Re: Overblogging etc

On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 14:24 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I think its time we put some restrictions on what gets put on the front
> > page of the web site in blogs as well as other things. Since I don't
> > have a blog currently, it makes me slightly more objective in this.
> 
> Right. So when *will* we see your blog? (Honestly, I do think you would 
> be able to be a very good contribution to planetpostgresql!)

Thanks very much. To be honest, I've been dissuaded from doing so
because the blogs don't stay there long enough to be read by anybody. Or
so it seems to me. I'll have a bash next week.

> > Blogs
> > 
> > I suggest we allow 1 blog per week per person and that the blogs must be
> > about something constructive, not just a one liner about getting out of
> > the bath or other trivial subjects. Since we have only a few blog slots
> > it's a shame when long useful blogs are replaced by trivial ones.
> 
> I strongly object to this. We should encourage *more* blogging, not less.

I agree with more blogging, but I think we must avoid clogging.

I've not seen anyone write an interesting blog that comes out almost
daily, so I don't think once per week is restrictive on the types of
content we really want to see. It can be a guideline.

> > I don't think we will be able to agree what constitutes trivial, but
> > single sentence blogs should be banned. I wouldn't have a problem with
> > the same subject expanded into a useful multi-paragraph blog, but single
> > sentences give the appearance of triviality. If we don't set a minimum
> > standard for blog content, people will stop reading them *all*.
> 
> This, I agree with. Devrim, as the ruler of planetpostgresql, do you 
> agree that this would be a good guideline?
> (Yes, I prefer calling this a guideline rather than "banning blogs")

Sure, "editorial guidelines" are reasonable in any publishing context.

> > Perhaps the web page should also continue to scroll down the page, so
> > that attempts by people to push information down aren't really feasible
> > any longer.
> 
> Do you honestly think that these are "attempts by people to push 
> information down"?

There have been vague accusations from people in the past, not by me,
that other people have tried to "stay on top" by people in the past,
looking across Events, Training, News and Blogs together. 

Once that has happened once, on any channel, it forces us to police all
of the channels fairly, irrespective of the people involved and without
needing to discuss what anybody thinks their motives were or were not.
There's no point being strict on one channel and lax on another.

So I'm not putting anybody on trial, I'm just looking for ways to avoid
the situation altogether and any further discussion on the subject.

For now, I think we should de-link some of the multiple blogs that have
been posted recently. They all link to the same page and can be read by
anybody visiting any one of the links. No problem with what anybody
writes on a blog, but that doesn't mean we should allow multiple links
to the same pages. If we *don't* do something now, we will be unable to
prevent similar occurrences in the future without appearing to be
unfair.

--  Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com