Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2869FC2EA for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 20:29:45 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28497-03 for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 20:29:32 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from smtp127.iad.emailsrvr.com (smtp127.iad.emailsrvr.com [207.97.245.127]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD7B9FC2EE for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 16:42:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [10.0.2.11] (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 relay2.r2.iad.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9C94C44C13C; Fri, 11 May 2007 15:42:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4644C736.5030505@otg-nc.com> Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 15:42:46 -0400 From: Chander Ganesan User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Page CC: PostgreSQL www Subject: Re: Event Spam..??? References: <46449018.9070202@otg-nc.com> <4644A423.6030406@postgresql.org> <4644AFDC.60803@otg-nc.com> <4644BECC.20908@postgresql.org> In-Reply-To: <4644BECC.20908@postgresql.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080207020808040308030406" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200705/57 X-Sequence-Number: 11991 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080207020808040308030406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Page wrote: > Chander Ganesan wrote: > >> 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... >> > > Limiting the number of listings is not in our interests - we want to > show how much PostgreSQL is being used. Perhaps more importantly, how > *widely*. We'd want to list courses running in every state, even if they > were all the same company. However, corporate marketing is not a quantifiable metric as to usage. I'd argue that the number of courses offered has no bearing on how widely or how much PostgreSQL is being used. > Charging would almost certainly cause us problems given our financial > status. I suspect we could 'solicit donations', but that would obviously > not have the desired effect. > Charging (or requiring a sizable donation to get "front page" status) would provide a commercial entity an incentive to offer genuine events. We already make fairly regular donations through SPI (btw, I was told there would be a donors page at some point...any ideas as to when that might appear?), and I doubt that any commercial organization that makes a profit from PG would be loathe to donate 50% of the "per-head cost" for 1 student or something along those lines for each event listed....especially when they expect that they'll run a class with a lot more than a single student. > Limiting to the states in which companies are registered is a nonsense > as well - what about a company in Japan? How do we check them? Or what > about EnterpriseDB UK Ltd for example who cover the whole EMEA region - > would they (== we in case you didn't realise I work for them) be > restricted to listing courses in England because that's where we're > registered? Yep, it's not nearly a perfect solution... > Don't misunderstand - I'm not trying to dodge the issue. I just don't > think there's a straightforward solution :-( > > >> 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". >> > > Let's remember that there are no proven 'bad citizens'. Unless that > should change, for you to 'take the same action' would mean scheduling > more legitimate courses - which I'd welcome :-) Understood. Chander Ganesan Open Technology Group, Inc. One Copley Parkway, Suite 210 Morrisville, NC 27560 Phone: 877-258-8987/919-463-0999 > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > --------------080207020808040308030406 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Page wrote: 
Chander Ganesan wrote:
  
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... 
    

Limiting the number of listings is not in our interests - we want to
show how much PostgreSQL is being used. Perhaps more importantly, how
*widely*. We'd want to list courses running in every state, even if they
were all the same company.
However, corporate marketing is not a quantifiable metric as to usage.  I'd argue that the number of courses offered has no bearing on how widely or how much PostgreSQL is being used.
Charging would almost certainly cause us problems given our financial
status. I suspect we could 'solicit donations', but that would obviously
not have the desired effect.
Charging (or requiring a sizable donation to get "front page" status) would provide a commercial entity an incentive to offer genuine events.  We already make fairly regular donations through SPI (btw, I was told there would be a donors page at some point...any ideas as to when that might appear?), and I doubt that any commercial organization that makes a profit from PG would be loathe to donate 50% of the "per-head cost" for 1 student or something along those lines for each event listed....especially when they expect that they'll run a class with a lot more than a single student. 
Limiting to the states in which companies are registered is a nonsense
as well - what about a company in Japan? How do we check them? Or what
about EnterpriseDB UK Ltd for example who cover the whole EMEA region -
would they (== we in case you didn't realise I work for them) be
restricted to listing courses in England because that's where we're
registered?
Yep, it's not nearly a perfect solution...
Don't misunderstand - I'm not trying to dodge the issue. I just don't
think there's a straightforward solution :-(

  
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".
    

Let's remember that there are no proven 'bad citizens'. Unless that
should change, for you to 'take the same action' would mean scheduling
more legitimate courses - which I'd welcome :-)
Understood.  
Chander Ganesan
Open Technology Group, Inc.
One Copley Parkway, Suite 210
Morrisville, NC  27560
Phone: 877-258-8987/919-463-0999

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--------------080207020808040308030406--