Grex Coop10 Conference

Item 28: A one-person-one-listing web page policy

Entered by valerie on Mon Aug 11 13:48:51 1997:

valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Valerie Mates valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Val
valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Valerie Mates valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Val
valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Valerie Mates valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Val
valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Valerie Mates valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Val
valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Valerie Mates valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Val
valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Valerie Mates valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Val
valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Valerie Mates valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Val
valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Valerie Mates valerie Jan  8 04:49:30 2004 Val
val
41 responses total.

#1 of 41 by remmers on Mon Aug 11 14:16:32 1997:

One-entry-one-account seems reasonable. Making exceptions in the
case of a person who has changed login id's seems reasonable
too, by the same logic that we justify setting up a mail alias
so that mail to the old address will still reach the person.


#2 of 41 by richard on Mon Aug 11 14:39:51 1997:

I don't agree with this, as should be obvious because I have two
homepages.  The one I have for personal use is the "Richard" one, but I
also still have one under "Kerouac", which is my Jack Kerouac links page
(maintained out of personal interest)


Actually I think only the Kerouac one is listed when really the Richard
one should be the one on the list, since  I primarily publicize the other
one in other places.  But I know there are some people with more than one
page listed, such as Jenna, who has both "Shade" and "Kitten" pages listed

My two pages here are for different purposes and different topics...I dont
see why theycouldnt both be listed , or shouldnt be, justbecause they are
both under mynbame.    Especially, sinceI could easily change the name on
one of the logins so it *looks8 like they7 have different owners and get
both listed.

The whole policy is silly.    Why can't if someone clicks "Richard", they
get "richard Wallner has two homepages., choose one"?  or something.  Or
if I click Valerie Mates, why cant I get prompted to choose whether I want
the Valerie homepage or the Popcorn page?



#3 of 41 by aruba on Mon Aug 11 15:33:03 1997:

Well, I think the answer to those "why" questions is that it would be a lot
of work for the Webmasters to keep it straight which pages belonged to which
humans.  But then again, sounds like they're already do ing that.

I don't know.  The list of homepages is undoubtedly hit very frequently,
right?  And the bigger it gets, the more drain it is.  But maybe that's a
"drop-in-the-ocean".  On the other hand should people with 12 accounts get
listed 12 times if they want to?


#4 of 41 by dpc on Mon Aug 11 15:48:47 1997:

I don't like to see a policy that says "one page for one human."
"One page for one account" seems the better way to go.


#5 of 41 by janc on Mon Aug 11 16:20:39 1997:

I think you can do the "Richard Wallner has two pages...choose one" thing
right now under the current policy.  Just make that page yourself and have
that be the page that the list points to.

I don't see the problem with allowing multiple listings.  Yes, the list gets
longer, but it is probably already hopelessly huge.  If size is the problem,
there are better ways to deal with it (separate lists for different letters
of the alphabet, or a searchable index, etc).


#6 of 41 by robh on Mon Aug 11 21:44:21 1997:

Ah, I had misunderstood the e-mail that I got on this.  I had
always done it as one page per *account*, not per person.
I've knowingly done multiple listings for one person with different
accounts.  Sounds like I was violating existing policy the whole
time I was Webmaster.  >8)

The current users' listing is 22kb in size, and it got 276 hits
last week.  Insignificant compared to mail, of course, but I'd
hate to see the file get huge.


#7 of 41 by steve on Mon Aug 11 22:52:46 1997:

   One of the things we might want to do is put that page on
some other sytem, where it won't matter how often its gotten
hit.  Once the ISDN link is in place it might not matter, once
again.

   I think people should be able to have more than one entry,
given that different accounts might be for different projects
or stuff.

   Lastly, given t hat we don't authenticate, I think we're likely
already permitting this.  We all know  that 'valerie' and 'popcorn'
are the same person.  but do we know that 'axy' and 'rty' aren't
the same person, having two listings?  We don't.

   Its like psuedos--most people don't have the energy to make
5 alternate identities here.  A few might, but that isn't the
majority.


