Re: Event Spam..???
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Event Spam..??? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4644BECC.20908@postgresql.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Event Spam..??? (Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Event Spam..???
Re: Event Spam..??? |
Список | pgsql-www |
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. 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. 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? 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 :-) Regards, Dave.
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: