Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C99C9FB794 for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 15:02:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71115-03 for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 15:02:44 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from smtp167.iad.emailsrvr.com (smtp167.iad.emailsrvr.com [207.97.245.167]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736509FB8EF for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 15:02:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: from CKG-001.local (adsl-074-239-169-041.sip.rmo.bellsouth.net [74.239.169.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chander@otg-nc.com) by relay6.relay.iad.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id CF943684488; Fri, 11 May 2007 14:02:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4644AFDC.60803@otg-nc.com> Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 14:03:08 -0400 From: Chander Ganesan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Macintosh/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Page CC: PostgreSQL www Subject: Re: Event Spam..??? References: <46449018.9070202@otg-nc.com> <4644A423.6030406@postgresql.org> In-Reply-To: <4644A423.6030406@postgresql.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090604060705000607050503" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200705/51 X-Sequence-Number: 11985 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090604060705000607050503 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Page wrote: > Chander Ganesan wrote: > >> Also, I notice a lot of events in the training database that seem to be >> dedicated more to "lead generation" than a reasonable effort to run a >> training course. For example, 'Certfirst' lists PostgreSQL courses >> throughout the US in a wide range of different cities. It is my belief >> that these courses listings are designed not to actually offer a wide >> range of courses, but to maintain a "main page" list of courses to >> generate leads. Is this an acceptable practice? I'd hate to see a >> bunch of vendors adopting this practice to be competitive.... >> >> It seems to me that such a practice would not be to the benefit of the >> community - since it wouldn't help community members find events that >> were actually running - rather it would put them in touch with companies >> that could add them to their marketing databases (or they'd get taken >> with a "bait and switch" - where they sign up for a class in the >> Bahamas, but end up being redirected to a course in Chicago). >> > > I agree it's not good if that is what they are doing, but do you have > any proof? How would we distinguish between that, and say a dozen > courses put on by EnterpriseDB, Command Prompt or OTG? > I see your point. However, perhaps there is some other mechanism or restriction that can be put in place to limit the likelihood of this (one course of one type per month, a limitation on annual courses listed, or a "per listing" fee charged to not-for-free companies)? Such restrictions would at least limit abuse to some extent.. Or perhaps limiting listed courses to states where companies are registered as corporations... Such information is freely available, and it could be required that companies provide a link to their articles of incorporation in the states where they provide training - easy to check without undue work on those that filter events... If others (ourselves included) are forced to take the same action to be competitive then it results in a reduction in the usefulness of the tool. One could argue that removing it entirely to prevent abuse would be less disruptive than having PG related companies flounder due to the actions of a few "bad citizens". >> Also, how about putting a disclaimer on the training pages indicating >> that the listing of training courses doesn't constitute the endorsement >> of a company by the PG community - and that customers should do their >> own due diligence to ensure they get what they pay for. I think many >> customers look at a listing of training and consider it to be an >> endorsement by the community.. >> > > I haven't gone quite that far, but following a discussion with Magnus I > have added a line saying that PGDG doesn't endorse any third part events. > > Thanks, Dave. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- Chander Ganesan The Open Technology Group One Copley Parkway, Suite 210 Morrisville, NC 27560 Phone: 877-258-8987/919-463-0999 http://www.otg-nc.com --------------090604060705000607050503 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Page wrote: 
Chander Ganesan wrote:
  
Also, I notice a lot of events in the training database that seem to be
dedicated more to "lead generation" than a reasonable effort to run a
training course.  For example, 'Certfirst' lists PostgreSQL courses
throughout the US in a wide range of different cities.  It is my belief
that these courses listings are designed not to actually offer a wide
range of courses, but to maintain a "main page" list of courses to
generate leads.  Is this an acceptable practice?  I'd hate to see a
bunch of vendors adopting this practice to be competitive....

It seems to me that such a practice would not be to the benefit of the
community - since it wouldn't help community members find events that
were actually running - rather it would put them in touch with companies
that could add them to their marketing databases (or they'd get taken
with a "bait and switch" - where they sign up for a class in the
Bahamas, but end up being redirected to a course in Chicago).
    

I agree it's not good if that is what they are doing, but do you have
any proof? How would we distinguish between that, and say a dozen
courses put on by EnterpriseDB, Command Prompt or OTG?
I see your point.  However, perhaps there is some other mechanism or restriction that can be put in place to limit the likelihood of this (one course of one type per month, a limitation on annual courses listed, or a "per listing" fee charged to not-for-free companies)?  Such restrictions would at least limit abuse to some extent..  Or perhaps limiting listed courses to states where companies are registered as corporations...   Such information is freely available, and it could be required that companies provide a link to their articles of incorporation in the states where they provide training - easy to check without undue work on those that filter events... 

If others (ourselves included) are forced to take the same action to be competitive then it results in a reduction in the usefulness of the tool.  One could argue that removing it entirely to prevent abuse would be less disruptive than having PG related companies flounder due to the actions of a few "bad citizens".
Also, how about putting a disclaimer on the training pages indicating
that the listing of training courses doesn't constitute the endorsement
of a company by the PG community - and that customers should do their
own due diligence to ensure they get what they pay for.  I think many
customers look at a listing of training and consider it to be an
endorsement by the community..
    

I haven't gone quite that far, but following a discussion with Magnus I
have added a line saying that PGDG doesn't endorse any third part events.

Thanks, Dave.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
  


-- 
Chander Ganesan
The Open Technology Group
One Copley Parkway, Suite 210
Morrisville, NC  27560
Phone: 877-258-8987/919-463-0999
http://www.otg-nc.com
--------------090604060705000607050503--