Re: Overblogging etc

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!)


> 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.


> In particular, Devrim's important info about a PostgreSQL RPM repository
> has been pushed off by 4 blogs from another community member.

The announcement was posted to -announce, that's the important one. 
Potentially, it should've been posted as news as well. Using 
planetpostgresql.org in order to get something to the frontpage of 
postgresql.org as an announcement, is using the wrong tool. And I'm 
certain Devrim did not post it there for that reason.

That said, it's an unfortunate situation with the blog posts right now. 
But that's *not* because they are from the same person. See below for 
the reason.


> 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")


> Events
> 
> ISTM that the criteria for inclusion on the Events page must be that it
> is publicly accessible and that anyone can attend, upon payment of any
> fee. I think that probably *is* the case with every event listed, but
> that should be the clear criteria: no private events and the event
> message should clearly express that.

There is a page on the wiki about the guidelines. If it's not on there 
already (no web access ATM), I certainly agree that this should be included.


> We should also have a Listings Policy that is available on the website,
> plus a link and reminder "Does this submission follow the listings
> policy?" on the event submission screens.

Yes, the plan is to move the policy from the wiki to the website once 
it's final. Actually, I think we agreed that it's final, it's just that 
nobody has moved it there yet.


> Short note to Dave: the code for displaying two company names who are
> advertising training doesn't exclude duplicates, so you get occasional
> strange looking sentences mentioning the same company twice.

Seems like a good-ole bug to be fixed :-)


> 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"?

//Magnus