On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:29:36 -0500 Volodya
<Volodya at WhenGendarmeSleeps.org> wrote:
>On 08/05/2010 08:14 PM, leto at hush.com wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:30:04 -0500 Matthew Toseland
>> <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 03 August 2010 15:34:32 xor wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday 03 August 2010 12:54:52 pm Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday 03 August 2010 09:02:33 xor wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday 03 August 2010 09:50:05 am xor wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday 30 July 2010 01:05:30 am Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>>>>>>> Any suggestions for what we should link to? It looks
>>> like both TUFI
>>>>>>>> and the Activelink Index sites have not been updated
>>> recently?
>>>>>>>> Criteria: A site must be useful for finding stuff on
>>> Freenet. It must
>>>>>>>> be easy to use and ideally have descriptions. It must
>>> not be likely
>>>>>>>> to lead newbies to places where they don't want to go
>>> without warning
>>>>>>>> them i.e. it must must clearly label evil content.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are #2 on Sourceforge's "What's Hot" for security on
>>> Linux. And
>>>>>>>> we're consistently rising at the moment. Have I missed a
>>> significant
>>>>>>>> press article?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quoting from a Freetalk thread called:
>>>>>>> "Who do I have to kill to get on the front page?"
>>>>>>> At the moment I don't filter the links, just the
>>> ActiveLinks, so you
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> accidentally download any kiddie porn via an AL, but I can
>>> do a
>>>>>>> filtered version of the site if required, removing all the
>>> porn. I
>>>>>>> could perhaps
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The non-activelink version looks better. I will tell him via
>
>>> Freetalk
>>>>>> that he should provide a version of the non-activelink site
>>> which does
>>>>>> not provide child porn so we can add it to the default
>>> bookmarks.
>>>>>
>>>>> We cannot require the exclusion of child porn, or we will be
>>> forced to
>>>>> exclude ALL illegal content. We must only choose indexes on
>>> the basis of
>>>>> how useful they are for a new user trying to find stuff.
>That
>>> is our
>>>>> policy. However, usefulness includes accurate labelling (and
>
>>> maybe
>>>>> categorisation) and not accidentally running into something
>>> horrible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will forward that and notify you when he has replied. For
>now
>>> you might want
>>>> to add only one of his indexes, they seem good and daily
>updates
>>> are VERY
>>>> nice...
>>>>
>>> AFKindex is categorised and seems to have descriptions of
>>> everything, although some are overly concise. I do like its
>visual
>>> feel and its categories.
>>>
>>> Linkageddon has no categories, and many sites have no
>>> descriptions. It is therefore not very useful and unless you
>know
>>> the language, there is a good chance of accidentally running
>into
>>> something unpleasant.
>>>
>>> Both indexes link to at least one (simulated) child porn site,
>>> without giving it a proper description. Interestingly, AFKindex
>
>>> claims not to link to porn, but actually does link at least to
>the
>>> one site mentioned. Personally I dislike activelinks even to
>>> simulated child porn, this is one thing I have against AFKindex
>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Another issue with Linkageddon is that the activelink version
>>> would take a looooong time to load. IMHO it is best left as a
>gem
>>> that the user has to discover and take personal responsibility
>for
>>> (i.e. not blame us), ideally after figuring out what e.g. the L
>
>>> word means, at least for now.
>>>
>>> I have not added either index at present. I am leaning much
>more
>>> strongly towards AFKindex than Linkageddon but I don't believe
>it
>>> would be appropriate to link to either:
>>> - A site which activelinks "fantasy art" featuring underage
>nude
>>> children
>>> - A site which links to said page without any description
>>>
>>> And I am not sure we want to link to the activelink version of
>>> Linkageddon either. It takes ages to load and has very little
>>> useful information about each site.
>>
>> One small additional point, no where does the AFKIndex
>maintainer
>> mention he monitors for announcements of new freesites. Unless
>an
>> old site links to a new site how will they be found by their
>> spider? Another indexer only looks for new sites on FMS,
>requiring
>> the running of FMS. With Freetalk becoming part of Freenet
>> shouldn't a Frontpage indexer be required to at least monitor
>that
>> to be on the Frontpage?
>
>Not really. As long as the spider also monitors other indexes, as
>soon as one
>index site picks something up, all of them eventually will.
>
> - Volodya
>
I'll test that assumption.
