Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A394C9FB3A1; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 17:30:51 -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 52125-06; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 17:30:43 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from svr2.hagander.net (svr2.hagander.net [88.198.128.226]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C40ED9FA4B2; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 17:30:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from dynamic.hagander.net ([127.0.0.1]) (encrypted and authenticated) by svr2.hagander.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF65EDCC408; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 22:30:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46B4E20F.2030303@hagander.net> Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:31:11 +0200 From: Magnus Hagander User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Treat CC: Dave Page , pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org, Greg Sabino Mullane , pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki References: <200708041855590000@286140975> <200708041619.54836.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <200708041619.54836.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200708/62 X-Sequence-Number: 12303 Robert Treat wrote: >>>> I imagine he's referring to the mountain of garbage that used to build >>>> up until Magnus and I had a monster session moderating a few thousand >>>> comments to get them back under control. >>> *sigh* >>> >>> Doesn't this suggest we do have mass to prevent vandalism/mischief ? >> It means we knuckled down and cleaned up a mess that other volunteers left >> behind, not that we want more to look after. >> > > Geez Dave, you seem awefully bitter about this (And given I've cleaned up > plenty of spam/junk in our website, sometimes 100+ at a time, and it > generally involves nothing more than a few sql commands, I'm not sure why) > > But in any case, none of that stuff propogated out to the main website, which > was the whole point of this; keeping vandalism/mischief out of public view. I > think were capable of accomplishing that (though I guess you think it we're > much closer to the edge...) Actually, it did propagate out to the main website, because this was back when the comment moderation was done after it was already published. (or rather - the comments were added at that time, but the cleanup was done after it was changed). The change to pre-moderation made a lot of difference, and without it the cleanup wouldn't really have been worthwhile. //Magnus