It would take a concerted effort to get people to update it again, but
they're probably around. Don't know how to go about it - I could try
recruiting facebook people. I'm kind of too busy with other stuff to do
a comprehensive clean-up.
On 08/12/2016 21:50, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
It turns out I forgot all about this list. See below
of the future of cambridge.openguides.org
----- Forwarded message from Dominic Hargreaves <dom(a)earth.li> -----
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:47:02 +0000
From: Dominic Hargreaves <dom(a)earth.li>
To: OpenGuides software developers' list <openguides-dev(a)lists.openguides.org>
Subject: Re: [OGDev] A batch of abandoned Open Guides
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:41:38AM +0000, Kake wrote:
On Tue 06 Dec 2016, Dominic Hargreaves
As I'm in the process of moving the config
for the server in question,
I'm looking at whether to migrate the following sites:
These are all sites which seem to have very little genuine content,
and (where edits are enabled) are sadly swamped by spam.
Thanks for bringing this
up. I wasn't aware some of those sites even
still existed! As a local historian, I would argue that keeping some
of these online but with the spam removed, edits disabled, and a clear
banner saying that they're no longer being updated might be the best
way to deal with the issue. For example, this page:
useless, but actually I've made use of similar comments in my own
local history articles.
Conversely, the Isle of Wight guide does seem not to have any real
content, so I see no reason to keep it.
It's up to you, though, since you're the one who would have to do the
work of migration. Another option could be to clean up the spam and
then make sure everything's in the Internet Archive before deleting
the sites, though this makes it harder for a websearch to reveal the info.
there was any significant volume of content, or someone interested
in keeping it running, I can put the effort in, but otherwise, I'm not
sure I have the spare energy. (The owner of North Devon for example
emailed me privately to say it should go).
has quite a lot of spam but also a reasonable amount of
genuine content, even if not very up-to-date.
I pretty much gave up on
spamtrapping on the Cambridge guide because
it was non-trivial to update the spamcatcher module. Oxford seems to
be doing OK, though - is that all manual or is someone keeping the
spamcatcher module up to date? If the latter, could the two guides
share a spamcatcher module?
Oxford uses an Akismet plugin:
I've just set Cambridge up to use that too.