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

John Handelaar genghis at members.evolt.org
Tue Jul 23 12:27:32 CDT 2002

> -----Original Message-----
> From: theforum-admin at lists.evolt.org
> [mailto:theforum-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of .jeff
> Sent: 23 July 2002 18:07
> To: theforum at lists.evolt.org
> Subject: RE: [Theforum] [DesDev] RE: [Content] Article cleanup issue

OK, time for more contsructive behaviour from me. Hope
you'll join in :-)

> 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 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.

> 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'.

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

> 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.

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

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?

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.

> or complete lack
> of quality in some of our early content.

Covered this above.

> 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.  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.

The 'Majority' can sod off, frankly.  The question is not what
the Majority does, it's what *we* do.  And what *we* do is what
we determine is the Right Thing.

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

John Handelaar

T +44 20 8933 1494       M +44 7930 681789
F +44 870 169 7657   E john at userfrenzy.com
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release Date: 10/07/2002

More information about the theforum mailing list