On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Michael McDaniel <couc...@autosys.us> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 09:30:58AM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote: >> >> On 23/01/2009, at 9:15 AM, Noah Slater wrote: >> >>> I think that the links and content on our website should aim to be >>> family >>> friendly and work safe, as vague as that may be. I wasn't proposing a >>> set of >>> hard and fast rules for determining what is or isn't safe by these >>> standards. As >>> a community, we would have to judge each one on a case by case basis. >>> >>> That's essentially what this thread was meant to be about. What does >>> the >>> community think? Is this link okay or not? >> >> OK, my vote is that we avoid any judgement. Each link should have a >> brief explanation both of what it is - and that's as simple as 'porn >> site' - and how it uses couch i.e. justification for it's inclusion on >> that page. >> >> I think that not only improves the utility of the page, but also means >> you won't be clicking on any link at work and be surprised to find naked >> people. Also, it would require more effort by people submitting a link - >> if the explanation of how couch is used isn't detailed enough, then the >> link isn't accepted. >> >> Furthermore, the page should have an explicit disclaimer at the top of >> the page about it NOT being an endorsement, and warning people to read >> the site description. >> >> IMO this would allow us to strictly focus on the technical criteria of >> that page, whilst still allowing people to avoid opening any link that >> is unsuitable either for them or their environment. >> >> Personally, I'd like to see some porn site links on that page. Porn >> sites have particular operation/traffic requirements, and if I saw that >> CouchDB was suitable for that, I'd be more comfortable about building a >> media server on CouchDB. >> >> Antony Blakey >> -------------------------- >> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd >> Ph: 0438 840 787 >> >> The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the >> intelligent are full of doubt. >> -- Bertrand Russell >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > I am in agreement with what Antony has written above, and I vote to > eliminate judgement as well. > > If a description does not include a suitably detailed explanation > of how CouchDB is being used, then it does not meet the required > criteria for being on the page. Also, the site description must be > descriptive and unambiguous. >
I think a link to a blog post or other document that explains how couchdb is used would be just as good (if not better) than an on-page explanation. I do think it's polite if your page could potentially be "nsfw" to put a clear description of that fact on the listing. -- Chris Anderson http://jchris.mfdz.com
