 / 6)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by sphealey, 03/04/2005 07:47:35 EST (4.20 / 5)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by nono2sco, 03/04/2005 01:54:14 EST (3.66 / 3)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by Potential Recruit, 03/04/2005 03:13:00 EST (2.14 / 7)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by nono2sco, 03/04/2005 10:15:18 EST (3.71 / 7)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by nathanh, 03/04/2005 01:13:40 EST (2.42 / 7)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by Potential Recruit, 03/04/2005 03:11:20 EST (2.00 / 7)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by FrogstarRobot, 03/04/2005 18:53:11 EST (3.66 / 6)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by nathanh, 03/04/2005 03:56:06 EST (1.85 / 7)
              • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by Potential Recruit, 03/04/2005 08:22:43 EST (2.75 / 12)
                • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by nathanh, 03/04/2005 16:59:40 EST (3.25 / 4)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by Potential Recruit, 03/03/2005 21:09:35 EST (1.25 / 8)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by fudisbad, 03/04/2005 02:47:24 EST (none / 2)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Ratings by hgc, 03/04/2005 03:45:53 EST (none / 2)
Re: Site Work Ahead (4.11 / 9) (#26)
by codswallet on Wed Mar 2nd, 2005 at 04:15:15 EST
(User Info)
An alternative way to attract more members is to make the site more useful. Right now it's hard to find things and hard to find out what's new. Some things are minor like making the recent comments list scroll, sorting diary entries by date, user or topic, a mode where when you reviewed your comments the reply comments were interleaved, so you didn't have to bring up a page to find out who had answered you. I'm sure people have lots of suggestions.

One issue that has come up repeatedly is that there aren't good ways to move and copy comments. This means that it would be difficult to copy worthwhile comments on some issue into section for that issue. There's a lot of good stuff in older comments, but it's hard to make use of.

Some issues like an author's right of attribution have already been pretty well covered. If we collect the comments, later people could rework them into archived articles on the topics. This would, of course require more topics and thus a change to the topic display.

More legal documents (particularly those that don't duplicate Groklaw) and more links would also make the site more of a resource. That's part of Groklaw's attraction along with PJ's ability to churn out articles night and day. It's like selling cars. First you have to get them into the showroom.

Of course this is all easy for me to say. I wouldn't be the one doing the work.

Finally, as an author of some articles and diary entries, I'll say that it's discouraging that the articles that attract the most member comments are those that get caught up in a flame war, and then most of the comments are off topic. It seems like people  look to see how many new comments there are, and if it's more than 3 or 4, they figure something must be going on and jump in.

The problem is that these aren't usually the articles we want if we intend older articles to be a resource. Those articles shouldn't become dated. If we can't find a way to encourage people to write those sorts of pieces, we won't have any. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the psychology of motivation is pretty obvious.

With articles, of course, unless they are controversial, anyone who has anything to say, will have already said it during the editorial phase, so not much happens after it's put up. Again, I'm not sure what the answer is, but I suspect the controversial articles are the most likely to become dated and thus not be longterm site resources.

Maybe I'm suggesting making Scoop behave more like a Wiki than it wants to. There's only so much blood in even the juiciest turnip.

  • Re: Site Work Ahead by codswallet, 03/02/2005 12:20:19 EST (3.75 / 4)
  • Re: Site Work Ahead by matesrates, 03/02/2005 12:29:40 EST (3.66 / 3)
Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? (4.00 / 5) (#253)
by JCausey (jcausey@ip-wars.net) on Wed Mar 2nd, 2005 at 20:57:45 EST
(User Info) http://www.ip-wars.net
Whew, y'all are having fun with this exercise. :-)

Before I get into some more mundane topics, I suppose I'll throw this one out.  Can't wait to see what it generates.

Should PR's be allowed to post comments?

Jeff

  • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by FrogstarRobot, 03/02/2005 21:02:23 EST (4.00 / 7)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by codswallet, 03/02/2005 21:26:05 EST (4.00 / 5)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by mikey, 03/02/2005 21:29:45 EST (4.00 / 4)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by nathanh, 03/02/2005 22:15:40 EST (4.00 / 6)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by heurtley, 03/03/2005 11:20:40 EST (4.00 / 3)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by sphealey, 03/02/2005 21:04:37 EST (3.80 / 5)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by sphealey, 03/02/2005 22:03:41 EST (3.80 / 5)
  • Calculate checksum for PR posts? by sphealey, 03/15/2005 12:26:47 EST (3.80 / 5)
    • Re: Calculate checksum for PR posts? by matesrates, 03/15/2005 12:45:30 EST (3.75 / 4)
      • Re: Calculate checksum for PR posts? by nono2sco, 03/15/2005 13:08:07 EST (3.66 / 3)
        • Re: Calculate checksum for PR posts? by sphealey, 03/15/2005 13:17:51 EST (3.75 / 4)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by Sesostris III, 03/03/2005 15:52:07 EST (3.60 / 5)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by br3n, 03/02/2005 21:06:05 EST (3.50 / 4)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 21:38:18 EST (3.50 / 6)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by matesrates, 03/02/2005 21:32:01 EST (3.40 / 5)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by JCausey, 03/02/2005 23:20:34 EST (4.00 / 5)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by matesrates, 03/03/2005 04:04:53 EST (4.12 / 8)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by codswallet, 03/03/2005 09:39:43 EST (3.75 / 8)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by nono2sco, 03/03/2005 14:47:49 EST (3.83 / 6)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by ColonelZen, 03/04/2005 04:07:20 EST (3.71 / 7)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by codswallet, 03/04/2005 04:50:27 EST (3.60 / 5)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by ColonelZen, 03/04/2005 05:00:46 EST (4.00 / 7)
              • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by hgc, 03/04/2005 05:23:53 EST (3.14 / 7)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by JCausey, 03/03/2005 08:04:55 EST (3.60 / 5)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by Potential Recruit, 03/03/2005 04:40:04 EST (1.37 / 8)
  • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by Potential Recruit, 03/03/2005 01:49:04 EST (1.00 / 7)
    • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by nathanh, 03/03/2005 02:19:48 EST (3.75 / 4)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by Potential Recruit, 03/03/2005 18:41:53 EST (1.37 / 8)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by nathanh, 03/03/2005 22:31:42 EST (2.83 / 6)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by Potential Recruit, 03/04/2005 00:45:53 EST (1.57 / 7)
            • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by nathanh, 03/04/2005 05:37:45 EST (1.80 / 5)
      • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by Potential Recruit, 03/03/2005 04:15:01 EST (1.28 / 7)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by Sesostris III, 03/03/2005 04:45:22 EST (4.22 / 9)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by nono2sco, 03/03/2005 14:52:07 EST (3.50 / 4)
          • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by Potential Recruit, 03/07/2005 00:32:35 EST (1.00 / 7)
        • Re: Site Work Topic: Allow PR Posts? by nathanh, 03/03/2005 04:31:20 EST (3.77 / 9)
Re: Site Work Ahead (4.00 / 7) (#328)
by codswallet on Thu Mar 3rd, 2005 at 16:18:34 EST
(User Info)
I'm not sure this can be done in a vacuum. Are we assuming that PR messages have to be voted on to appear, or is the 0 rating the only method of nuking them?

Anyway:

A 0 rating is to be used for messages that are obviously innapropriate, such as SPAM, pornography, infringing material, violations of the law and incitements to same etc.

It is also to be used for messages whose primary purpose is to harass or annoy members or to interfere with the functioning of the site.

It is often necessary to consider the context of the message to decide if is a 0, since to consider each message in isolation is to invite gaming of the rating system by a series of individually borderline messages, even though their collective effect is obvious.

It is impossible to come up with a list of features, such that the presence of any one makes the message deserve a 0. Rather, there are a number of negative factors to consider. Presence of multiple negative factors in a message or sequence of messages indicates abusive intent,

The factors are

extreme abusive language. Permission from the target of the abuse is a mitigating factor, but the failure of the target to speak does not imply permission. Abuse of public figures is allowed more latitude except where the intent is clearly to stir up controversy that would involve the site.

Deliberate and repeated use of extralogical or eristic methods of argument, where the intent is to frustrate and obstruct discussion.

Repeated posting of the same complaints or criticisms, particularly without regard to the discussion. The repetition needs to be sufficient that the abusive intent is clear.

Defamatory remarks, particularly if they continue after a warning

repeated posting of the same or very similar messages where the offense is flagrant

Religious or ethnic hatred. Since anyone can start a religion and any 2 related people an ethnic group, this requires some judgement. Factual statements about religious groups and their members are permissible unless the intent is clearly disruptive. Thus, Jewish terrorists under Menachem Begin blew up the King David Hotel is a fact. He said so in his autobiography. Generalizing this to all Jews or even members of the Likud party crosses the line. Those depending on the fact exemption should be on very solid ground and prepared to defend it. The burden is entirely on them.

Even borderline material if it is off topic and appears intended to annoy, but the intent must be clear and the offense repeated.

This needs a lot of work, but that's it for now.

Re: Site Work Ahead (3.66 / 6) (#92)
by codswallet on Wed Mar 2nd, 2005 at 14:12:01 EST
(User Info)
My vote is for registered users to see hidden messages
Trusted users to give 0s
No mirroring or spidering of hidden messages


  • Re: Site Work Ahead by codswallet, 03/02/2005 15:35:09 EST (none / 2)
Re: Site Work Ahead (2.25 / 8) (#14)
by Potential Recruit on Wed Mar 2nd, 2005 at 01:03:08 EST
Here are a few suggestions for you.

