[Theforum] [DesDev] RE: [Content] Article cleanup issue

[.jeff]

john,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: John Handelaar
>
> OK, time for more contsructive behaviour from me. Hope
> you'll join in :-)
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

thank you.  i'll do my best.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > i said it was a mistake for doing it on my own without
> > seeking input from other members of theforum, content,
> > whatever.
>
> I genuinely think that's a serious understatement, and
> it was rather more on the 'completely outrageous
> behaviour' end of the scale.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i thought we'd moved beyond the "let's shoot jeff for what he did" stage of things.  maybe you missed that memo.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > i don't think that denying the articles i denied was a
> > mistake.  go look for yourself and you'll see the
> > "quality" of content that lurked in those articles.
>
> Not really the point.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

no?  maybe not.  however, it is tangentially related and something that needs to be taken care of, whether you happen to agree with it or not.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > then again, you seem to be more intent on
> > the absurd idea of not breaking any links
>
> You offer nothing to support that offensive use of
> 'absurd'.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

well, considering the articles in question have gotten basically zero traffic for the past year until this discussion, i'd say it's absurd that we worry about whether links (which obviously don't exist) get broken.  if you don't believe me about the traffic to certain articles, go take a good look at the stats for the six months prior to this discussion.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Why is breaking links a Good Thing, Jeff?  Really, I'm
> interested.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i didn't say it was a good thing.  i agree that on content that actually has links pointing to it that it's a bad thing.  but, with content that obviously isn't linked to, how can it possibly be a bad thing when there aren't any links being broken?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> When there's no reason to piss people off, and we're in
> a time where not pissing people off has become
> *critical*, why piss them off?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

breaking links has nothing to do with pissing people off, except you, obviously.

but then, if no one is linking to the old crap articles, we're not actually breaking links are we?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > rather than solving the issues of query response times
> > i'm dealing with
>
> BING!   That's what this is about, right?  All the rest
> of this is just puff, and leads from Oracle's godawful
> response times.  Or is if CF?  We don't know.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

well, considering these sorts of queries work fine with cf in other systems that use different databases, i'd say it's fairly obvious the problem is with oracle.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> But with 1GHz on the processor and 1Gb of RAM, there's
> no excuse for response times like that.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

agreed.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> A more sensible way to proceed (I won't repeat Rudy's
> entirely-logical poke) is surely to get Sysadmin to
> identify the problem, and fix it?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

fair enough, but we've been down that road many times in the past with nothing more than "it's cf's fault".  that's simply not the case, no matter how easy an excuse it is to make.  the problem, from my observation and experience, lies either in the database or in the mechanism used to transport the query results back to cf.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> And if we/they can't fix it, then clearly we're using
> the wrong platform:  I don't doubt that you and I have
> both got databases *way* bigger than this which don't
> exhibit the kind of stupid behaviour you're reporting.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

yeah, which is why i'm dumb-founded as to why the response times suck so bad.  i've worked with way bigger resultsets on way crappier databases (access) on way under-powered machines and gotten better response times.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > does anyone here realize we're *seriously* in the
> > majority with the idea that *all* articles *ever*
> > submitted and approved will *always* be available?
>
> Assuming you mean 'minority', I don't care.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

yes, i meant minority.  nice to know you don't care.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> The Majority doesn't use CMS at all.  The Majority has
> Frontpage.  The Majority includes the San Jose Mercury,
> which recently broke every single link on its site and
> got buried by a shitstorm.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

huh?  i think you missed my point.  sorry i didn't make it more clear, but i was talking about other sites that publish articles from volunteer authors.

does that change anything for you?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> The Right Thing doesn't include throwing out old stuff
> from volunteer contributors simply because we can't
> work our database.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

there are other reasons to throw out old stuff as well, like making sure the content we offer to our audience is topnotch, timely, informative, and up to date.

keeping it for historical purposes is a ridiculous idea considering the type of medium we're working in and how fast things change and become outdated.

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/