On Wednesday 19 March 2008 21:03, Ian Clarke wrote: > I think our policy on which sites we link to should be to judge them > solely on the basis of their utility to the end user. Any other > metric implies that we are exercising some kind of editorial > judgement, and that is a slippery slope. > > So if this is useful, and well designed, we should link to it.
The only problem with that policy is that at least some versions of the index in question not only link to such content, but *include the activelinks of such sites*. This is not the same as just linking to it: the 108x36 thumbnail is pulled from the site itself and thus propagates it into your datastore, so that it will load faster. Whether or not the site is clean now, this is likely to happen again if it's not well maintained, and since his goal is 100% automation, and since on his flog he's not sure he wants to maintain it properly, this is a problem. Is the presence of activelinks relevant to our selection policy? Another Index links to child porn (sometimes without descriptions, and in the wrong category!), and is automated, but it doesn't activelink them. Of course, the site might be discontinued; according to the flog this is likely, but that might be out of date. > > Ian. > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Robert Hailey > <robert at freenetproject.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > Should we include the AFKIndex? It is a good thing to have as many > > > indexes as > > > possible, and our policy is and has always been to link to indexes > > > purely > > > according to their value for finding content. > > > > > > However, the AFK index is an auto-generated index *with > > > activelinks*. Sites > > > are apparently automatically added to the uncategorised section. The > > > site > > > owner claims he will remove child porn sites, however near the top > > > of the > > > uncategorised section, we have what appears to be a child porn > > > site ... with > > > an activelink (!!). All our other indexes except Another Index > > > manually add > > > sites and don't link to CP at all. > > > > > > Advice? > > > > > > USK at 2L-k2U32b3yIl2~YjBU7-- > > > QJPTtixSwHZxYOuGjS3A0 > > > ,QJBd6zpJgEsijJGQNNcwUhsrW5vJ8VtlmNX5ka2~dlU,AQACAAE/AFKindex/4/ > > > > > > Ascetically, it's a *very* nice interface. Gives more useful > > information than the activelink index & anotherindex, too. > > > > Seeing that there is reason to believe that this particular entry has > > not been patrolled yet, I see little cause for it being cause for > > rejection. In fact, given the nature of freenet, there is no guarantee > > that child porn may not later appear in *any* of the indexes presently > > included in the defaults. The best we could expect is for it to be > > rejected later if found to be undesirable. > > > > For an index the downside I see is how many are uncatagorized, but > > making it a default bookmark may encourage the author to categorize > > and maintain it more effectively. > > > > Perhaps we could suggest to the author that unpatrolled entries not > > have activelinks? > > > > -- > > Robert Hailey > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Devl mailing list > > Devl at freenetproject.org > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > > > > > > > > -- > Email: ian at uprizer.com > Cell: +1 512 422 3588 > Skype: sanity > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080320/711d01c2/attachment.pgp>