#8 of 41 by rcurl on Tue Aug 12 01:41:48 1997:

I manage five accounts here - four are for non-profit organizations
and have homepages, and one is my personal account (with no homepage).
This is what STeve is talking about in regard to "different projects and
stuff". (I *hope* to get some of those non-profits to join....but I'd
still be involved in the management of the accounts.)


#9 of 41 by scg on Tue Aug 12 04:58:34 1997:

We still have a human updating the page by hand, right?  Such a policy may
be useful to save on workload.


#10 of 41 by rcurl on Tue Aug 12 05:43:18 1997:

I think I missed a point here. I thought *all* accounts with a web page were
listed. If they are publically accessible, wouldn't it be reasonable to
expect this? I mean, if they are named index.html. Users could have 'secret'
pages with other names. 


#11 of 41 by scg on Tue Aug 12 05:49:08 1997:

To list all accounts with a web page, you would have to have a process that
woudl look through 15,000 home directories for files called index.html, and
then compile the list, doing whatever else it has to do to find whatever other
information it uses, at some regular interval.  It would be a resource hog,
and there may be some people who don't want their pages listed.


#12 of 41 by srw on Tue Aug 12 06:06:20 1997:

The index of Grex Users' home pages is located at 
http://www.cyberspace.org/users.html

It is maintained by hand. Rob Henderson first applied this rule when he 
maintained it. I continued it now that I do.. 

I agreed with Rob Henderson and supported this policy from the 
beginning. We encouraged anyone who was affected by this policy to raise 
the issue in co-op. No one did (until now). It was instituted to make 
caring for the web pages more manageable. It has been in effect for at 
least two years. We do not scan the list to eliminate duplicates or 
otherwise enforce it. I don't know how you can. We merely inform users 
with more than one account that they must choose which account to have 
listed in the index.

It seems like a reasonable restriction to me, but  I don't feel very 
strongly about it. It was not instituted to save bandwidth, by the way. 
That was never the issue at all.


#13 of 41 by robh on Tue Aug 12 11:24:31 1997:

And for those who think the file is small enough that adding a few
lines won't matter, the last time I checked the error log,
users.html was one of the most commonly *aborted* files on our
server.  (I.e. people start downloading it and then stop because
it's taking to bloody long to get through our Net connection.)


#14 of 41 by mdw on Tue Aug 12 16:11:45 1997:

It sounds to me like turning it into an alphabetical index would be
worth it.  Automating it might be worth it too (perhaps by having
"mkhomepage" add it...)


#15 of 41 by robh on Tue Aug 12 21:33:49 1997:

Ooh ick.  Do you have any idea how many people run mkhomepage
once and never edit their page?  How many prototype pages do
you want listed?  Frankly, I was embarassed by the number of
people who wanted their prototypes listed on the page, never mind
the ones who didn't...


#16 of 41 by valerie on Tue Aug 12 22:55:37 1997:

This response has been erased.



#17 of 41 by rcurl on Wed Aug 13 00:14:32 1997:

...and some persons are organizations...


#18 of 41 by orinoco on Wed Aug 13 02:52:58 1997:

Re#16: And how does she (do they) manage that?


#19 of 41 by robh on Wed Aug 13 03:46:36 1997:

<robh notes that he is NOT a webmaster any more, no matter what valerie
or popcorn think, so his opinion means approximately diddly over squat>


#20 of 41 by janc on Wed Aug 13 13:12:17 1997:

You opinion means as much as anyone's.


#21 of 41 by steve on Wed Aug 13 15:21:02 1997:

   I think that if people ask, we should list several pages if they
want.


#22 of 41 by krj on Wed Aug 13 21:30:18 1997:

Sure, as long as it's a small finite integer.


#23 of 41 by robh on Wed Aug 13 22:22:30 1997:

(As opposed to a small infinite integer?  >8)


#24 of 41 by remmers on Thu Aug 14 12:28:38 1997:

A question for the folks who have done webmaster work: Why do
people want multiple listings? When they ask for multiple
listings, what kinds of things do they ask for?