  1. Disable PR posts. Nobody here likes PRs. To quote br3n "i don't care about PRs they don't count"
  2. Show all posts, let people browse at higher numbers.
  3. ditch scoop. Try wordpress or even slash.
  4. Disallow articles or diary entries about OSRM, PJ, Stallman, Perens, Ravicher, Eggers etc. You guys have beat on them enough already. It's getting repetitive and boring. Dare I say it? It's a crapflood.
  5. Enforce your own rating rules.


  • Re: Site Work Ahead by nathanh, 03/02/2005 03:28:15 EST (2.40 / 5)
    • Re: Site Work Ahead by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 11:24:06 EST (4.50 / 4)
      • Re: Site Work Ahead by codswallet, 03/02/2005 11:56:38 EST (3.75 / 4)
        • Re: Site Work Ahead by ColonelZen, 03/02/2005 12:03:05 EST (4.00 / 4)
          • Re: Site Work Ahead by codswallet, 03/02/2005 12:12:08 EST (3.60 / 5)
          • Re: Site Work Ahead by codswallet, 03/02/2005 12:17:16 EST (3.60 / 5)
    • Re: Site Work Ahead by codswallet, 03/02/2005 04:26:03 EST (3.83 / 6)
    • Re: Site Work Ahead by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 04:03:18 EST (1.25 / 8)
      • Re: Site Work Ahead by nathanh, 03/02/2005 04:52:39 EST (2.11 / 9)
        • Re: Site Work Ahead by codswallet, 03/02/2005 05:02:18 EST (2.55 / 9)
          • Re: Site Work Ahead by nathanh, 03/02/2005 05:08:13 EST (2.14 / 7)
            • Re: Site Work Ahead by Sesostris III, 03/02/2005 05:51:43 EST (3.00 / 4)
              • Re: Site Work Ahead by nathanh, 03/02/2005 06:24:11 EST (2.14 / 7)
                • Re: Site Work Ahead by codswallet, 03/02/2005 06:41:46 EST (3.42 / 7)
                  • Re: Site Work Ahead by nathanh, 03/02/2005 06:52:10 EST (2.00 / 7)
                    • Re: Site Work Ahead by codswallet, 03/02/2005 07:08:09 EST (3.33 / 6)
                      • Re: Site Work Ahead by nathanh, 03/02/2005 07:28:54 EST (2.50 / 6)
                        • Re: Site Work Ahead by codswallet, 03/02/2005 07:50:27 EST (3.14 / 7)
                        • Re: Site Work Ahead by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 07:46:27 EST (2.14 / 7)
                    • Re: Site Work Ahead by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 07:23:30 EST (3.33 / 6)
                • Re: Site Work Ahead by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 07:40:23 EST (2.00 / 7)
                  • Re: Site Work Ahead by codswallet, 03/04/2005 12:32:24 EST (4.00 / 6)
            • Re: Site Work Ahead by Potential Recruit, 03/02/2005 07:44:00 EST (2.00 / 7)
Bye bye spambot (none / 0) (#409)
by Potential Recruit on Tue Nov 28th, 2006 at 11:56:03 EST
This used to be a spambot post that is flooding the site. Due to volume, I had to resort to this while I work to block access by these bots. My apologies - thanks for your patience.

Jeff

Site Work Ahead | 409 comments (409 topical, 0 editorial, 66 hidden)
Display: Sort:

Links

Firefox 2

Use OpenOffice.org

Add to Technorati Favorites

Join EFF Today

ToTehMoon web site button

~ Merkey v The Internet et al Docs
~ Yahoeuvre
~ tuxrocks.com (SCO cases legal docs)
~ scofacts.org
~ eagle.petrofsky.org
~ Zen's Den
~ Yahoo SCOX Message Board
~ Lamlaw
~ Microsoft Watch
~ Groklaw
~ Korgwal - a Groklaw mirror
~ nosoftwarepatents.com
~ Flame Warriors
~ SCOXE Wars
~ Get your Merkey Number here!
~ Digital Law Online

Recent Comments

Breaking News and External Article Comments
General News – General Articles
by ColonelZen, January 5
60 comments
» SCO Lifeboat List from Stats_for_all – AncientBrit, May 6
» Not a single comment on the Novell... – sphealey, Jul 22
» Re: Not a single comment on the Novell... – AncientBrit, Aug 8

Eagle Loses Appeals
General News – General Articles
by JCausey, December 15
1 comment
» Re: Eagle Loses Appeals – br3n, Jan 7

The Chinese Room Revisited, Thoughts on...
General News – Diary
by ColonelZen, November 24
1 comment
» Re: The Chinese Room Revisited,... – ColonelZen, Nov 24

How to Transition a Windows Shop to Linux
General News – General Articles
by JCausey, November 21
3 comments
» Re: How to Transition a Windows Shop to... – ColonelZen, Nov 22
» Re: How to Transition a Windows Shop to... – JCausey, Nov 23
» Re: How to Transition a Windows Shop to... – ColonelZen, Nov 23

Advocacy
General News – <