#25 of 41 by senna on Thu Aug 14 17:03:46 1997:

It's always possible to manage many accounts.  The only evidence you have
that, say, chimaera is one of my accounts is my word, the Login 15 under the
name (I number all my logins) and the fact that its listed as one of my logins
in sarthe's plan (sarthe is also my login).  I manage multiple logins fairly
effectively and nobody's requiring me to verify that I'm different people.
Certain people might have the motivation to tak advantage of this.


#26 of 41 by robh on Thu Aug 14 21:57:25 1997:

The impression I got from folks who wanted multiple listings was:

(a)  They liked seeing their names on someone else's page, and
     liked seeing several of their "names" even more
     (pathetic, but true)
(b)  They think that Grex is a huge system with millions of hits,
     so being listed here guarantees that thousands of people will
     see their pages (so far from true that it's pathetic)
(c)  One listing was personal, others were for organizational accounts
     (like rcurl)



#27 of 41 by orinoco on Fri Aug 15 01:32:35 1997:

As for A and B, I would hope that a little explaining will help these people
understand the error of their ways.  I don't see any problem with C.


#28 of 41 by robh on Fri Aug 15 03:09:16 1997:

Explaining the realities of Grex's popularity put off a few of
the requests, but a fair number took the "it's free, so why not?"
approach.  Explaining that providing Web service isn't free for *us*
didn't seem to work, either.  (These are the same folks who thought
that Grex could afford to provide 1-800 service because it's free.  >8)


#29 of 41 by orinoco on Fri Aug 15 15:29:39 1997:

Hmmm...I've never actually responded to one of those 'get yourself a free
homepage' ads...but perhaps a pointer in that direction?


#30 of 41 by mdw on Fri Aug 15 16:19:23 1997:

If you can collect "free home page" URL's for us, that would be very
handy.  "Free e-mail" URL's would be convenient too.


#31 of 41 by orinoco on Sun Aug 17 02:06:27 1997:

Well, next time I run across one of them damn ads I'll send it your way


#32 of 41 by valerie on Wed Aug 20 03:39:56 1997:

This response has been erased.



#33 of 41 by dang on Thu Aug 21 20:05:19 1997:

A very common reason people want multiple listings is for offsite homepages.
They want one for here, and one for hotmail, and one for AOL, and one for
school, and... I'm against that.  I have no problem listing an offsite page,
but only if that's the only page for that login.  (person, whatever)  That
said, while I am a webmaster, I've never added people to the users.html file.
I've never gotten around to it.


#34 of 41 by srw on Tue Aug 26 05:42:00 1997:

Actually, while I was gone for a few days, I think Dan finally did add a
few people to the list (subsequent to his disclaimer in resp:33.

(Thanks, Dan)

The users.html file got 300 hits in the last week. That's 43 hits per day.
Not a lot. But it is big, though. Each hit results in 22.6Kb sent over the 
link.  It may be time to break it up, as Marcus suggests.


#35 of 41 by dang on Tue Aug 26 12:40:56 1997:

Yep, I did finally get around to finding the users.html file and adding people
to it.


#36 of 41 by tsty on Wed Oct 22 18:23:03 1997:

policing farther than 'one login, one page' is not the sort of
ransacking grex needs to further itself, imnsho.


#37 of 41 by valerie on Sat Oct 25 20:32:03 1997:

This response has been erased.



#38 of 41 by steve on Sun Oct 26 00:09:57 1997:

   I think that makes perfect sense.  The vast majority by far won't
want that, but a few will.  If someone askes for 147 pages, we can
deal with that when the time comes.


#39 of 41 by remmers on Mon Oct 27 11:28:31 1997:

Re #37: Define "oodles".


#40 of 41 by steve on Mon Oct 27 15:59:44 1997:

   More than say, 5?


#41 of 41 by tsty on Tue Nov 11 03:09:58 1997:

good number, 5, i support it.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: